1966-02-14

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
QUEEN'S PRINTER AND CONTROLLER OF stationery OTTAWA, 1966
23033-72£
[Stage Direction]

Monday, February 14, 1966


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the house that an objection signed by the hon. members for Compton-Frontenac, Portneuf, Lapointe, Roberval, Kamouraska, Chapleau, Cariboo, Okanagan-Revelstoke, Nicolet-Yamaska, Lac-Saint-Jean (Messrs. Latulippe, Godin, Gregoire, Gauthier, Dionne, Laprise, Leboe, Johnston, Vincent and Simard) has been filed with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter 31, statutes of Canada, 1964-65, with regard to the report of the electoral boundaries commission for the province of Quebec relating to the proposed electoral district of Stanstead.
If the house will agree, I suggest that we follow the procedure used on former occasions in this session so that the text of the objection will be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MAIN ESTIMATES. 1966-67 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1967, was presented by Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the house I should like to make a short statement on these estimates to be followed by the usual motion for referral of them to the Committee of Supply.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister have leave of the house to make the said statement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edgar John Benson: Budgetary expenditures provided for in the estimates for the new fiscal year commencing April 1, 1966, including amounts already authorized by continuing statutes as well as moneys parliament is being requested to appropriate, amount to $7,950,459,478.
Parliament is also being asked to authorize the disbursement of moneys for loans, investments and advances which add to the government's active assets in the total amount of $332,765,400. Not included in these totals but set out in the estimates for information is the forecast amount for old age security pension payments amounting to $1,035 million. These pension payments are separated from the budget figures and are payable out of the old age security fund, to which are credited the taxes levied for this particular purpose. Not shown in the blue book are the anticipated payments during the last three months of 1966-67 from the Canada Pension Plan fund.
To compare the main estimates for 1966-67 with the total expenditures authorized by parliament to date for the current fiscal year would, of course, not be a true comparison. The new year's estimates do not take into account additional requirements which parliament will be asked to approve in the course of the next year by way of supplementary estimates or as a consequence of legislation to be presented to parliament, as set out in the Speech from the Throne, such as the Canada assistance plan and the health resources fund. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, a more precise comparison of total expenditures for the year commencing April 1, 1966 with those for the current and previous fiscal years must await the budget presentation.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
It is also misleading to compare the main estimates for the coming fiscal year with the main estimates for the current year without taking into account several differences in coverage. For example, the main estimates for 1966-67 reflect the assumption by Quebec of fuller financial and administrative responsibility for certain shared cost programs. The main estimates for 1965-66 did not. Therefore any year to year comparison of the main estimates would be misleading to the extent that payments to Quebec formerly
February 14, 1966

Statement on Main Estimates made from estimates items are now replaced by abatement in tax collection by the federal government.
On the other hand, the new year estimates under the heading of payments to the provinces for old age assistance register a decrease of $25 million from 1965-66. That amount will be paid from the old age security fund in accordance with the plan to lower progressively the eligible age for old age pensions.
Increases in statutory expenditures between years, at $119 million, are smaller than is usual. The principal increases are $127 million in payments to provinces under the British North America Act, the Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act; $84 million in interest and other charges related to the public debt; $25 million in credits to the superannuation accounts for civil servants and the armed forces. These increases, which are statutory and do not require to be voted, are offset principally by the reductions, totalling $143 million, in the programs covered by the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act.
I	would like to draw the attention of the house to a number of changes in the organization of the estimates for 1966-67. In general these changes reflect the transfers of functions under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act announced by the Prime Minister on December 17 and effective on January 1, 1966.
With the permission of the house, Mr. Speaker, I now propose to table for inclusion in Hansard three tables relating to the 196667 estimates. The first table compares the 1966-67 estimates with the total budgetary estimates for several preceding years. The second table compares the estimates of statutory expenditures for 1966-67 with those for 1965-66. The third table indicates the changes in the main estimates between 1966-67 and 1965-66 under the headings of operating, capital and other costs.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that these tables be included in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The tables referred to above are as follows:]
table I
TOTAL BUDGETARY ESTIMATES (in millions of dollars)
Final
Main	Supplementary Supplementary
Estimates Estimates Estimates	Total
1966-67	 7,950.5
1965-66	
7,399.7	426.2	7,825.91964-65	
6,702.9	221.8	245.6	7,170.31963-64	
6,307.2	311.9	240.9	6,860.01962-63	
6,048.21	181.0	281.9* *	6,466.0*1961-62	
6,123.8	355.9	122.8	6,602.51960-61	
5,732.2	169.9	178.2	6,080.31959-60	
5,595.9	86.1	116.8	5,798.81968-59	
5,178.8	144.8	282.8	5,606.41957-58	
4,827.6	145.3	187.6	5,088.8<
Revised estimates; original main estimates were greater by $228.0 million.
*This is the amount appropriated by governor general's warrants and included in the report on supply for 1962-63 which would have been tabled as final supplementary estimates for 1962-63 had parliament been sitting.
This total is the amount appropriated for 1962-63 and is $45.0 million less than the sum of the tabled estimates and the final supplementary estimates for 1962-63.
This total is the amount appropriated for 1957-58. It is $71.7 million less than the amount of the tabled estimates due to'year-end financing by governor general's warrants.

February 14. 1966

Main Estimates Tabled
table II



BUDGETARY ESTIMATES OF STATUTORY EXPENDITURES FOR 1966-87 AS COMPARED WITH THOSE FOR 1965-66

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Civil Departments-
Public Debt Charges	
Subsidies and Special Compensation to Provinces	
Family Allowances Payments	
Youth Allowances Payments	
Payments to Provinces under Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act..
Old Age Assistance	
Allowances for the Blind and Disabled	
Major Pensions, Superannuation and Other Benefits	
Contribution to Unemployment Insurance Fund	
Unemployment Assistance	
Trans-Canada Highway Contributions	
Subsidy to C.N.R. for railway to Great Slave Lake	
Forgiveness of indebtedness-Municipal Development and Loan Board	
Payment of (1) carrying costs of storing Temporary Wheat Reserves (2) administering
the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Program	
University Grants	
Atlantic Development Fund	
Maritime Trunk Highway Program	
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance	
Subventions on Movements of Coal	
East West Railway Bridge Subsidy	
Railway Grade Crossing Fund (statutory portion only)	
Judges' Salaries	
Parliamentary Indemnities	
Yukon and Northwest Territories-tax rental payments	
Employment Incentives	
Payments under Fitness and Amateur Sport Act	
Sundry Items	
Defence Departments-
Major Pensions, Superannuation and Other Benefits	
Submitted	Approved	
1966-67	1965-66	Change1,185.5	1,101.1	84.4495.0	358.2	136.8559.5	553.0	6.549.0	46.5	2.5382.7	484.0	-101.320.7	45.7	-25.018.2	29.3	-11.197.4	83.8	13.666.7	62.5	4.2109.0	115.0	-6.052.6	50.0	2.63.0	16.0	-13.050.0	70.0	-20.040.4	31.8	8.628.2	27.7	0.532.0	25.0	7.010.0	10.0	13.8	14.3	-0.522.5	22.5	-7.0	7.0	-5.0	5.0	-7.6	7.4	0.26.9	6.8	0.16.1	5.5	0.610.0	-	10.05.0	5.0	-11.8	6.2	5.679.5	67.*	12.23,375.1	3,256.6	118.5

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)

[Stage Direction]
Administration	Buildings,	Grants,and	Works and	Subsidies and	TotalOperation	Equipment	Other Items	Estimates1967-67	1965-66*	1966-67	1965-66*	1966-67	1965-68*	1966-67	1965-66*Agriculture	
79.6Atomic Energy	
46.9Auditor General's Office	
1.8Board of Broadcast Governors	
0.5Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	
2.8Chief Electoral Officer	
0.2Citizenship and Immigration	
53.9Civil Service Commission	
8.1Dominion Bureau of Statistics	
26.1
External Affairs-
Department	 36.2
International Joint Commission	 0.4
Finance	 196.3
Fisheries	 28.4
Forestry	 15.1
Governor General	 0.8
Industry	 50.6
Insurance	 1.0
Justioe	 12.7
Labour	 9.0
Legislation	 15.0
Mines and Technical Surveys-
Department	 44.0
Dominion Coal Board	 0.2
National Energy Board	 1.1
National Film Board	 6.8
National Gallery of Canada	 1.9
National Health and Welfare	 56.0
National Research Council, including the Medical Research Council	 33.5
National Revenue	 94.6
Northern Affairs and National Resources	 119.8
Post Office	 252.8
Privy Council-
Privy Council Office	 4.4
Economic Council of Canada	 1.2
Public Archives and National Library-
Public Archives	 1.3
National Library	 0.9
Public Printing and Stationery	 4.7
Public Works-
Department	 99.8
National Capital Commission	 7.3
Secretary of State-
Department	 10.0
Centennial Commission	 12.8
Office of the Representation Commissioner	 0.2
73.0	25.1	33.4	22.3	15.4	127.1	121.840.7	10.3	13.0	2.0	1.6	59.2	55.31.8	-	-	-	-	1.8	1.80.4	-	-	-	-	0.5	0.42.4	-	-	110.6	97.0	113.5	99.40.2	-	-	-	0.2	0.240.9	-	0.4	191.7	118.3	245.7	159.57.1	-	-	-	-	8.1	7.115.7	-	-	-	26.1	15.730.9	3.1	2.3	111.3	100.0	150.6	133.20.2	-	-	-	-	0.4	0.2154.5	0.2	0.5	1,783.0	1,561.4	1,979.5	1,716.422.8	7.8	4.9	3.2	1.9	39.5	29.610.7	4.7	4.3	49.9	44.3	69.6	59.30.7	-	-	-	-	0.8	0.731.0	-	-	-	-	50.6	31.01.0	-	-	-	-	1.0	1.011.9	-	-	-	-	12.7	11.98.2	-	-	1.5	-	10.5	8.214.0	-	-	-	-	15.0	14.038.9	14.0	8.2	31.5	31.1	89.5	78.20.2	-	-	22.5	15.5	22.7	15.71.0	-	-	-	-	1.1	1.06.3	0.5	0.4	-	-	7.3	6.71.5	-	-	-	-	1.9	1.550.8	3.8	5.3	1,202.9	1,334.7	1,262.7	1,390.828.0	7.1	6.7	45.5	34.2	86.1	68.992.0	-	-	-	-	94.6	92.0103.0	58.6	43.5	6.3	5.7	184.6	152.2221.3	-	-	-	-	252.8	221.34.3	4.4	4.31.0	-	-	-	-	1.2	1.01.1	1.3	1.10.7	-	-	-	-	0.9	0.73.4	-	-	-	-	4.7	3.490.5	81.9	76.0	52.8	50.2	234.5	216.76.8	18.4	12.1	-	-	25.7	18.98.0	7.5	28.2	27.2	45.8	35.28.2	-	-	13.0	9.0	25.8	17.20.6	-	-	-	-	0.2	0.6
o
o
s
s
o
co
0 M U >
H W
o
er
[Stage Direction]
e
to
ay
ay
Main Estimates Tabled
Solicitor General-
Office of the Solicitor General	
Correctional Services	
Royal Canadian Mounted Police	
Trade and Commerce-
Department	
Transport-
Department	
Air Transport Board	
Board of Transport Commissioners	
Canadian Maritime Commission	
National Harbours Board	
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority	
Atlantic Development Board	
Unemployment Insurance Commission	
Veterans Affairs	
TOTAL-CIVIL DEPARTMENTS	
Defence Production-
Department	
Emergency Measures Organization	
Crown Companies	
National Defence

[Stage Direction]
0.6	0.1	-	-	0.6	0.134.8	28.2	29.0	25.6	-	-	63.7	53.881.1	72.0	5.6	3.9	-	-	86.6	75.940.9	34.7	0.3	0.1	-	-	41.2	34.8153.5	144.4	117.0	104.0	38.4	47.8	308.9	296.20.8	0.8	-	-	-	-	0.8	0.81.6	1.6	-	-	22.0	21.0	23.6	22.60.5	0.4	-	-	30.7	33.5	31.2	33.9-	-	5.7	5.3	0.3	-	6.0	5.32.5	2.7	-	-	-	-	2.5	2.71.4	0.9	-	-	42.0	35.0	43.4	35.935.4	32,7	-	-	66.7	62.5	102.1	95.268.8	67.1	5.1	3.0	295.6	294.7	369.5	364.81,760.6	1,521.3	405.7	352.9	4,173.9	3,942.0	6,340.2	5,816.121.3	17.4	4.8	2.2	26.1	19.63.0	2.7	2.2	1.8	5.4	5.2	10.6	9.70.4	4.1	0.4	0.2	-	-	0.8	4.3. 1,224.0	1,235.0	327.5	290.1	21.2	24.9	1,572.7	1,550.0. 1,248.7	1,259.2	334.9	294.3	26.6	30.1	1,610.2	1,583.6. 3,009.3	2,780.5	740.6	647.2	4,200.5	3,972.1	7,950.4	7,399.7
(Details do not necessarily add to totals, due to rounding).
*These figures differ from those shown in the 1965-66 column of the 1966-67 Blue Book in that the amounts of the Supplementary Estimates, 1965-66 are not included.
co
o>
Main Estimates Tabled
[Stage Direction]
February 14, 1966
Tabling of Reports
Edgar John Benson: I move that the message of His Excellency, together with the estimates presented this day, be referred to the committee of supply.


Hon. J. W. Monleiih (Perth):: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to comment on these estimates at any great length today, they just having been tabled. I should like to mention that they seem to be going up, up and up all the time.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Just like the cost of living.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The minister said how these expenditures will have to be paid for will be learned when the budget comes down. We will be interested to know how the people of Canada are going to be asked to pay for this $7,950 million plus the $332 million odd for various loans and allowances. The minister failed to mention the amount estimated for the Canada assistance plan. He indicated that important items are to follow, and that there are changes in the form of the estimates which will make it very difficult at this moment to compare them with others.
We shall be interested when the Minister of Finance brings down the budget to learn how we are going to meet these huge expenditures.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: I wish to table two copies in English and two copies in French of the annual report of the board of trustees for the maritime transportation unions for the period January 1, 1965 to December 31, 1965.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Labour arising out of his tabling earlier today of the annual report of the maritime trustees. Has the minister copies of the report available in sufficient quantity for distribution to members of the house?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I understand additional copies are being run off today and I hope they will be available within a day or two.



BRIDGES


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I ask permission of the house to table a joint federal-provincial press release on the subject of the Saint John harbour bridge throughway complex. This release was given to the press in Fredericton on Friday, February 11, 1966.
It will be recalled that the Prime Minister, in a press release of February 10, 1965, announced the government's intention to seek parliamentary approval for the provision of special assistance to the bridge portion of this project. The bridge has long been considered an essential link in a trunk highway system, particularly as a connection between the Atlantic region and New England. This assistance was to involve an agreement between the federal government and the other parties involved whereby funds would be advanced annually by the federal government to cover the difference between toll revenues and operating costs. These advances would be recovered in subsequent years when toll revenues become adequate for that purpose.
The expenditure on the bridge to date has been made on the basis of an approval of the project by the municipal development loan board, which is providing a loan of $3,800,000. Completion of the bridge proper is estimated to cost not less than $17,100,000.
It did not prove possible during the last session to bring the matter before the house. Moreover, during the latter part of 1965 it became apparent that the costs of the bridge and the throughway were going to be considerably greater than the original estimate and that there was some question locally as to whether the location and type of bridge and throughway originally proposed were the most satisfactory. Consequently it became necessary in December to call a halt to all new work on the project pending a comprehensive reassessment by a committee of federal and provincial experts supported by outside consultants.
The committee has now reported, and each government has accepted those recommendations pertaining to it. The main recommendation affecting the federal government is that the bridge proceed basically along the lines originally planned. The federal government has informed the Saint John Bridge Authority of this acceptance and that the federal
February 14, 1966

government will guarantee to cover the annual deficits on the bridge through advances, subject to approval by parliament.
It is therefore our intention to seek from parliament at any early date the necessary authority for this guarantee.


John George Diefenbaker: Was there a suggestion, Mr Speaker, that the press release be directed to Hansard for inclusion in the record of today's proceedings? I do not think press releases should be so incorporated. It is a bad precedent.


Mr. Speaker:: It was my understanding that the hon. gentleman asked leave to table it.


Mitchell William Sharp: I sought approval to table the press release; I did not mean to have it incorporated in the record.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Irvine: 1.	Does the Canadian Government Printing bureau make any annual inventory of supplies, machinery, parts, other equipment and stocks?
2.	Who conducts any such inventories and to whom are the findings reported?
3.	In the past five calendar or fiscal years, what has been the result of such stock and equipment inventories?
Questions
1.	What has been the nature and the dollar value of any "short falls", in (a) paper and other stocks (b) equipment (c) tools?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1.	Yes, up to the end of 1963-64 fiscal year, the Canadian government printing bureau was making annual inventories on the following items: Paper, Printing supplies, Maintenance parts, Stationery supplies, Office machine parts, New equipment (office machine section), Plant equipment (also in 1964-65).
In 1964-65 the Canadian government supply service had the responsibility for the following inventories:	Paper, Printing supplies,
Maintenance parts, Stationery supplies, Office machine parts, New equipment (office machine section).
2.	The CGPB inventories are conducted by officers in charge of plants and divisions and internal auditors. The findings are reported to the Comptroller, Financial Services. The procedure is reviewed by the Auditor General's representative.
The CGSS stocktaking is conducted by the stores supervisor or district supervisors and internal auditors. The findings are reported to the Comptroller, Department of Defence Production. The operation is carried out under the surveillance of the resident Auditor General's representative.
3 and 4. Variances between physical and book value on inventories are:
1961	1962	1963	1964	1965Paper	$ 2,285 +	$ 269 +	$ 4,809 +	$ 5,929 +	$4,488.10 +Printing supplies	2,813 +	5,544 +	2,255 +	9,689 +	495.32 +Maintenance parts	-	1,130-	1,744 +	382 +	616.30+Stationery supplies	2,320-	5,528 +	11,002 +	811 +	2,325.16-Office machine parts	3,128 +	637 +	379 +	3,020 +	1,546.00-New equipment (O.M.S.)	-	15-	703 +	8 +	nilPlant equipment	nil	nil	nil	nil	63-Total	5,906+	10,833 +	20,892 +	19,839 +	1,665.56+
The above unfavourable variances are in the nature of a normal stores operation. For example, the most significant variation stationery supplies 1961, $2,320, is less than 1/10 of 1 per cent of the value of stationery issues. Audit reports covering the unfavourable variances do not record marked discrepancies on individual stores items. Such variances may arise in the counting or measuring of small parts or in the rounding of unit rates.


DR. SYLVESTER DRABIT
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): 1.	Was Dr. Sylvester Drabit ever employed by the Department of National Health and Welfare?
2.	Is Dr. Drabit now in the employ of the Department of National Health and Welfare and, if not, what was the reason for his departure?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes.
2. Yes.

February 14, 1966
Questions


MANPOWER MOBILITY PROGRAM LOANS AND GRANTS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): 1.	In each province, how many (a) loans, and (b) grants, have been made under the Manpower Mobility Program?
2.	In each province, what was the date of the first such (a) loan, and (b) grant?
3.	In each province, what has been the average (a) loan, and (b) grant?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1.	Loans and grants issued under manpower mobility program:
Province	(a) Loans	(b) Grants
Quebec	3	
Ontario	10	9
Saskatchewan	1	
British Columbia	1	
Total	15	9Other provinces	Nil	Nil2. Dates of issue of first loan and grant:	Province	(a) Loans	(b) GrantsQuebec	Jan. 13/66	Ontario	Jan. 7/66	Dec. 30/65Saskatchewan	Jan. 12/66	British Columbia	Jan. 13/66	3. Average loan and grant issued:	Province	(a) Loan	(b) GrantQuebec	$116.67	Ontario	490.00	$590.81Saskatchewan	275.00	British Columbia	189.40	MAIL TRANSPORT,	TORONTO-HAMILTON


 -Mr. Howe (Hamilton: Souih):		
1. At what times in each day is mail		of all classes
transported from Hamilton to Toronto?		
2. At what times in	each day is	mail of all
classes transported from Toronto to		Hamilton?
3. Was consideration	given to the	institution ofday-time dispatches	(a) from ]	Hamilton to
Toronto, and (b) from Toronto to Hamilton and, if so, what decision was reached?
4. Since June, 1965, has there been any change in the mail schedule between (a) Hamilton and Toronto, and (b) Toronto and Hamilton?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: 1.	12:50 A.M., 6:30 A.M., 7:50 A.M., 6:40 P.M., 7:40 P.M., 9:10 P.M., 9:25 P.M., 10:50 P.M.
2.	12:30 A.M., 1:45 A.M., 5:00 A.M., 5:15 A.M., 8:30 A.M., 10:30 A.M., 5:20 P.M., 8:05 P.M., 10:45 P.M., 11:45 P.M.
3.	(a) Consideration was given during the summer of 1965 to the institution of a day time dispatch from Hamilton to Toronto. It was found that it would not be practicable to schedule a service to collect, process and transfer mail to arrive in Toronto in sufficient time for afternoon delivery.
(b) As with 3 (a) it would not be practicable to schedule a service to collect, process and transfer mail from Toronto to arrive in Hamilton in sufficient time for afternoon delivery. A day-time service is presently in effect which leaves Toronto at 10:30 A.M. and arrives in Hamilton at 1:10 P.M. However, the primary purpose of this service is to convey mails from Toronto international airport to post offices between Toronto and Hamilton.
4.	(a) Effective June 20th 1965, one additional service from Hamilton to Toronto was established leaving Hamilton at 7:40 P.M.
(b) Effective June 20th 1965, one additional service from Toronto to Hamilton was established leaving Toronto at 10:45 P.M.
Minor adjustments in arrival and departure times have been made from time to time to coincide with changes in railway and air line schedules.


CHARLOTTETOWN-IMPROVEMENT OF AIRPORT FACILITIES
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	When is it intended to commence construction of new and larger terminal facilities at the Charlottetown airport?
2.	What additions to the present runways are contemplated?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1 and 2. No decision has been made by the government.


APPOINTMENTS TO PERSONAL STAFF, PRIVY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
Mr. Ormiston: What are the names, classifications and salaries of all civil service personnel and personnel appointed by order in council which have been on the personal staff of the President of the Privy Council since July 9, 1965?
[Mr. MacEachen.l
February 14, 1966	COMMONS	DEBATES	1139
			Questions
Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Queen's			
Privy Council):			
			Date of
Name	Classification	Salary	AppointmentMr. Andre Ouellet	Executive assistant	$12,000	July 7, 1965Mr. J. K. Spicer	Special assistant	12,000	July 7, 1965(Terminated October 1, 1965>Miss M. P. C. Viau	Private secretary	7,500	July 7, 1965Mrs. J. Roy	Head clerk	6,143	January 17, 1966Miss M. M. Ducharme	Assistant private	secretary	5,600	July 7, 1965Mrs. M. T. Roy	Secretary to executive	5,304	September 1, 1966Mr. J. L. Bergeron	Clerk, grade 4	5,054	July 7, 1965Mr. J. C. Belanger	Clerk, grade 3	4,524	July 7, 1965Miss J. C. Pilgrim	Clerk, grade 2	3,526	July 7, 1965COST OF ICE CONTROL	STRUCTURE, EXPO '67	of the Kincolith band and $3.75 was received	
Question No. 161-Mr.	Coates:	covering 50 per cent of the licence fees on	
1.	What is the estimated cost of the ice control structure being constructed in connection with Expo '67 in the St. Lawrence river?
2.	What was the initial estimated cost of this pro.iect, and of this initial cost what was the federal government's share?
3.	What is the reason for the increase in the cost of this project if such an increase is indicated?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: 1. It was necessary to build an ice control structure in the St. Lawrence river as the result of the enlargement of St. Helens and other associated islands by the city of Montreal. The estimated cost is $16,300,000 including engineering, of which $13,800,000 will be the federal government share.
2.	$13,000,000 including engineering, of which the federal government share was estimated at $10,500,000.
3.	General increase in construction prices since the original estimate was prepared and an underestimation of the cost of electrical and mechanical requirements.
claims on Creston Indian reserve No. 1 of the Lower Kootenay band. There are no active mines or claim developments on reserves to which the British Columbia mineral resources act applies.
2.	Records do not show any failure on the part of the government of British Columbia to collect any revenue under the said act.


AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PERSONNEL
Mr. Mather: 1.	Is there a fully adequate number of air traffic control personnel at all major Canadian airports commensurate with the safety of air passengers?
2.	Are air traffic control personnel in any areas now working seven days weekly?
3.	Do staff and facilities exist for the operation and maintenance of secondary radar equipment in the Winnipeg area?
4.	What has been the increase in air traffic at Montreal international airport in the last two years (1964 to date)?
5.	What has been the increase in the number of air traffic control personnel in that period?


MINERAL REVENUES FROM B.C. INDIAN RESERVES
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since the coming into force of the British Columbia Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act, has the Receiver General of Canada received any revenue from the government of the province of British Columbia as provided in the said act, and if so, for each calendar year what was (a) the amount of the revenue and (b) the name of the Indian band and reserve to which each such amount, by year, applies?
2.	Has the said provincial government failed or neglected to collect any revenues as provided in the said act and, if so, in which years and what amount was involved in each such year?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. Yes, $6.25 was received in 1955 covering 50 per cent of fees collected with respect to a mining claim on Scamakounst Indian reserve No. 19


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes.
2.	Air traffic control personnel in Canada may work a shift each day for seven consecutive days followed by two or more days off.
3.	Yes.
4.	In 1964 and 1965, the total aircraft movements at Montreal international airport were 176,055 and 211,117 respectively, or a total increase of 35,062 movements.
5.	None. Although the approved establishment has remained unchanged at 84, there has been a decrease in complement from 71 to 64, due largely to promotions and resignations. However, as is done elsewhere in Canada when necessary, the safety of air passengers is assured through the use of overtime.

February 14, 1966
Questions
Canada-u.s. forest products pact	2. See attached list.


Mr. Douglas: 1.	Has the government Initiated or participated in any discussions that could lead to a Canadian-United States forest products pact similar to the present Canada-United States automotive agreement?
2.	If so, where, when and with whom were such discussions held?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The
Department of Industry is actively looking into all possible means of expanding production and trade in Canadian secondary products, including forest products. The question of reducing barriers to trade on these and other products is also being discussed at Geneva by the respective GATT delegations.


CONFERENCE ON SECOND TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Has the Government of Canada during the calendar year 1965 been in touch with any of the Governments of the Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia with regard to the construction of a second highway of Trans-Canada standard from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast via Saskatoon, Edmonton and the Yellowhead Pass?
2.	If so, what has been the nature of the correspondence or conversations, and with whom?
3.	Has any further consideration been given to the calling of a joint conference between the Government of Canada and the four provincial governments in question with respect to the construction of such a highway and what are the views of the Government of Canada as to the advisability of such a conference at an early date?


George James McIlraith: 1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	No. The review by the tax structure committee of the various federal-provincial fiscal policies seems to make such a conference inadvisable.


PAYMENTS MADE UNDER THE WINTER WORKS INCENTIVE PROGRAM TO EVERY MUNICIPALITY IN VILLENEUVE
Mr. Caouetle: 1.	How many projects are being undertaken under the Winter Works Program in each municipality of the county of Villeneuve during the Winter of 1966?
2.	What is the cost of each project?
3.	Which projects were rejected?


John Carr Munro: 1. Arntfield 1; Beaudry 4; Belle-combe 1; Bourlamaque 1; Cloutier 3; Duparquet 1; Evain 2; La Motte 1; Malartic 1; Noranda 9; Remigny 2; Rollet 2; Roulier 1; Rouyn 8; Val d'Or 7.

3.	Nil.
Municipal Winter Works Incentive Program 1965-66 Accepted Projects-Province of Quebec, County of Villeneuve
Total Cost Estimated
Project	In Period	FederalNumber	Municipality	Share$	$Que.	1292	Arntfield	5,000	2,500Que.	1285	Beaudry	5,900	2,500Que.	1286	Beaudry	7,400	3,500Que.	1287	Beaudry	6,000	3,000Que.	1288	Beaudry	6,350	3,000Que.	1293	Bellecombe	8,000	4,000Que.	720	Bourlamaque	50,000	14,000Que.	1308	Cloutier	15,000	5,000Que.	1309	Cloutier	5,656	2,500Que.	1310	Cloutier	2,350	1,100Que.	1478	Duparquet	10,000	5,000Que.	673	Evain (village) 3,500	1,750Que.	1549	Evan (W.D.)	60,314	20,230Que.	815	La Motte	35,000	17,500Que.	1122	Malartic	100,000	40,000Que.	390	Noranda	9,955	1,450Que.	391	Noranda	14,000	6,000Que.	403	Noranda	2,800	950Que.	404	Noranda	425,000	62,500Que.	405	Noranda	400,000	50,000Que.	408	Noranda	1,680	550Que.	471	Noranda	80,000	5,000Que.	406	Noranda	45,645	14,750Que.	407	Noranda	15,200	5,380Que.	1283	Remigny	10,000	5,000Que.	1284	Remigny	22,000	8,500Que.	1289	Rollet	9,650	4,250Que.	1290	Rollet	13,660	6,000Que.	1291	Roulier	10,000	5,000Que.	1650	Rouyn	7,975	2,100Que.	1651	Rouyn	18,000	7,500Que.	1652	Rouyn	1,101	300Que.	1653	Rouyn	1,780	511Que.	1654	Rouyn	4,416	989Que.	1655	Rouyn	2,975	604Que.	1656	Rouyn	25,630	8,313Que.	1782	Rouyn	9,100	2,400Que.	1015	Val D'Or	1,100	500Que.	1016	Val D'Or	9,000	4,000Que.	1017	Val D'Or	5,300	2,500Que.	1018	Val D'Or	14,000	6,700Que.	1019	Val D'Or	7,500	2,500Que.	1020	Val D'Or	7,000	3,350Que.	1021	Val D'Or	2,000	500


$1,496,937 $343,677 TOTALS
[Stage Direction]
February 14, 1966

Mr. Caouelte: 1.	What was the total cost of Winter Works Programs in Canada during 1965?
2.	What is the value of the federal government's contribution?
3.	Has the government fully discharged this
obligation?


John Carr Munro: 1. Information on the Municipal Winter Works Incentive Program is not compiled on a calendar year or fiscal year basis but rather on the basis of program periods. The federal incentive payment under the program is based on the direct payroll costs incurred on authorized projects, and the total costs of such projects are not reported on claims submitted by the municipalities through the provinces. However, based on estimates provided by the municipalities, the total cost of projects carried out during the program period November 1, 1964 to April 30, 1965 was about $200,000,000.
2.	For the program period 1964-65, claims of the municipalities received as at February 3, 1966 totaled $39,258,753.24. It is estimated that claims amounting to approximately $1,113,000 have not yet been submitted by the provinces.
3.	For the program period 1964-65, of the claims received as at February 3, 1966 totalling $39,258,753.24 payments have been made to the provinces in the amount of $38,837,364.21. Claims recently received and being processed for payment total $421,389.03.


SALES OF ORENDA JET ENGINES
Mr. Hales: 1.	How many Orenda jet engines has the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation sold in the calendar year 1965?
2.	To whom were they sold?
3.	What price was received in each case?
4.	What was the complete original cost of these engines?
5. Why were they purchased originally?
6. Why were they sold?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned, the answer is as follows:
1.	Sixty five Orenda jet engines were sold by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation in the calendar year 1965.
Questions
2 & 3	Quan-	PricePurchasers name	tity	ReceivedCarleton University, Ottawa, Ontario Airwork Services Train-	1-A	$ 200.00ing, Perth, Scotland	1-A	175.00Toronto Board of Educa-	tion, Toronto, Ontario	1-A	150.00Junction Salvage Company,	Toronto, Ontario	10-B	1,292.87Orenda Division of Hawker	Siddeley Canada Limited,	Malton, Ontario Continental Aluminum	10	15,000.00Smelting Company, Whitby Ontario	41-B	6,864.00National Salvage Company,	Lethbridge, Alberta	1-B	41.0065	$23,722.87
A-Denotes instructional cut away engines.
B-Denotes Orenda engines sold as scrap and mutilated before delivery to purchasers.
The following information is supplied by Hon. Paul Hellyer, Minister of National Defence.
4 and 5. The Orenda jet engine was procured to provide the power package for the CF-100 and Sabre aircraft at a cost of $60,000 per engine.
6.	The number of Orenda engines sold during 1965 represented an accumulation of failed or time expired engines surplus to overall defence requirements.


REMOVAL OF SALES TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS
Mr. Hales: Is the government considering removing the 11% sales tax on building materials and, if not, is the government considering removing this tax from such buildings as YMCA-YWCA, church, or other civic buildings built by public subscriptions?


Mitchell William Sharp: Representations on this matter, as well as on a wide range of other tax subjects, are being studied during the preparation of the budget.


PRINTING OF VOTERS LISTS, NEW WESTMINSTER
Mr. Mather: 1.	During the federal elections of 1962, 1963 and 1965, what printers by name, were given the printing of voters lists in New Westminster constituency?
2.	How many voters list names did each receive in each of these elections?
3.	How much payment did each receive?
1142	COMMONS DEBATES	February 14, 1966
Questions


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Chief Electoral Officer as follows:
New Westminster
	Electors on	Payment
Printers	Lists	received1962 White Rock Printers and Publishers Ltd	8,447	1,680.94Adanac Printers	10,389	1,863.88Kerfoot-Holmes Printing Ltd	9,323	1,837.94The Columbian Co. Ltd (Craftsman Printers)	29,598	5,831.96Dunning Press Ltd	7,494	1,330.93The Langley Press	11,286	2,049.141963	Pacific Canadian Printers Ltd	5,371	1,112.28White Rock Printers and Publishers Ltd	12,836	2,707.89Kerfoot-Holmes Printing Ltd	13,195	2,445.37The Newton Graphic	2,384	453.24Gilbert Printing Co.	13,828	2,896.10The Columbian Co. Ltd (Craftsmen Printers)	14,035	2,924.08Dunning Press Ltd	7,945	1,442.33The Langley Press	9,008	1,699.811965	Pacific Canadian Printers Ltd	6,232	1,308.09Fraser Printers Ltd	5,589	1,168.23White Rock Printers and Publishers Ltd	6,143	1,286.51Gilbert Printing Co.	5,406	1,145.25Jackson Printing Co. Ltd	20,271	4,207.19The Columbian Co. Ltd (Craftsmen Printers)	21,492	4,516.88The Langley Press	9,059	1,709.43Dunning Press Ltd	9,358	1,558.11


LETTER CARRIER SERVICE, SELKIRK, MAN.
Mr. Siefanson: When will letter carrier service be implemented for the residents of the town of Selkirk, Manitoba?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: As already announced, the letter carrier service in the Town of Selkirk, Manitoba, will be implemented as soon as 80 per cent of the residents who are to benefit therefrom put up mailboxes at their doors.


PRINTING BUREAU EMPLOYEES DOING PRIVATE WORK
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Are any employees of the Canadian government printing bureau engaged in the private printing business and, if so, who are they and under what firm is such business being operated in each instance?
2.	Was any investigation conducted to establish whether any printing bureau equipment is being used, or has been used, in connection with the con-
IMr. Mather.]
duct of such private businesses and, if so (a) what were the results of such investigation (b) in what business or businesses is or was such equipment used and under what authority?
3.	Have any of the employees of the printing bureau been engaged in performing private printing services for themselves or others, using printing bureau equipment and materials on printing bureau time and, if so, what are the names of such employees and their supervisors?
4.	What such services were so printed and on whose authority?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	Twelve employees of the Canadian government printing bureau are members of a small investment syndicate (which has a total of 21 members), to which each member makes monthly contributions. Syndicate funds are invested in second mortgages, stocks, and real estate, and include a three fifths (3) interest in a commercial printing firm, Imprimerie Gasparo Ltee, Hull, Quebec. Three of the employees serve as directors of the company, but otherwise none is actively engaged in the operations of the firm. The names of the
February 14, 1966

employees are Yves Bergevin, Roger Cousi-neau, Roger DeGagne, Fernand Groulx, Gaston Hould, Claude Marcotte, Maurice Marcotte, Marcellin Marquis, Leo Normand, Edward Phillips, Claude Berube, and Raymond Cote.
2.	Yes. An investigation was conducted, the results of which disclosed that no CGPB equipment has been nor is being used in the private business mentioned in one.
3 and 4. Yes. In 1964, three employees of the London, Ontario, outside printing unit of the CGPB performed private printing services for others using printing bureau multilith equipment to produce two issues of News and Views of the Department of Veterans Affairs local employee welfare association. This work, valued at a total of $260 was performed by Messrs. E. M. Hyde, G. Gore and Mrs. V. Potter, without authority.


MONEY LENDERS SYNDICATE, PRINTING BUREAU
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Does there exist a "money lenders syndicate" operated by Canadian government printing bureau employees or others on printing bureau premises?
2.	If so (a) has there been an investigation conducted by the R.C.M.P., or otherwise, into the existence of a "money lenders syndicate" operated by printing bureau employees or others on printing bureau premises and what are the results of such investigation (b) have any persons been charged under the provisions of the Criminal Code with any offence arising out of such investigation and what is or are the name or names of such person or persons (c) if no formal charges were laid, has any other disciplinary procedure been taken by the bureau against any person in this connection and, if so, by whom and against whom was such disciplinary procedure so taken (d) if such investigation has been conducted, does it disclose that such syndicate does exist for the purpose of lending money to printing bureau employees and are such loans made at excessive interest rates?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	The Department of Public Printing and Stationery, on 12 July 1962, authorized the establishment of a credit union (Caisse Popu-laire) in the building occupied by the Canadian government printing bureau. This organization is operated, outside of working hours, by and for the employees. The employees have only forty-five minutes for lunch and the Caisse Populaire enables them to use properly controlled facilities for savings and loans.
2.	No.
Questions


PRINTING BUREAU-SALE OF STOLEN GOODS
Mr. Irvine: Since January, 1962, were any stolen goods sold in any of the buildings housing the operations of the Canadian government printing bureau to any of the employees of the said bureau and, if so (a) specifically, were any stolen television sets, tape recorders or transistor radios sold to any of the employees of the printing bureau on premises occupied by the printing bureau (b) was any investigation conducted into dealings or transactions in stolen goods by printing bureau employees to printing bureau employees on printing bureau premises and who conducted such investigation and what were its findings (c) were any printing bureau employees interviewed or questioned in connection with such investigation or in connection with such dealings or transactions in stolen goods on printing bureau premises (d) were any printing bureau employees arrested, charged, suspended or dismissed either as a result of such investigation or of independent action taken by printing bureau officials in connection with dealings and transactions in such stolen goods (e) if any employees were so arrested, charged, suspended or dismissed, what were their names, for what offence or offences was such action taken, was there a trial or a hearing in each such case, are any such employees still employed with the printing bureau and. if so, who are they and in what positions are they employed?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: (a)	There were allegations to this effect, but they could not be substantiated, (b) Yes. An investigation was conducted by the management in conjunction with local police authorities, but no definite proof of such actions obtained, (c) Yes. (d) No. (e) No.


BRIDGES OVER OTTAWA RIVER
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Has the Department of Public Works and/or the National Capital Commission developed any plan for the early commencement of highway bridges over the Ottawa river at (a) Deschenes rapids (b) Lemieux island?
2.	If so. what is the anticipated date of commencement of construction for each of such bridges?
3.	What is the estimate of the total cost of the erection of each of these bridges?
4.	What share of the total cost of each of these bridges is it proposed that the governments of Ontario and Quebec and the Corporation of the City of Ottawa should bear?
5.	What discussions or negotiations have been undertaken with the governments of Ontario and Quebec and the Corporation of the City of Ottawa, and with what result?


George James McIlraith: 1. Plans for these highway bridges can only be developed after there is agreement by the federal and provincial governments concerned.
2	and 3. Not applicable.

February 14, 1966
Questions
4.	The sharing of the cost is a matter for agreement by the governments of Canada, Ontario and Quebec.
5.	Correspondence is being carried on with the provinces and discussions are being held with the city of Ottawa.


GRAZING AND HAY PERMITS, RIDING MOUNTAIN PARK
Mr. Mandziuk: 1.	How many grazing permits were issued in the Riding Mountain national park in 1965 and what were the fees charged?
2.	How many hay permits were issued for the Riding Mountain national park in 1965 and what were the fees charged?
3.	What grazing permit fees and hay cutting fees will be charged in 1966.


Arthur Laing: 1. Fifty five grazing permits were issued. The following fees were charged: (a) For grazing permit, $1 (b) For each head of cattle, 25 cents per month; (c) For each horse not owned by a licensed livery operating in the park, 50 cents per month.
2.	Forty one hay permits were issued. The following fees were charged: (a) For hay permit, $1; (b) $2.50 per ton.
3.	The existing rates are currently under review and a decision will be announced well in advance of the 1966 grazing and haying season.


TENDERS FOR COAST GUARD VESSELS
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	When will tenders be called for the construc-iton of four new coast guard vessels?
2.	Will the tenders be called on a nation-wide basis or regional basis?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1 and 2. Precise arrangements for the calling of tenders for this batch of ships have not yet been settled. Tank tests and other design studies are still in progress although it is planned to call tenders for the first ship in the series early in the new fiscal year.


SALE OF FRIGATES, HALIFAX
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	With reference to six frigates located at Halifax, Nova Scotia, which were recently disposed of by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation to Lotti S.R.A. La Spezia, Italy, what was the amount actually paid for these frigates?
2.	What were the names, addresses and amounts of the others who tendered?
[Mr. Mcllraith.l
3.	With reference to the seventh frigate involved, has it been disposed of as yet and if so, to whom and for how much and what were the names, addresses and amounts tendered by other interested parties?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned, the answer is as follows:
1.	$465,630.89.
2.	Marine Salvage Limited, Port Colborne, Ontario, $429,364; Eckhardt and Company, Hamburg, West Germany, $423,000; Mitsui and Company Limited, Vancouver, B.C., $374,960; Hierros Ardes, Bilbao, Spain, $333,000; Chan-tiers Navals, Jos Boel and Eils, Temse, Belgium, $312,000; Cantiere Di Portovenere Spa, Genoa, Italy, $252,000; Hercules Sales, Toronto, Ontario, $233,250; American Iron and Metal, Montreal, P.Q., $216,000; Lion Steamship Company AB, Halmstad, Sweden, $187,745; Ship Supply Corporation, Brooklyn,
N.Y., U.S.A., $140,778; Union Pipe and Machinery, Montreal, P.Q., $84,280; Commercial Equipment Installation, Aylmer, Ontario, $75,300; Air Cooling Corporation, Montreal, Que., $600.
3.	No.


BAIT-HERRING FISHERY, SAANICH INLET, B.C.
Mr. Groos: Has the government received representations from sports fishing clubs and representatives of sports fishermen's groups in the Lower Vancouver Island area, protesting against a representation which has been made to the government to allow relaxation of the commercial closure and permit a limited bait-herring fishery in Saanich Inlet, which has hitherto been closed to all commercial fishing and, if so, what response has been made to such representations?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Representations have been received protesting suggestions made to our area regional office in British Columbia to permit a limited bait-herring fishery in Saanich Inlet.
The B.C. regional office of the Department of Fisheries each year prepares a circular of suggested changes in regulations. The suggestions are those received from interested agencies and associations and do not necessarily in any way reflect the views of the department. The circular is sent for comment to all organizations known to have any interest, and to the department's fishery officers.
This particular representation made to the department has caused more than normal reaction. It is but one of a list of several suggested changes. The comments on all of these have been received and the data are
February 14, 1966

now being analysed in the area for recommendations to departmental headquarters. The final decisions on these matters are made upon the analysis of public opinion as well as the scientific data available on each subject.


MAHONE BAY, N.S., DREDGING
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Has any study or survey been made during the past two years by or on behalf of the Department of Public Works, indicating the need for dredging at Mahone Bay, Lunenburg County, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, what findings have been made?
3.	What dredging is considered necessary and desirable to adequately service the shipbuilding firms in Mahone Bay?
4.	What is the estimated cost of such work?
5.	What is the approximate date on which dredging operations will be carried out?


George James McIlraith: 1. Yes.
2.	The survey report is still being studied.
3	and 4. The necessity for dredging has not yet been established.
5. Not applicable.


SENIOR OFFICERS, DEFENCE FORCES
Mr. Harkness: What are the names and present appointments of all officers with the rank of Rear Admiral, Major General, Air Vice Marshal, and above, now serving in the Canadian Defence Forces?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: The names and present appointments of all officers with the rank of Rear Admiral (equivalent) and above now serving in the Canadian defence forces are as follows:
Generals (equiv):	A/C/M F.R. Miller,
C.B.E., C.D., Chief of the Defence Staff Canadian Forces Headquarters.
Lieutenant-Generals (equiv): A/M C. R. Dunlap, C.B.E., C.D., Deputy Commander in Chief, NORAD HQ Ent Air Force Base, Colorado Springs, Colo., U.S.A.; Lt. Gen. S. F. Clark, C.B.E., C.D., (Seconded to N.C.C.) Chairman, National Capital Commission, 291 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ont.; A/M W.R. MacBrien,
O.B.E., C.D., Assistant to Chief of Staff Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, CFPO 5053; VAdm K. L. Dyer, D.S.C., C.D., Chief of Personnel Canadian Forces Headquarters; Lt. Gen. J. V. Allard, C.B.E., D.S.O., of Technical Services Canadian Forces Headquarters; Lt. Gen. J. V. Allard, O.B.E., D.S.O., E.D., C.D., Commander, Mobile Command Jacques Cartier Barracks, Longueuil, Que.; Lt. Gen. R. V. Moncel, D.S.O., O.B.E., C.D., Vice
Questions
Chief of the Defence Staff Canadian Forces Headquarters; Lt. Gen. F. J. Fleury, O.B.E., E.D., C.D., Comptroller General Canadian Forces Headquarters.
Major-Generals (equiv.): A/V/M M. D. Lister, C.D., Air Officer Commanding, Air Defence Command R.C.A.F. Station St. Hubert, Que.; Maj. Gen. W. A. B. Anderson, O.B.E., C.D., Deputy Chief Reserves, Canadian Forces Headquarters; R-Adm. C. J. Dillon, C.D., Deputy Comptroller General Canadian Forces Headquarters; Maj. Gen. R. P. Rothschild,
M.	B.E., C.D., Commander Materiel Command, R.C.A.F. Station Rockcliffe, Ottawa 7, Ont.; R-Adm. D. W. Piers, D.S.C., C.D., Commander, Canadian Defence Liaison Staff, 2450 Massachusetts Ave., North, Washington, D.C.; Maj.-Gen. R. Rowley, D.S.O., E.D., C.D., Deputy Chief Operations Mobile Command Headquarters, Jacques Cartier Barracks, Longueuil, Que.; Maj-Gen. C. B. Ware, D.S.O., C.D., Commandant, National Defence College, Fort Frontenac, Kingston, Ont.; Maj-Gen. L. G. C. Lilley, D.S.O., C.D., Deputy Chief Engineering Canadian Forces Headquarters; R-Adm. M. G. Stirling, C.D., Maritime Commander (Pacific) Fleet Office (Mail) Victoria, B.C.; R-Adm. W. M. Landymore, O.B.E., C.D., Commander Maritime Command, Fleet Mail Office, Halifax, N.S., A/V/M W. W. Bean, O.B.E., C.D., Chief of Staff Command Group, R.C.A.F. Support Unit 4, ATAF, CFPO 5055; Maj.-Gen. H. L. Meuser, O.B.E., C.D., (Seconded to the office of the D.M.), Assistant Deputy Minister (Logistics), Department of National Defence, Ottawa, Ont.; A/V/M D. A. R. Bradshaw, D.F.C., C.D., Air Officer Commanding 1 Air Division R.C.A.F., CFPO 5052; A/V/M E. M. Reyno, A.F.C., C.D., Deputy Chief of Personnel, Canadian Forces Headquarters; A/V/M C. H. Greenway, O.B.E.,
C.	D., Commander Northern NORAD, Region Headquarters, R.C.A.F. Station North Bay, Ont.; R-Adm. R. P. Welland, D.S.C., C.D., Deputy Chief Operations, Canadian Forces Headquarters; A/V/M M. Lipton, A.F.C., C.D. Deputy Chief Staff Operations Ent Air Force Base, Colorado Springs, Colo., U.S.A.; R-Adm. W. J. Elliot, C.D., Surgeon General, Canadian Forces Headquarters; Maj.-Gen. G. A. Turcot, C.D., General Officer Commanding, Eastern Command, Ahern Ave., Halifax,
N.	S.; A/V/M F. R. Sharp, D.F.C., C.D., Commander, Training Command, R.C.A.F. Station, Winnipeg, Westwin, Man.; A/V/M F. W. Ball,
D.	F.C., C.D., Deputy Chief Plans, Canadian Forces Headquarters; R-Adm. H. G. Burchell, C.D., Deputy Chief Logistics, Canadian Forces

February 14, 1966
Questions
Headquarters; A/V/M F. S. Carpenter, A.F.C., C.D., Deputy Command Operational Support, Mobile Command Headquarters, Jacques Cartier Barracks, Longueuil, Que.; Maj. Gen. B. F. Macdonald, D.S.O., C.D., Chief Officer, Canadian Component UNIPOM, c/o Diplomatic Mail Unit, Grand Central Station, P.O. Box 20, New York, N.Y. 11007.


COAL FOR FEDERAL BUILDING, NORWICH, ONT.
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	What firm is at present supplying coal to the federal building at Norwich, Ontario?
2.	How many tenders were received with respect to this contract, from what firms, and what was the amount of each tender?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	Imperialle Fuels Limited, 263 Bathurst Street, London, Ontario.
2.	Two tenders were received. (1) Imperialle Fuels Limited, London, Ont., $13.70 per ton, Total $479.50; (2) Norwich District Cooperative, Norwich, Ont., $15.95 per ton, Total $558.25.


WESTERN DEUTERIUM LTD.-PLAN APPROVAL
Mr. Brand: 1.	Were the plans for a heavy water plant as submitted by Western Deuterium Limited, approved by the Engineering Design Section of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd?
2.	Did such approval necessitate the disbursements of funds on the part of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd?
3.	What amounts in public funds have been spent in design research for heavy water plants, by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. in each of the following years (a) 1963 (b) 1964 (c) 1965?
4.	Were the plans of Western Deuterium Limited for a heavy water plant at Estevan, Saskatchewan finally disproved by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and, if so (a) on whose recommendation (b) for what reason?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: 1. No.
2.	N/A.
3.	(a) Nil; (b) Nil; (c) Nil.
4.	No.


RECIPROCAL INCOME TAX ARRANGEMENTS, CANADA-U.K.
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Is there presently in force any agreement between Canada and Britain concerning reciprocal arrangements for credits for income tax purposes?
2.	If not, when did the last such agreement expire?
3.	If not, are negotiations presently under way to revive such reciprocal arrangements?
4.	Is it anticipated that an early convention or agreement may be reached?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. No; however, credits for British and other taxes paid abroad are provided under section 41 of the Income Tax Act.
2.	The agreement for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to income taxes signed on June 5, 1946 ceased to have effect for Canada with respect to taxation years ending in 1965.
3.	No.
4.	An interim agreement referring to four classes of income was signed on December 6, 1965. It is expected that this will be replaced by a further agreement of broader application after the report of the royal commission on taxation has been considered.


RETIREMENT OF R.C.A.F. JET PILOTS
Mr. Brand: What are the numbers of R.C.A.F. jet pilots under the age of 28, who have retired voluntarily from the R.C.A.F. in each of the following years (a) 1957 (b) 1958 (c) 1959 (d) 1960 (e) 1961 (f) 1962 (g) 1963 (h) 1964 (i) 1965?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The total member of RCAF pilots under the age of 28 who have retired voluntarily is shown below. It is not possible to identify jet pilots separately: (a) 4 (b) 3 (c) 1 (d) 8 (e) 7 (f) 6 (g) 8 (h) 26 (i) 27.


DRUG KREBIOZEN
Mr. Harley: 1.	What is the present status in Canada of the drug krebiozen?
2.	Will the recent court case in the United States, where the chief supporters of krebiozen were acquitted, have any influence on the Canadian status of this drug?
3.	To the government's knowledge, is any clinical research on krebiozen being carried out at this time in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. The sale of krebiozen in Canada is not permitted.
2.	No.
3.	No.


IMPORTS OF CHAROLAIS CATTLE
Mr. McLelland: 1.	Were any Charolais cattle imported into Canada from France since July 1, 1963 and, if so, how many?
2.	Were any of these animals imported to be used as herd sires and, if so, how many?
3.	Were any female animals imported and, if so, how many?
4.	Were any applications received to import Charolais cattle from France beginning July 1, 1963 through to January 31, 1966 and, if so, how many?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. No Charolais cattle have been imported
February 14, 1966

into Canada from France since July 1, 1963. A shipment of 110 head is presently undergoing quarantine at the Grosse He, Quebec, quarantine station.
2.	Of the 110 animals in quarantine, 31 are males to be used for breeding.
3.	There are 79 females undergoing quarantine.
4.	From July 1, 1963 through to January 31, 1966, 99 applications have been received to import Charolais cattle from France.


EXTENSION OF FISHING VESSEL ASSISTANCE PLAN TO LAKE WINNIPEG
Mr. Slefanson: Does the government plan to extend the Fishing Vessel Assistance Plan to make it available to inland fishermen including those on Lake Winnipeg and other Manitoba lakes and. if so. when will this plan be implemented?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Proposals have been made to provincial governments which administer fisheries, and their reactions are being awaited.


SALARIES AND WAGES, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Godin: What amounts did the Department of Agriculture spend, during the years 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965 on (a) salaries and wages (b) professional and special services?
Hon. J. J. Greene
1961-	62
1962-	63
1963-	64
1964-	65
1965-	66 (Forecast)
(Minister of Agriculture):
Salaries
and
wages

47,403,043
48,947,791
50,375,782
52,352,900
57,382,450
Professional and special services $
2,261,814
2,199,678
2,176,891
2,426,900
2,697,000


BIOLOGICAL STATION, GRAND RAPIDS, MAN.
Mr. Slefanson: 1.	Does the government plan to establish a biological station at Grand Rapids, Manitoba, to carry out research on freshwater fisheries?
2.	If so, when will such a station be set up, when will it be ready for operation, and what program is contemplated?
Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries:) 1. No.
2. Answered by No. 1.
Questions


PAYMENTS TO PUBLIC HANGMAN
Mr. McCleave: What were the last payments made in Canada for the services of public hangman and were these in the nature of a retainer plus extra payment for each execution carried out?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: This information is not available. Executions are under the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities.


AIR CANADA FLIGHT TO BERMUDA-VACANT SEATS
Mr. McCleave: Were there any vacant seats on the Air Canada flight of December 3, 1965, to Bermuda and the Caribbean from Halifax International Airport and if so, how many?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Air Canada advises as follows:
Due to late cancellations by invited guests there were four vacant seats.


BUTTER AND BUTTER OIL RESERVES
Mr. Laprise: 1.	At the present time, what are the reserves of (a) butter, and (b) butter oil, in Canada?
2.	Since 1963, what have been the noticeable periods when changes were made in the volume of these reserves and what was the extent of the increases or the decreases?
3.	Taking into account the variations in the volume of the reserves, was the government called upon to take any particular action, in order to re-establish the equilibrium between supply and demand and, if so, what were these measures?
4.	Is the government planning to adopt a new policy in this respect, in order to stimulate production or consumption, or in order to encourage a decrease of production or consumption and, if so, what are the measures contemplated?


John James Greene: 1. (a) Stocks of butter: 75 million pounds at January 1, 1966. (b) Stocks of butter oil: 0.4 million pounds at January 1, 1966.
2.	Under normal production and consumption conditions, the high point in stock position is reached on October 1 and the low point on May 1.
Stocks on hand	1963	1964	1965
(million pounds)
May 1	101	99	53October 1	167	138	1083.	The Agricultural Stabilization Board's stocks of butter and butter oil increased significantly during the period 1959 to 1963. In 1963 the board was authorized to dispose of some of its holding into export, and in 1963 and 1964, 46.7 million pounds of butter and
February 14, 1966
Questions
70.6 million pounds of butter oil were ex- have suffered due to bad weather, from July 1. ported. In addition, each year the dairy sup- 1964 t0 May 19' 1965? port program was designed, among other 2' If so' what was the government's reply? things, to promote a better balance between Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture): supply and demand.	1 and 2. Yes and the government has agreed,
4.	The dairy support program is a matter of subject to parliamentary approval, to con-government policy and as such will be an- tribute one half of the costs of programs which nounced some time prior to the start of the Provide assistance to Quebec farmers af-new dairy support year, which is 1 April 1966. fected by adverse weather.


ATOMIC ENERGY PLANT, QUEBEC
Mr. Vincent: 1.	Has a study been made by Atomic Energy of Canada and Quebec Hydro of the possibility of building an atomic plant in Quebec?
2.	If so (a) is this study being made jointly or separately (b) what will be (i) the cost of building such a plant (ii) the site or sites which would be favourable to such a plant (c) what would be the basis of financial negotiations for such a project, should an agreement be reached between Quebec Hydro and Atomic Energy of Canada (d) have options on lots been taken to date in the Province of Quebec with a view to this project?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. The study is being carried on at present.
2. (a) Jointly, (b) (i) not yet determined; (ti) not yet approved, (c) It is contemplated that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited would construct the plant at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited expense on a site to be provided by Hydro-Quebec, that Hydro-Quebec would operate the plant and purchase from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the electricity produced and that after the plant had operated satisfactorily for a period, Hydro-Quebec would purchase the plant at a price to be agreed, (d) The acquisition of the site would be the responsibility of Hydro-Quebec.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAUSEWAY
Mr. MacDonald (Prince): What is the expected date of completion of the Prince Edward Island causeway?


George James McIlraith: It is impossible at this early date to forecast accurately when a project of this magnitude and complexity will be completed. However, with maximum progress this project could be completed in late 1970.


Mr. Knowles:: That is after the next election.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO QUEBEC FARMERS
Mr. Laprise: 1. Has the federal government been called upon by the government of Quebec to contribute to payments to farmers of that Province, for losses they


ASSISTANCE TO GOLD MINING INDUSTRY
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to grant further assistance to the gold mining industry so as to provide for persons employed therein wages in line with those paid in other industries?
2.	If so, (a) when (b) what form would such assistance take (c) on what basis would it be established?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. The present term of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, under which the federal government provides assistance to the gold mining industry in Canada, expires at the end of 1967. The needs of the industry and of the persons employed in it will be thoroughly reviewed prior to the end of the present term of the act.
2. Answered by No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Godin: In the years 1963, 1964, 1965, what amounts did the government pay to Canadian farmers (a) in contributions (b) allowances (c) subsidies, for (i) Canada as a whole (ii) the Province of Quebec, and (iii) Portneuf County?
Return tabled.


WINTER WORKS PROJECTS, CHAPLEAU COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Under the Winter Works Incentive Program for 1965-66, what projects have been accepted in the county of Chapleau?
2.	What will each project cost?
3.	What projects have been turned down and for what reasons?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ACTION FOLLOWING PRICE INCREASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of
February 14, 1966

the very steep increases in the price of bread, what does the government intend to do in that connection? Has there been any investigation made by the appropriate department as to whether the concerted increases are justified, and does the government consider that the explanation given in today's press, to the effect that the pension plan and minimum wage plan are costing money and that the result of those increases in taxation is an exaction, together with the increase in the costs of fats and powdered milk, justifies this very heavy, further imposition on the people?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the reasons given for the increase, I shall be glad to make inquiries and make a statement in due course.


John George Diefenbaker: Did not the government have notice in advance that these increases were going to take place, and what action did it take when it received that notice?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question of the Prime Minister, who said he would make a statement later when he looked into this. I ask him did he not have notice in advance? His silence may be the answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, normally the government does not get notice in advance of increases in the costs of particular commodities.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of these price increases, and in view of the fact that the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has recently urged Canada to adopt the price-wage guide posts which the United States government has adopted in the past two years, will the Prime Minister reconsider-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Winona Grace MacInnis: -the
government's decision not to set up machinery now-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kinsway):: -to
review recent increases in the cost of living?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making representations and submitting an argument expressing an opinion. She is not asking a question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, with due respect I was not submitting an opinion at all. I was simply stating that in view of the fact that the organization for the economic co-operation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. In order to do so I want to direct his attention to the fact that Le Devoir of this morning attributes the following statement to the Prime Minister:

The Canadians could easily-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is against the rules and procedures of this house to quote from a newspaper at this time. Perhaps the hon. member will preface his question by referring in general terms to the statement. He cannot read a newspaper article as he apparently intended to do.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the only reason I intended to do that is that during an earlier question another hon. member was requested to read the actual statement. I can easily reword my question.
In view of the fact that there is in this morning's paper an alleged statement by the Prime Minister to the effect that for Canada to control its own economy we would have to accept a reduction of from 25 per cent to 30 per cent in our standard of living, I should like to ask the Prime Minister on what he bases this statement, as a condition for Canada controlling its own economy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to answer that question, which relates to a question asked me during a question and answer session held by the university Liberals last Friday night.


An hon. Member:: We know all about that.


John George Diefenbaker: Before they abolished the Queen.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to point out during this question and answer session that if we in this country went in for a complete policy of economic nationalism and if we tried to become economically self-
February 14, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry contained, our standard of living would be reduced I think by at least 25 per cent. Perhaps it would be more than that.


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand the Prime Minister now to say that his statement was to the effect that before Canada's standard of living would be reduced it would have to adopt a completely self-entrenched economy, or is he talking about the control of our economy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, that is a wrong deduction.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the substantial increase in the interest on the national debt in 1966-67, could the Minister of Finance tell us by how much this debt of the Canadian government has increased and under what legislation the minister was authorized to increase such debt?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is very interesting, but I do not think it should be asked at this time, and I suggest that he put it on the order paper.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the sharp disagreement which has taken place at the current ICAO conference in Montreal, over the extent of liability to passengers killed or injured in air accidents, and in view of the rather severe criticism by the chief Canadian delegate of the United States policy or proposal, accusing them of high pressure selling tactics impinging on human dignity, has the minister been in contact with his United States counterpart regarding this issue? If he has not, is the minister considering any representations to the United States government in respect of this subject?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, our delegation has been told to take a certain position at the conference where discussions are now taking place.


If there is any amplification that I can give I shall be glad to give it during the consideration of my estimates.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Why has the contract for the CF-5 simulator for training purposes in the R.C.A.F. been cancelled?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it has been determined that the simulator is not required for this aircraft. Amongst its other advantages the CF-5 is such a stable aircraft and so easy to fly that any experienced jet pilot could step right into it and fly it. Therefore the simulator is not needed. There are also financial savings resulting from this fact.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If all these things are the case, why were they not considered before a contract was let for such a simulator; also, is this not the only fighter aircraft the R.C.A.F. has had for which there has not been a simulator? In addition, is it not a fact that all the air forces of the world have found that a simulator is necessary?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Answer.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he has considered the implications of the statement made on Friday last by the premier of Ontario with respect to the pattern set by the unconditional payment of federal funds to one province under the opting-out formula, with particular reference to the possibility of Ontario receiving a no-strings attached payment for the purposes of its own medicare scheme. If so, what position does the federal government take with respect to this matter in connection with its suggestion that it will pay one half the costs of a medicare scheme to any province which accepts conditions to be imposed by the federal government?
February 14, 1966


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the statement made by the premier of Ontario; therefore I have had no opportunity to consider its implications.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. I would ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance of the position which seems to have been suggested by the premier of Ontario, he does not feel he owes it to this house and the provinces to clarify the position of the government on this matter in order that the provinces may proceed intelligently with their plans even though the federal government may not wish to plan intelligently?



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister this question. Is he in agreement with the statement made by Premier Lesage to the effect that the $17,300,000 payable under the education plan to the province of Quebec will be used by that province as it chooses, and may be used for the building of roads if it so chooses?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the grant is exactly the same in so far as use is concerned as that which was made to the province of Quebec by the previous government, when it gave a grant of $2 per capita.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The previous grant, as I indicated the other day, amounted to a percentage abatement of the corporate income tax of 1 percentage point, which was designed to produce revenue equal to the provincial share of the university grants. The agreement was made with the intent of assisting the province in its support of universities, but of course revenues derived by the province from the tax abatement lose their identity in general provincial revenues and could not be related directly to such provision as the province has made for universities. In that sense the abatement has the same effect as the grant that was made in the form of a cash grant.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I still have not received an answer, because I point out that on Friday, as reported at page 1069 of
Inquiries of the Ministry Hansard, when I asked the question the Prime Minister said:
-there is a change, but I do not consider it as a matter involving victory or defeat. There is a change from the arrangements made when the right hon. gentleman was head of the government.
He went on to say what the change was. I ask the Prime Minister this, and it is very simple; words like those used are too general. Can the Lesage government use the $17,300,000 for any purpose it desires outside of education?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It can deal with the cash grant exactly as it could have dealt with the abatement on corporation tax. The grant was made by this government, as it was made by the previous government, to the government of Quebec for education.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: There is a change.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I seem to have difficulty getting an intelligent answer.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that the question he asked today is substantially the same as the question he asked last Friday. The right hon. Prime Minister has replied to the question and I suggest we should go on to another subject matter.


John George Diefenbaker: The Lesage interpretation stands, then.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister based on the question asked previously. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether the payment of $17 million to the province of Quebec will be subject to the scrutiny of the Auditor General, to make sure it is used for the purposes for which it was intended?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Auditor General will be very interested in every federal payment of any amount to any province.


Mr. Nielsen:: Well, is it going to be done? tTranslation]


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
February 14, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry
Would the Prime Minister ascertain whether the Premier of Quebec uttered the statement we read in the press last week that:
It is the first time the Ottawa government agrees to such an unconditional payment, which I blamed the Barrette-Fleming formula for not allowing.


Mr. Speaker:: Once again, I would suggest to the hon. member that this question be put on the order paper.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement made in the Ontario legislature by Mr. Wishart concerning legislation respecting the regulation of private pension plans, and in view of the confusion created by that statement, will the government reconsider its legislation in this field with a view to bringing it in at an early date?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the situation in this respect remains as I explained it on January 25 and, I believe in answer to a later question; I said that we understood the question to be urgent but that there were other matters of even greater urgency that would be appearing or are now on the order paper.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has given consideration to the fact that if Mr. Wishart's legal advice is correct and railway employees in Ontario now have greater rights than railway employees in every other province, this may affect the whole actuarial basis of the pension fund.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now making an argument.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister holding up the announcement of the appointment of Hazen Argue to the Senate at the insistence of Premier Thatcher until after the provincial Bengaugh by-election?
tMr. Vincent.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, might I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. May I ask him whether in the light of the very considerable concern in Halifax he would give this house and all maritimers his very capable assurance that certain suggestions made by the hon. member for Lapointe will not be considered by the government?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That question is so involved, sir, that I think it should be saved for the estimates.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour in his function as the minister responsible for C.M.H.C. Has C.M.H.C. recommended to the city of Toronto that the plan for the Trefann Court housing development in downtown Toronto should include community centre facilities for the Regent Park and Trefann Court developments?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question might well be placed on the order paper.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Friday and again today a parliamentary secretary has addressed questions to the ministry. I respectfully submit to Your Honour that they have a status which ought not to permit them to address questions to ministers of the crown-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Richard Albert Bell: -and that such questions ought to be considered as out of order, from parliamentary secretaries in their proper status as junior ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would point out to the hon. member that whatever the status or additional responsibilities-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
February 14, 1966


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has raised a very important point, but it is also a novel suggestion. Perhaps there is some merit in it, and certainly the Chair will in due course have an opportunity to look into the matter and consider the suggestion made by the hon. member, although as I said this to my mind seems a new approach to questions.



REGINA-INQUIRY AS TO PROTEST RESPECTING REZONING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: My question Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration under his responsibility for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and I think the Minister of Veterans Affairs should also be interested. Has the minister had representations from residents of Dieppe Place in Regina stating the grievance they have in connection with action which is being taken to rezone the property around this site? If he has, what action has the minister taken in this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would invite the hon. member to place this question on the order paper.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance with regard to the new co-ordinating committee set up for the movement of grain to the west coast. I should like to ask the minister whether he has received a report or has otherwise been in communication with this committee; and if so, can he now tell the house where the bottleneck in the movement of grain to the west coast was or is?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I reported to the house in answer to a similar question a few days ago, there has been a very considerable improvement in the situation in Vancouver and the daily movement is right on target, which I think will gratify all of us.
I have not yet had a report from the chairman as to the problems that he overcame and those that remain.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I ask a supplementary question. If there is a substantial improvement there must have been something corrected. Therefore, to remove the shadow on
Inquiries of the Ministry the railway or the terminals or whoever it was, could we know what it was that was holding up this movement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this question is not in order at this time.



INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF FINAL PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Finance and is related to his responsibility as the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Since this is Valentine's Day I wondered if he could make any announcement about the final closing of the pool on grain so we could know the final prices before Wednesday.


Mitchell William Sharp: I always like to get greetings on Valentine's Day from the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. May I say to him that in reply to a similar question the other day I said I thought the wheat board would be closing its accounts and making the necessary submission to council in the latter part of this month. I am not quite certain which day it will be.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex Wesl):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. I want to ask him if he will be taking immediate steps to arrange, together with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the meetings requested by a group of skilled tradesmen at the Ford Motor Company of Windsor in their telegram of February 13, to discuss with them the impact of the auto agreement on their type of work?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As a result of the initiative taken by my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: *-and the hon. member for Essex West, I am glad to say a meeting is in the process of being arranged.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: May I
ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Industry. At this meeting will the government put forward its stand on parity prices as between the United States and Canada so far as car orders are concerned?

February 14, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The purpose of the meeting will be to hear representations by the tool and die makers as to conditions of employment in their particular trade.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I should like to ask the minister if the government, at this proposed conference, will put forward any proposals for the alleviation of the hardship to those who are laid off by reason of technological change, in line with the recommendations of Mr. Justice Freedman in connection with the railway run-through cases.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The recommendations of Mr. Justice Freedman are now being studied with the care they deserve, particularly by my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The government has a great interest in the report of Mr. Justice Freedman, but I am not sure his recommendations are at issue in this particular case. We will only learn this on the arrival of the delegation for the meeting here in Ottawa.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice which I consider most appropriate in view of the tabling of the report of the maritime trustees. In view of the fact that I have been reliably informed that papers, documents and records seized by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police from the offices of the Seafarers International Union in Montreal have been returned by the courts to the R.C.M.P., and in view of the fact that I have been reliably informed also there is evidence of fraud on the part of Harold Chamberlain Banks and other persons, will the minister inform the house whether charges are to be laid against those persons?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The minister cannot say whether charges will be laid until all the evidence has been completely studied.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Some days ago I asked the Minister of Justice about certain charges that are pending against a number of individuals involved in the so-called march on Ottawa during the time the legislation on maritime union trustees was under consideration. At that time the minister was not sure whether it was a matter of persecution or prosecution, and he said he

would look into it. I wonder if the minister could now indicate an answer?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I do not know where the hon. member got the idea that I was not sure whether it was persecution or prosecution. I am sure it was prosecution. Offences had been committed under the Criminal Code. The charges are now before the courts and the matter is sub judice. There is nothing more I can add.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized another hon. member. We may return to the hon. member for Skeena.



RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE-INQUIRY AS TO PROSECUTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Siarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada upholding the legality of that section of the Combines Investigation Act forbidding resale price maintenance, can the minister advise what action he is taking or is about to take regarding the 15 or 16 similar cases that are now before his department, some of which have been there for as long as two years or more?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In view of the fact that some of the cases to which the hon. member refers have been pending for two years I wonder whether he might not wait another week and place the matter on the order paper.



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: May I direct a question to the Minister of Justice, and ask him if he has directed written terms of reference to the three man committee set up by him to study bankruptcies? If so, will he table them?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: will look into this question, and if possible I will table them. It is my recollection that the terms of reference were arranged verbally with the superintendent.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister inform the house whether the government is giving any consideration to suspending the operation of those
February 14, 1966

legislative provisions within which certain bankruptcy proceedings must be taken while this committee is undertaking its study, which apparently is to take a year?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Speaker, the committee will proceed with its study, which will take perhaps a year, with a view to revising the Bankruptcy Act. However, there are amendments which we intend to bring before parliament as soon as possible and which will deal with the areas of contention in this field.


John George Diefenbaker: If the investigation is to take a year there would be some people escape because of the passage of time and the statute of limitations. Is it the intention to introduce any amendment during the period of a year to the effect that the statute of limitations shall not run so these people will not escape if they should be charged?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: It appears that there is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the committee which is being set up. The committee that is being set up is to continue the studies that there were made by the Department of Justice in connection with the revision of the Bankruptcy Act. It is not an inquiry into any irregularities. It has to do with the revision of the Bankruptcy Act, and the people who have been chosen to do this are very competent in that field.


Erik Nielsen: I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, the minister has appreciated the importance of the point we are trying to get across. A legislative limitation is placed on the time within which certain proceedings must be commenced under the Bankruptcy Act. In view of the fact that some individuals concerned may not act because of the existence of this committee, is it the government's intention to suspend the operation of these limitation provisions?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I will analyse the hon. member's question.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I
ask a further supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister could explain why, after four years of complaints and suggestions from various business organizations like the institute of chartered accountants, it is now found necessary to get outside advice and form a commission that will take another year to study the matter. Why is this necessary?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



REQUEST FOR IMPROVED SERVICE BETWEEN HALIFAX AND MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. The press has reported that the cabinet is studying a $15 million proposal to finance the purchase of a fleet of gas turbine super engines for the Canadian National Toronto to Montreal run, capable of speeds up to 160 miles an hour. In view of the importance of providing speedy transportation and train service between the Atlantic provinces and the Montreal-Toronto area, will the minister give similar consideration to establishing a super train between Halifax and Montreal to replace the Ocean Limited?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I can-


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Bring it up on the estimates.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is the minister now prepared to make any statement on the report he tabled on Friday in connection with the Hong Kong veterans?


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker. The report is now being studied by the Canadian Pension Commission and it will be a few days before we are in a position to reach any decision in this matter.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Can the minister inform the house when he will be able to make a report as to the government's consideration of the requests of the Legion and other veterans organizations for amendments to the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and other veterans legislation, including the subject just mentioned?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I think I will read that question in Hansard and answer it subsequently.
1156	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry SPORTS



BANFF-SUITABILITY AS SITE FOR WINTER OLYMPICS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Because of the current controversy with respect to the suitability of Banff national park as a site for the 1972 winter Olympics, can the minister confirm the government's continuing support for this worth-while international athletic event and ensure the accessibility of Banff for that purpose?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a question which should be asked at this time.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport. Can he say whether a protest has been received from British Columbia in relation to the curtailment of the C.P.R. passenger services this year, just when British Columbia is expecting such a large influx of tourists, this being her centennial year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if by British Columbia the hon. gentleman means the government of British Columbia I think the answer is no. If by British Columbia he means people living in British Columbia, then the hon. member for Kamloops made an eloquent speech on the subject on Friday.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I asked the Prime Minister, before the Minister of Finance had arrived in the house, a question with regard to the increase in the interest rate on Canadian treasury bills reported in the press last Friday. I asked him whether this was the deliberate policy of the Bank of Canada, and the right hon. gentleman stated that he would consult the Minister of Finance and would try to answer today. May I have the answer?
[Mr. Teillet.l
DEBATES	February 14, 1966


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I had expected that the hon. member would remind the Prime Minister today of his promise and I am prepared to answer the question now.
The increase to which the hon. gentleman referred was 2-100ths of 1 per cent, a very small change well within the usual week to week variations in the yield of treasury bills. The rate on treasury bills is set by market forces working day by day in the open market and each week in the auction for new bills to replace those maturing, which normally takes place on Thursdays. Along with other developments which affect the market, the operations of the Bank of Canada have an influence on credit conditions generally and the yield on treasury bills as well as on other securities. These operations of the bank are shown in the figures that it publishes each week.


David Lewis: A supplementary question. Is it not a fact that in this case the Bank of Canada took no action to forestall this increase which while small has an effect on the general interest rate?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I just say by way of general comment that within the past year, at least partly as the result of the operations of the Bank of Canada, the money supply, that is, the total currency and chartered bank deposits, has risen by 9| per cent and during the year 1965 actually increased nearly 12 per cent. So I do not think anyone can suggest that the Bank of Canada has been following a tight money policy.


Jay Waldo Monteith: A supplementary question. I am assuming that the relationship between the Bank of Canada and the present Minister of Finance is on a similar basis to that of the former Minister of Finance. Does the fact that there have been successive increases in the bank rate over the past several weeks indicate a trend in government thinking?


Mitchell William Sharp: As those who are well informed on the subject know, Mr. Speaker, the increase in interest rates in the United States has exceeded that in Canada.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question
February 14, 1966

to the Minister of Labour. My question relates to Bill No. C-2, an act to amend the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. In view of the fact that this bill is really just an extension of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code and therefore might not occasion much debate, would the minister consult with his colleague the house leader to see whether this bill could be brought on for passing at an early date so that the people who require its protection can get that protection soon?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will be glad to discuss that with the house leader, Mr. Speaker.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, on February 7 I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether or not Canada or his department was taking action concerning aldrin and dieldrin, two dangerous pesticides, as has happened in Washington recently. Can he answer that question now?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the action taken in Washington with respect to these pesticides was to limit their use for specific purposes. This action was taken by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. No similar action has been taken by this department because it is not the type of action which is normally taken. As my hon. friend realizes, the Department of National Health and Welfare ensures that the amounts of drugs present in pesticide residues are not a hazard to health, and that work is at present going on as usual. [Translation1



EXPO '67 MONTREAL-POSSIBLE STRIKE OF CONSTRUCTION WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. Regimbal (Argenleuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
In spite of assurances to the contrary given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and by the Expo '67 authorities during the parliamentarians' visit of that site three weeks ago, there is now a possibility of a general strike in the building industry in Montreal which would affect Expo works.
Could the minister tell us what protection we have against this?
Supply-Transport


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: For some reason, Mr. Speaker, the hearing device at this desk is not working. I will have to take the question as notice. I heard only about three words.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. When may we expect the introduction in the house of a bill regarding the Indian claims commission? When the minister answers that question perhaps he might also indicate whether that bill has been delayed up to now by revision of any previous bill.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the delay that has eventuated has had more than one cause. It has come from the quarters with which my hon. friend and myself are familiar namely, the province of British Columbia, where the Indian people seem to prefer to take a concentrated second look before proceeding. Some Indians of British Columbia indicated they would prefer to consider their particular position in negotiation prior to introduction of the bill. I have told the legal adviser of the Indians in the province of British Columbia that I am prepared to discuss with them this subject, and I have had a preliminary meeting with him, before any action is taken.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I have this question clarified. Did I understand the minister to say that he has had a preliminary discussion with legal counsel for the Indian people of British Columbia with respect to negotiations over the land question? Is that what he meant?


Arthur Laing: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think I can safely say that.

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



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $4,862,900.
The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply. Estimates of the Department of Transport for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966, vote No. 1. Shall the item carry?

February 14, 1966
Supply-Transport


Mr. Hopkins:: Mr. Chairman, during the last few days we have listened to speeches from various members of the house who have taken the opportunity to tell other members of the house and the Minister of Transport in particular about their problems back home. It will therefore be no great innovation in Canadian politics if to a large extent I do likewise on behalf of Renfrew North in particular and the Ottawa Valley in general.
I have stated in a previous speech that the Ottawa Valley has not prospered during the past several years to the same extent as have other areas in Canada. In fact, the upper Ottawa Valley has received so little attention that incentives for growth from either level of government have been next to non-existent. Other people who lived in an area where road accessibility leaves much to be desired, where railway freight rates show no mercy and where regular air passenger transportation is nil, would throw up their hands in hopeless disgust, particularly when they see other parts of Canada witnessing a boom, but while the Ottawa Valley people have been and are now witnessing these situations, they are not by any stretch of the imagination giving up hope. In fact, there is a new spirit abroad in the area. The people have never been afraid of work. They are not afraid of work today nor are they afraid to meet great challenges. All I ask on their behalf is that they be given a fair fighting chance to improve and to promote the growth of their communities.
Give us equalized freight rates and encourage the provincial government of Ontario to improve trans-Canada highway 17 by offering a federal grant toward such a project. Because this route is designated a trans-Canada highway this government has both a moral and a national responsibility to assist in its upkeep, and the provinces concerned not only have the power but also the direct responsibility to co-operate in maintaining those sections of the nation's trans-Canada highway that run through their individual provinces. The people of the Ottawa Valley would be grateful if the Minister of Transport would promote such action.
We have running through our geographic area a river which is one of the largest on the North American continent. Ever since the settlers moved into the upper Ottawa region during the days of the Crimean war to cut timber for the British navy, this river has been used for logging purposes. The Ottawa river and its tributaries [DOT] such as the
[The Chairman.]
Petawawa river have become the graveyard for countless numbers of good logs. Not only has this been a waste of good timber but it has also made these waters a danger zone for boats and swimmers.
A plan must be introduced to promote the cleaning up of these waterways because the Ottawa and its tributaries are becoming more and more important as tourist areas and the local boat traffic is increasing rapidly. Man has received the beauty of nature free of charge. Let us not destroy it at such a high cost.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, two railways run through the Ottawa Valley. Over the years since these railways were built historians have lamented about the lack of business that these lines receive from the Canadian shield. One of our eminent Canadian historians, Professor A.R.M. Lower, whom I am pleased to say I have known personally, describes the geographic area from ten miles north of Pembroke to Winnipeg as a rather barren one so far as rail business is concerned.
A few days ago a group of Liberal members of parliament from these areas met to discuss what they feel is a common problem. Business can be promoted in these areas and attracted to them if we are given equalized freight rates. I know that the other hon. members of the house are quite capable of putting forth ideas on behalf of their own constituencies in northern Ontario. However, I mention this to show that the urgency of this recommendation has considerable support. Even those people who have an elementary knowledge of Canadian history realize that the transcontinental railways were built in Canada not only to weld this nation together, not only for military purposes to maintain law and order on new frontiers, not only to entice geographic areas such as British Columbia to join confederation, but also for the purpose of improving national trade and for the purpose of providing easier access to international markets. Today we have very rapidly growing areas in Canada and we have stagnating areas in Canada. Let us not lose sight of the imagination, of the hopes and of the plans and initiative of generations of people who have contributed greatly to the building and development of our country.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The pioneers of this nation, our ancestors, have provided us with certain tools to continue the job of developing and promoting a
February 14, 1966

Canadian nation that can become the pride of not only the western world but of the world at large. Among these tools of progress are our railways which run through many of our industrially stagnated areas. It seems to be a tradition in Canadian history that the railways be operated with a certain status quo attitude. The attitude seems to be that railways must be operated just like any other business with the profit motive as the first and foremost consideration. But the railways and other important transportation facilities are of crucial importance not only to the general public but to the commercial and industrial sections of our country. They are special services which can and should be used to diversify the industrial and commercial development of Canada. Surely the time is ripe for a new look at railway freight rates in this country and for an over-all review of slow growth areas through which our railways run. Today we hear many complaints about the lack of labour in southwestern Ontario and other prosperous regions. There is nothing wrong with progress so long as that progress is in the right direction.
Are we to continue to expect people to uproot themselves from longstanding family homes in areas such as Renfrew county and more northerly areas of Ontario, cause them to travel to densely populated regions in order to exist and in the process speed up the centralization of our population in a few geographical areas? Surely the pioneers of Canada who were responsible for the construction of transcontinental railways did so with the hope that these services would help to develop Canada from coast to coast and settle the country throughout by spreading people across the nation. We have lost sight of their hopes, their aims and their great imagination if we of the second half of the twentieth century are going to reverse their aims by continuing transportation policies which tend to centralize rather than decentralize the industry and population density of our nation.
The opportunity is before us to promote the widespread development of Canada. What does it matter if we must subsidize our railways to make up the differences during initial stages of a new outlook on freight rates? The development of presently stagnated areas will in time give our railways more work to do and provide them with greater economic stability.
Let us invest some money in the development of stagnated geographical areas in 23033-74
Supply-Transport
Canada. We can do so by reviewing our freight rates and granting concessions. By taking such a course we would be investing in the long run in the progress and growth of our Canadian nation as a whole, not just in part. Let us not demonstrate to a large segment of this country that our thinking is obsolete when it comes to economic national unity. Let us invest money in the security of our Canadian people not only by providing them with social security but also by providing job security and a good living wage for all Canadians.
Let us show a new outlook in area progress. We have the people. Our people have the desire. Give them the opportunity by taking a hard and long look at railway freight rates between the Ottawa Valley and Montreal and from points along this route to the golden horseshoe of the northwest corner and western end of lake Ontario.
The same thing applies to the north. We can talk forever about the rights and privileges of the Canadian people, we can talk forever about the diversification of industry in Canada, we can talk about incentives for development, but unless we do something concrete to correct inequalities of rights and privileges, unless we do something to promote the diversification of industrial development and growth, in short, unless we provide practical incentives which are actually going to improve these situations, then our aims become meaningless. Give us the tools and we will do the job because our hearts are in Canada and our aim is to see her grow to greater nationhood through the vehicle of economic stability which will be brought about by industrial and hence urban diversification.
There has been a suggestion in this house that possibly we need a department of urban affairs. I have great respect for the hon. member who made this suggestion and his point is well taken. However, at this time I should like to offer another solution to urban problems. Let us through the good auspices of the Department of Transport and in other ways through the Department of Industry introduce policies of a kind which will tend to prevent the growth of giant urban octopuses that in turn become almost unmanageable. If you do not have giant urban octopuses then you do not have the problem of looking after them. Two of the major tools we can use to prevent this situation while at the same time creating a strong economic

February 14, 1966
Supply-Transport
base for Canada are good road facilities and lower freight rates for slow growth areas.
It is with these thoughts and sentiments in mind that I am pleading with the Minister of Transport, his colleagues in the cabinet and all members of this house to give the Ottawa valley in particular and northern Ontario in general new hope by reducing the freight rates between the Ottawa valley and Montreal and between this area and the golden horseshoe so that all these places can look forward to greater progress and a greater share in the fruits of the Canadian economy.
I am not one who believes that a rapidly growing economy is dangerous to a country but I am one who believes that it is very unfair, as well as poor economic and social planning when particular areas within a nation are permitted to outgrow their labour supply and create densely populated areas which in turn pose additional problems for government, while other sections of the country are allowed to stagnate or even decline. I want to see a Canada that is continually working toward economic unity and economic equality because these two criteria will create an attitude of mind which will make all people feel that they are indeed a part of the Canadian nation. This in turn will create a strong Canadian nationalistic spirit which will go far toward strengthening confederation.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I urge the Minister of Transport and the government to introduce a downward revision of the freight rates between the Ottawa valley and Montreal, between northern Ontario and southern Ontario including points in the golden horseshoe so that people of the northern areas will be able to take up life anew and get down to the business of bringing greater progress to their regions. I wish to thank the minister for the kind attention he has given me and to assure him that if he takes the initiative in these matters he will be loudly cheered onward by the voices of the Ottawa valley and the north.


Mr. Smallwood:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to spend a little time discussing the railroad situation in western Canada. The Minister of Transport has had many requests made to him. I do not intend to make any requests but I should like to give him a little information which he seems unable to obtain from his colleagues in the government.
The slow movement of grain from the west to the Pacific coast has created a very serious

situation. I say at the outset that the Minister of Finance who is responsible for the Wheat Board has not been doing his job, possibly not because he does not possess the ability but because there are too many other matters which demand his attention. He has let the farmers of western Canada down. Surely the Prime Minister can turn this responsibility over to the Minister of Agriculture. At least he goes out to the west and listens to the farmers' side of the story. We have had a great deal of confusion among the cabinet with respect to the wheat situation. It reminds me of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. The ministers on the front bench have been fiddling and fumbling and the farmers have not been getting their grain to market.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
On Wednesday, February 9 the Minister of Finance was asked a question by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale respecting final payments for grain. As recorded at page 963 of Hansard the hon. member asked this question:
Is the minister in a position now to inform the house if the Canadian Wheat Board is ready to make payments to western farmers, for which there is great need at the present time because of the slow movement of grain on the prairies?
The minister replied:
I do not accept the last part of the statement by the hon. member concerning the movement of grain. In fact, the movement of grain throughout Canada at this time is at a record pace.
I shall place figures on the record to show that one cannot pay any attention to the minister's answers. I have here a letter I received today. It is dated February 10 and I should like to put part of it on the record to show how serious is the situation in western Canada. It is from subdistrict 505 of the Alberta Wheat Pool and it points out that at Strome, Alberta, on the C.P.R. line, where the quota today is three bushels, there is still an estimated 150,000 bushels to be delivered at that point on that quota. They have orders for 42 cars but they cannot get these cars. At Bawlf there is practically the same situation, with orders for 43 cars, and at Daysland the situation is the same. The C.N.R. lines immediately to the north and south have 5 and 6 bushel quotas in comparison with the situation on the C.P.R. line.
The Minister of Agriculture went out to western Canada and when he came back he reported that the C.P.R. was definitely not doing the job in hauling grain. When he returned he, the Minister of Finance and the
February 14, 1966

Minister of Transport had a little meeting with Mr. Emerson, President of the C.P.R., who came down out of his ivory tower in Montreal to meet these ministers. After the meeting the Minister of Finance came out and drove a knife in the back of the poor Minister of Agriculture. He said, "You are misinformed; it is not the C.P.R., it is the port facilities in Vancouver that are the bottleneck". This is very interesting. That was his statement on that occasion.
Today the Minister of Finance was asked a question regarding the movement of grain and he replied that the movement of grain was back to normal. If it is back to normal, then how did they improve the facilities of the port of Vancouver so quickly? I think he just does not know where they are going.
When all this confusion was going on the hon. member for Jasper-Edson and myself made a trip to Vancouver and spent three days at that port. As I have said, the Minister of Finance stated that the Vancouver facilities were not adequate to handle all the grain, that this was the cause of the delay and that the C.P.R. was doing fine. I get a little suspicious when I hear statements like that, especially since C.P.R. shares have risen to $63 from $23 during the last two years. Incidentally, I wonder how many of those people have shares in that private enterprise organization.
After that statement by the Minister of Finance the following telegram was sent to the minister from W. A. Sankey, Secretary Manager of the Vancouver Merchants Exchange:
We strongly protest statements made in the press today wherein you are quoted as agreeing with statement of Mr. Ian Sinclair to the effect that "the real problem is a shortage, not of box cars, but in the shipping facilities at the port of Vancouver,'' and you are quoted as stating that, "Vancouver terminal facilities have not been adequate to handle the kind of shipments that we have had in the last two or three years."
Records show that our facilities with a proper flow of cars have handled 25 million bushels per month. Furthermore at a meeting held January 20th in Vancouver, under the auspices of the Canadian Wheat Board, at which members of that board, terminal elevator operators and railway officials were present, the west coast grain problems were fully discussed and the conclusion reached that the trouble over the last several months has been caused by the failure of the railways to deliver sufficient cars to elevators to meet Canada's export grain commitments, which is an absolute contradiction to statements attributed m the press to yourself and Mr. Sinclair.
The other day the Minister of Transport got up and said it was a few snowbanks
Supply-Transport
which had held up the movement of grain for a week, but it is more serious than that. The hon. member for Jasper-Edson and I spent three days at the port of Vancouver. We had a good reception every place we went. We found that the wheat pool terminal held only
1,300,000	bushels though their elevators were capable of handling 7 million bushels. We also found that the C.P.R. owns all the trackage in front of the pool terminal and elsewhere throughout the harbour. We found that instead of 150 cars a day being brought in, which the elevators were capable of handling, they were lucky if they got 120 cars.
We visited one small terminal that could handle 12 cars a day but the operator was getting only four. We visited a third terminal that could handle 120 cars a day but we found that the operator was not receiving that number of cars from the railroads. He had two tracks in front, each of which would hold 15 cars, but some mornings when he went out he found only four cars spotted on each track.
We visited officials of the harbour board. We thought we should also be polite and courteous to the C.P.R. because every place we went all over the harbour the C.P.R. was criticized. We visited the C.P.R. officials but we were flatly told that Mr. Emerson in Montreal makes all statements. If the minister wants to find out the cause of the holdup in wheat shipments I can tell him it is due to the C.P.R.'s actions in Vancouver.
It is interesting to note that after the minister had blamed the port facilities in Vancouver for not being able to handle the grain there were only 4,223,576 bushels of wheat at the Vancouver terminal as of January 31 last. This covered all grades and the total grain on hand amounted to 11 million bushels even though the port is capable of handling 20 million bushels.
On the day we visited the harbour board there were eight vessels at berth in the harbour. There were two vacant berths because there was no grain available and there were nine vessels waiting to be loaded. I ask the minister if he does not think he has some responsibility to go out there and see what is going on? I do not place all the blame on the Minister of Transport. It should be shared by the Minister of Finance who is responsible for the wheat board.
The Minister of Agriculture went out west and came back with one story. Then there was a meeting with Mr. Emerson following

February 14, 1966
Supply-Transport
which the Minister of Finance came out with his story.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I understand that last week end the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture was appointed as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance and has gone out to see whether he can ascertain what the problem is.
I have some interesting facts with me today regarding the monthly averages of grain loadings at the port of Vancouver. In 1964 the monthly average was something over 17 million bushels and in 1965 it was over 14 million bushels. The largest shipment in 1964 was 22 million bushels whereas the largest shipment in 1965 was only 18 million bushels. The smallest shipment in 1964 was 12 million bushels and the smallest shipment in 1965 was 6 miHion bushels. One can see from these figures that the harbour authorities can handle more grain than they have been handling but the railway companies are not delivering the grain. I suggest that the C.P.R. is the big offender in this regard.
In respect of the railway grain movement it is interesting to note that before 1965 the C.P.R. delivered a greater number of carloads of grain to the Vancouver harbour area than did the C.N.R; yet in the month of November last, the C.P.R. delivered 1,200 fewer cars than the C.N.R. The C.P.R. states that it has not got sufficient motive power but it is strange that they should run out of power so quickly. It is my opinion that they want to rid themselves of their responsibility for providing the "Dominion" passenger service and are using this as an excuse to come before the cabinet now at the expense of western farmers.
I could cite you many examples today of farm machine agencies which have closed their doors because the farmers cannot pay their bills, and all of these agencies are located along C.P.R. lines. The Canadian Pacific Railway is using a fair percentage of its box cars for hauling potash because they receive $6 per ton more than for hauling wheat. Before I complete my remarks today I want to put facts on the record which will indicate the responsibility of the C.P.R. to those people of Canada whom they seem to have forgotten.
The C.P.R. uses the excuse for its rather poor performance that it has not a sufficient number of cars. That is a rather strange excuse when one considers the number of

cars we saw, some empty, some full, sitting on the sidings at Kamloops, North Bend, Ruby Creek, Spence's Bridge, Harrison Mills, Agassiz and Coquitlam.
The C.P.R. is turning over all its assests such as land buildings and so on to the Marathon Realty Company. They have reached the stage when they hope that we will take over the operations of the railroad. The C.P.R. was given the goose that laid the golden egg; they now have the golden egg and they want to give the goose back to the government. Perhaps I may be allowed to mention some of the things we gave the C.P.R. in return for an efficient trans-Canada railroad. I have the document before me and it will only take me a moment to put these considerations on the record.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Those things were all given to the C.P.R. when a Tory government was in power.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: That is exactly correct. That Tory government was more liberal than the Liberals. Had it not been for that Tory government we would not have any trans-Canada railroad in this country or any lines to our north or roads to resources. We would have had no expansion in this country had it not been for the actions of the Tory government.
The federal act which approved the contract between the government and the incorporators of the Canadian Pacific Railway provided that, in consideration of the completion and perpetual and efficient operation of the railway by the company, the company was to and in fact did receive a subsidy of $25 million, the conveyance of 25 million acres of land including all the coal, petroleum and other mineral rights therein, the transfer of certain lines of railway in eastern Canada owned by the government, duty free admission of all steel rails used in the building of the railway and perpetual exemption from taxation by Canada or any province thereafter created, of which Alberta was one. This exemption applied to all stations, station grounds, workshops, buildings, yards and other property on the main line of the railway. It also received subsequent conveyances of vast timber areas on Vancouver island. That was a pretty lush deal for the C.P.R.
Because of its rich endowment by the people of Canada the C.P.R. is now one of the biggest, wealthiest and most influential companies in North America, owning and controlling the largest privately owned railway
February 14, 19G6

line in the world, air lines, steamship lines, trucking lines, thousands of acres of agricultural and timber lands and petroleum, natural gas and other mineral lands as well as a host of subsidiary companies. That is what Canada gave these people who built this railroad, in spite of that Mr. Emerson said following statements by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture. I quote from the Star-Phoenix of January 24, 1966:
The agreement in 1881 between C.P.R. and the federal government, said Mr. Emerson, emphasized that the railway would construct and operate the railway efficiently.
Mr. Emerson is a lawyer and I am just a farmer but he does not fool me by changing the position of the word "efficiently". The original agreement stated that in consideration of the completion and perpetual and efficient operation of the railway by the company the company was to receive the things to which I have made reference. Mr. Emerson has now twisted that around. The company should continue to operate this railroad in an efficient manner and it cannot do so by dropping passenger transportation and failing to haul wheat. The company can derive its profits from its subsidiary operations without creating this serious situation we face in the transportation industry today.
I should like to quote now from an article which appeared in the Western Producer of January 27, 1966 in which Mr. Arnold Platt is reported as having said:
Arnold Platt, representing the Farmers Union of Alberta Co-operatives, told the western agricultural conference here January 21 that nationalization of the Canadian Pacific Railway will eventually take place because the C.P.R. hopes it will.
I am 100 per cent convinced that that is the C.P.R.'s motive. I am a long way from being a socialist, thank heavens, but if that is the game the C.P.R. intends to play in cutting down on service to the Canadian people, then the time has come for the government to take over not only the operations of the railroad but the operations of all its enterprises. If we are going to be given back the goose we also want the golden egg.
I do not think I need to continue my remarks this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I hope I have given the facts in respect of the slowdown of the whole movement of grain to the port of Vancouver. The facilities there are sufficient to handle a greater amount of grain but the C.P.R. is not moving the grain to that area.
Supply-Transport
In closing I should like to quote from Hansard of Wednesday, February 9, page 967, where the Minister of Finance said in answer to a question about grain movement:
-the movement of grain at Vancouver has increased very substantially and is now at an average rate of 600 cars a day.
The movement might well have been 600 cars for one day but when we were at Vancouver nine days before on January 31 the average was 450 cars per day. However, if the facilities are sufficient to handle 600 cars per day the railway should move that many. The Minister of Finance is absolutely wrong in blaming the slowdown on port facilities, because he now says the operations are up to normal and I am sure there has been no work done on those facilities since his original statement was made.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
It is time the minister looked into the operations of Canadian Pacific Railway regarding the movement of grain from western Canada. He has completely failed us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might be permitted to say a few words on this subject before anyone else speaks in view of the very important topic upon which the hon. gentleman has just been speaking. Perhaps I was clairvoyant but I did guess that the subject of grain movement would arise this afternoon.


An hon. Member:: You must have a crystal ball.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I thought it would be a good idea if I gave the committee an up to date report on this subject. Perhaps I should have done it before the hon. gentleman spoke but I think it would be helpful to the committee if I gave a report, which was prepared for me this morning, with regard to the export grain position at west coast ports as it stood on Saturday, February 12. Then in discussing this matter we will have the most up to date information that is available to the government.
I know that a number of hon. members would be quite interested in this information, and with your permission, sir, I shall read quite slowly.
Since the beginning of the year there has been a marked improvement in the daily average of cars of grain loaded for west coast ports, Vancouver, New Westminster, Victoria and Prince Rupert, and of the number of cars unloaded at those ports, as the following table

February 14, 1966
Supply-Transport
shows. This table covers cars of grain, daily average: For the week ended January 8, cars loaded for west coast ports, 381; unloaded at west coast ports, 338. That was the week, of course, that was affected by avalanches.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Is the minister speaking about Vancouver or all the west coast ports?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking of all the
west coast ports. For the week ended January 8, as I said, the number of cars loaded on the prairies for the west coast ports was 381 and the number unloaded at west coast ports was 338. In the following week, January 15, 400 were unloaded and 442 unloaded; for the week ended January 22, 474 loaded and 524 unloaded; for the week ended January 29, 425 loaded and 554 unloaded; for the week ended February 5, 466 loaded and 630 unloaded; for the week ended February 12, 599 loaded and 642 unloaded.
I should say that the loaded figure for the week ended February 12 was based on the assumption that the whole week would be the same as the first four days, so that it might not turn out to be exactly 599. However, the unloaded figure of 642 is for the whole week.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Does that figure of 642 relate to all the west coast ports? It is not just for Vancouver, is it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not just for Vancouver but it is mainly Vancouver.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Vancouver is capable of unloading 600 cars alone if they can get them spotted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As hon. members know, most of these cars go to Vancouver. During this period 95 per cent of all cars loaded-this is exactly the point the hon. gentleman was making-were destined for the Vancouver area, that is to say, Vancouver, New Westminster and Victoria. That would mean about 5 per cent for Prince Rupert.
With regard to the vessel situation, Mr. Riddel, the recently appointed chairman of the Pacific Grain Transportation Committee, made this report on February 9. This has to do with ships.
"The vessel situation is still quite disturbing, with 27 in port in the Vancouver area and 1 at Prince Rupert. Of the 28 vessels, 11 are loading, 12 have passed and are waiting to load, and the remaining 5 are discharging cargo or are fitting. With two exceptions all the vessels are to load full cargoes, the largest one 43,000 tons or approximately 1,600,000 bushels of wheat equivalent. This is a particularly large vessel and is taking a mixed cargo. I expect that it will clear this week

along with another 5 of the vessels presently loading. With higher unloads being maintained, I would anticipate more expeditions loading of vessels from now on and I look for an improvement in the vessel situation by the end of next week."
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I could add one more sentence that I think is of some importance in view of what the hon. gentleman said. It is quite true that there have been no physical improvements in Vancouver since the hon. gentleman was there, but I do think there has been one improvement made on the initiative of my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, which has been quite important. I refer to his invitation to Mr. Riddel, who recently retired from the Wheat Board, to go to Vancouver and take over the chairmanship of a co-ordinating committee on which the wheat board, the railways, the port authorities, the terminals and all interested in the movement of wheat in the port of Vancouver are represented. They meet every day to view the situation and clear up any bottlenecks that exist. That was done at the head of the lakes from late August or early September until the close of navigation and it did help to improve the situation there.
I have no doubt that with one person really keeping his eye on this situation and on nothing else there will continue to be this improved movement. At the same time I think we all have to recognize the fact, as I said late on Friday, that neither the railways nor anyone else had foreseen the extent or the magnitude of the traffic that the railways and all other carriers have been required to carry in Canada in the last year and are still being required to carry. You just cannot create box cars overnight if they do not exist. The only immediate way of helping the situation is, of course, by making the most efficient possible use of them. I quite agree with the hon. gentleman that we must do everything we can from that point of view. But I think the railways and everybody else concerned with the movement of traffic in Canada have probably got to think a little bigger than any of us have in the past if we are to keep up with the growth of the country.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Thomas Miller Bell: Has the minister any figures with regard to the east coast just so we will not lose sight of this part of Canada? Tomorrow will be fine if he has not the figures today.
February 14, 1966


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope to have them this afternoon so we may conclude these estimates this evening-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and give my colleagues a chance to enjoy this atmosphere.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the minister realize that during the question period he invited two more hon. members to speak this afternoon on his estimates?


Michael Starr: Every time the minister makes a speech he brings on four more speakers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am overcome, Mr. Chairman.


Michael Starr: You overcome yourself.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, the scope of this department and the far reaching effects which its decisions or lack of decision and lack of policy have on every citizen of Canada are so important that I think the minister is dreaming if he really believes that the unsatisfactory answers members of this house have received up till today will permit his estimates to pass today, tomorrow or even on Wednesday. If there is one thing that is obvious it is that this government has no policy with regard to transportation. Here is a department which should be administering the railways, steamships, air services and communication systems of this country in addition to the Atlantic Development Board and organizations such as the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority; yet in every field this government has procrastinated, ignored requests and refused to make decisions which are of vital importance to every part of this country. So great has been their lack of leadership in this regard that the morale of people working on the railways is so low

I think I can speak of this with some knowledge, representing as I do probably as many railway workers as any other member of parliament-that I want to warn the minister that in my opinion, on the basis of what I have been able to ascertain, there will be a strike on the railways of this country this year.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I do not know whether or not negotiations will proceed to the point where a strike will be legal. However, if the Canadian Pacific, which is being allowed to do anything and everything it wants to do by the government and the Board of Transport Commissioners, is
Supply-Transport
permitted to continue in its arrogant way as it did with the "Dominion", if it is permitted to continue making unilateral decisions as it did about the pension fund, if it is permitted to continue to steal from the pension fund, then I want to warn the minister, Mr. Chairman, that there will be a strike this year, the consequences of which none of us can estimate.
Before I deal with the Canadian Pacific I want to spend just a few moments on a subject which has united the people of my city of Winnipeg and of my province of Manitoba as no issue of which I am aware has done for the last 25 years. Here is an issue on which party division no longer exists. Here is an issue on which both newspapers, one a long time 100 per cent supporter of the Liberal Party, the Winnipeg Free Press, and the other, the Winnipeg Tribune, a Conservative newspaper, are completely united.
I refer, of course Mr. Chairman, to the complete failure of this government and this minister to evolve policies with regard to air transport which are acceptable to the people of Manitoba. It is not my intention to debate this subject at length today. I want to tell the minister that when the estimates of his department go before the transport committee and the President of Air Canada comes before that committee, the President should be prepared to spend a long time in Ottawa rather than in his office in Montreal. I know other members are interested in the same subject. It is obvious that the President of Air Canada lied to the people of Winnipeg, lied to the government and the former government about his intention with regard to the air base in Winnipeg. He continued to lie and he continued to ignore the policies laid down by the Prime Minister and the former minister of transport in this government and I presume, although he has not had very much to say publicly, by the present Minister of Transport.
In February, 1949, Mr. Gordon McGregor, President of the then Trans-Canada Air Lines, announced that 155 persons in the operations and administration staff of Trans-Canada Air Lines, which at that time had its head office in Winnipeg, would be transferred to Montreal. He made this statement:
There is no conceivable reason, nor any grounds for suspicion, that this move marks the beginning of a mass transfer of T.C.A. activities from Winnipeg to Montreal.
Since that date in 1949 not a year has gone by but another department of Air Canada, as

February 14. 1966
Supply-Transport
it is now known, has been transferred from Winnipeg. I believe the present Minister of Transport knows that any number of representations have been made to the present government and were made to the former government about this matter and more recently about the transfer of the repair base.
Not only did Liberal candidates, not only did Liberal newspapers, promise that this government would take action, but the Prime Minister said on November 22, 1963, in this house:
For at least as far ahead as planning now extends, that is at least ten years, the Winnipeg facilities will continue to be used.
My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked on that day whether the facilities would not be nibbled away as had been the case during the last few years. The Prime Minister interjected to say:
It may be increased.
The former minister of transport stated:
I would hope it would be maintained and probably increased, but I cannot be precise on the matter at the moment.
The government appointed one man, a very competent person from Winnipeg, Mr. Thompson, to make inquiries into what should be done. I do not know why that report is not yet available. However, I want to tell the minister that if it is not available shortly and if the minister does not take some action quickly, the whole matter will be academic because the fact is that Mr. McGregor has continued to ignore the statement of policy made by the Prime Minister from the day it was made. Long service employees of Air Canada, from the day the Prime Minister made that statement of policy, have confined to be transferred from Winnipeg to Montreal. The result is that there are now many more people working at the base in Winnipeg who are temporary employees, in other words, they are new employees, while people with 10 or 15 years of service with Air Canada have been transferred to Montreal.
I want to say that I have never seen such arrogance, such complete repudiation of government policy by a civil servant as has been exhibited by Mr. McGregor. I want to say to the minister that if he does not intend to take any action, and it does not seem to me he has taken any action, Mr. McGregor will have a somewhat difficult time when he comes before the committee.
At the time of the discussion of the decimation of the base in Winnipeg the government

promised it would adopt other policies to make Winnipeg a regional air centre. Recently the government of Canada concluded an agreement with the government of the United States with regard to air routes. One would have expected, in the light of the promises made by the Prime Minister and by successive ministers of transport, that consideration would have been given to helping Winnipeg make up the loss of the repair base by increasing the air routes which are used to fly into and out of Winnipeg. The exact opposite is true. The new air routes agreement between Canada and the United States makes no provision for increased flights from Winnipeg to the United States.
The Winnipeg Free Press said in an editorial of January 3, 1966, which I commend to the minister because I am sure he has been a lot friendlier to them than I have been, but I do not know how he will feel after he reads what they are saying about his policies:
The new air route agreement between Canada and the United States is a bitter disappointment to western Canada and confirms what many people feared would happen during the two-year negotiations: The American carriers have been far more successful in putting spine into their government's negotiators than have their opposite numbers in Canada.
I should like to interject that I do not believe it is possible to put spine into this government or into this minister. One would have hoped that, as an old resident of Manitoba and coming from a have-not province as he does, he would have given some consideration to a have-not province like Manitoba. The consideration, I feel, has been virtually nil. The editorial continues:
From the west's standpoint the agreement Is a total loss. In the whole vast region between Toronto and the Pacific coast not a single Canadian air line will be permitted to offer trans-border services. Even at the west coast the only gain will be a competitive service between Vancouver and San Francisco-presumably to be awarded to Canadian Pacific-and in return for this an American air line is to have a monopoly on the Vancouver-Los Angeles run.
Failure of the Canadian negotiators to obtain a Winnipeg-Chicago franchise means that the revolutionary criterion suggested by Professor J. K. Galbraith in his report to the two governments two years ago-that convenience of the travelling public be the principal consideration of allocating routes-has been almost completely ignored. Western travellers wishing to go to Chicago will continue to have to double-back from Toronto or else patronize the milk-run, many-stop service offered by an American carrier via Minneapolis.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to be factually inaccurate
February 14. 1966

and that last sentence, of course, is factually inaccurate. The new air agreement provides for a direct flight to Minneapolis, not for the kind of milk run route that there has been in the past. That was not recognized in the editorial.


David Orlikow: I accept the minister's correction but I was quoting the editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press. In any case, the minister, having lived in Manitoba for a long time, should know there is a vast difference between flying direct from Winnipeg to Chicago and flying from Winnipeg to Chicago with a stop at Minneapolis. It may not be as bad as making three or four stops but it is not a direct flight.
I think I have indicated in these few remarks with regard to air routes and policy sufficient to show how dissatisfied are the people of Manitoba with the state of affairs. I suggest to the minister that, unless this government mends its ways, when the next election takes place the Minister of Veterans Affairs will cease to be the only Liberal member from Manitoba.
Having dealt with air routes I should like the minister to look at a matter which is of tremendous importance to the people of my city and the people of Canada as a whole, namely, the failure of this government to control the completely unmanageable and insatiable appetite for profits of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I wish the Minister of Transport had been able to make that quick trip through western Canada which the Minister of Agriculture was able to make. It is true that the views of the Minister of Agriculture which were expressed in western Canada did not stand up very long when he got into a room with the present Minister of Transport, the Minister of Finance, and their good friend, the President of the C.P.R.
I should just like to put on the record a few of the things which the Minister of Agriculture had to say, ideas which were greeted with a great deal of satisfaction by the people of western Canada regardless of their politics and will not be forgotten. The lack of action to implement the things which the Minister of Agriculture said will not be forgotten either.
I should like to quote from a report by Joyce Fairburn of something the Minister of Agriculture said, as found in the Winnipeg Free Press of January 13, 1966. What the minister said is in direct quotes.
"I have no sympathy with the (C.P.R.) attitude that we can make more dollars by abandoning 23033-75
Supply-Transport
rail lines and renting box cars to the United States because we are a private corporation and we can do as we like".
Later he said:
"That public duty"-
I presume he is talking about the C.P.R.
[DOT]-"did not stop in 1867 and it has not stopped now"-
"The C.P.R. should give us certain of its amenities such as oil before calling 'profits first and public rights later'," said Mr. Greene.
What are these obligations, Mr. Chairman, which the C.P.R. undertook? The C.P.R. made an agreement with the government of Canada which was signed on October 21, 1880. They undertook by paragraph 7 of the agreement to do this:
-and the Company shall thereafter and forever efficiently maintain, work and run the Canadian Pacific Railway.
The attitude of the C.P.R., as expressed in its testimony before the Board of Transport Commissioners, is that "efficiently" means efficiently for the C.P.R., that it means profits for the C.P.R. I do not know whether the C.P.R. has ever made a request to the Board of Transport Commissioners which has not been agreed to by the Board of Transport Commissioners. I suggest to the minister that we ought to stop paying the salaries and expenses of the Board of Transport Commissioners. The place for that board is in Windsor Station. Let the C.P.R. pay their salaries because they are acting as office boys for the C.P.R.
When the government of the day made an agreement with the C.P.R. under which the C.P.R. undertook to supply efficient service across Canada they were given certain grants. I should like to put on the record what the C.P.R. were given. The President of the C.P.R. probably has more gall than any person in Canada. Among the speeches he made last year was one to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in June which was reported in the Ottawa Citizen for June 7, 1965. I should like to read a couple of paragraphs from their report:
R. A. Emerson, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, told the 1,600 delegates of the CMA that governments-federal and provincial-have overstepped their primary purpose of providing public services.
If there ever was an organization that would not provide public service, it is the C.P.R. The article continues later in this way:
Mr. Emerson said that the primary role of government in the economic life of the nation was to provide only those services which were not

February 14, 1966
Supply-Transport
suited to private enterprise, such as the handling of mail, provision for roads and streets, and public education.
Well, Mr. Chairman, no company could do less to meet the needs it is supposed to meet than the C.P.R. It is interesting to note that the C.P.R. has consistently refused to tell the public of Canada about its business. As so often happens, one has to go to the United States for information. The C.P.R., in order to meet the requirements of United States law, Canadian law being so deficient in this respect, filed information about its operations with the securities and exchange commission of the United States. In addition to other information they supplied the following which I think should be of interest to the minister and members of the house. C.P.R. President R. A. Emerson, along with the chairman of the board, Mr. N. R. Crump, and the vice president, Mr. Ian Sinclair, earned by way of salary in 1964 an aggregate of $253,592 from the C.P.R. There is no poverty for the heads of the C.P.R.; they are looking after themselves very well.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
What did the government of Canada give to the promoters of the C.P.R. in order to get this efficient service which the C.P.R. was to provide by way of transportation? As of December 31, 1963 the C.P.R. had been granted a total of $106 million and 44 million acres of land by federal, provincial and municipal governments. This can be broken down as follows: Monetary aid-federal cash subsidies, $53,320,028; expenditures by the federal government on lines turned over to the C.P.R., $35,117,152. This makes a total of $88,437,180. The C.P.R. also received in provincial aid $12,582,000 and in municipal aid $5,261,000, for a grand total of $106 million.
In land grants they received from the federal government almost 33 million acres and from the provincial governments 11,-
122,000	acres, for a total of over 44 million acres of land. Mr. Chairman, the government land grants have been and continue to be a source of tremendous capital gains to the C.P.R. The true worth of these lands is not reflected in the company balance sheet. The balance sheet of the company lists an item of unsold lands and properties at a value of $9 million. That this is ridiculously low may be seen from the fact that in 1963 and 1964 the company realized $26.3 million and $64.2 million respectively from sales of land. A con-

servative appraisal of the value of land grants to the C.P.R. is $440 million in total.
These figures have been taken from the Canadian Pacific's annual reports and can be expanded at a later date. The point I wish to make is that this country has been extremely good to the Canadian Pacific, but what we have had in return is a complete failure on the part of the present directors to give any consideration to the needs of the people of the country. That this has become the feeling of the people of Canada may be seen if one looks at a resolution passed on January 25, 1966, by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which is not known as being a particular radical organization. The resolution is headed: Nationalization Of Canadian Pacific Railway. It reads:
Resolved that we recommend that the Canadian Pacific Railway lines and necessary operating equipment be nationalized: assets to be taken over by the Dominion of Canada, at actual value less a reasonable amount for all land grants, mineral rights, and other concessions received by the Canadian Pacific Railway from the Dominion of Canada.
It is obvious why this resolution has been passed. The Canadian Pacific obviously has decided that it does not need to try to meet the needs of the people of Canada. Furthermore, it is obvious that the Board of Transport Commissioners will do nothing to make them live up to their obligations. May I point out that I have read the decision of the Board of Transport Commissioners regarding the "Dominion". Representations were made to the board on this matter by representatives of the Canadian Pacific's workers. Representations were made by the four western provinces. These representations were ignored completely by the Board of Transport Commissioners. The only thing which concerned the Board of Transport Commissioners was the fact that this one operation was losing money. It seems to me that if this is all that counts we are saying in effect that this company can do no wrong. When they lose money we will let them discontinue the run or we will give them a subsidy. When they make money it does not concern us. Therefore, heads they win; tails we lose.
Not only was the Board of Transport Commissioners not satisfied with making that disgraceful decision but they added insult to injury the other day when they issued another decision saying that the Canadian Pacific did not have to put the "Dominion" back into operation next summer. The fact that the railways are extremely busy in the summer
February 14, 196S

with the tourist trade and the fact that this country is engaged in a continuing drive to attract United States tourists to come here and that those tourists may come by railway is of not consequence to the Canadian Pacific. It obviously is of even less consequence to the Board of Transport Commissioners. It would seem to me to be a good idea for the government to consider wiping out the Board of Transport Commissioners as now constituted and setting up in its place a real transportation board with personnel and staff who desire to do the job which the present board, and this government today have not even considered.
I want to talk about one other matter, Mr. Chairman, which is of tremendous importance to the people who work for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I refer to the unilateral decision of the C.P.R. to change the basic structure of its pension plan. I submit that the whole concept-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman and I have not shown any inclination to take any narrow exception to anything he has said. However, it does appear to me that this question of pensions in respect of the Canadian Pacific is something which even by the widest stretch of administrative imagination would fall outside my responsibilities. If the hon. gentleman wishes to speak on this subject he should do so when the estimates of the minister responsible for this matter are before the committee.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few minutes left. It really does not matter whether I speak on this matter on the estimates of the Minister of Transport or on some other minister's estimates. I wish to warn the minister and the government, however, that there is great dissatisfaction with the arrogant, unilateral decision made by the Canadian Pacific and I want to reiterate what I said at the beginning, that unless this issue is resolved and resolved in the near future there will be a stoppage, legal or illegal, of the services of the Canadian Pacific. I think that this matter is of such importance that it should be raised now. I and other members of parliament have enough information, I think, that if the minister does not know the situation we can give him the facts so that he and his colleagues can go to work on it. It does not matter to me, Mr. Chairman, because I can wait. The
23033-75J
Supply-Transport
minister and the government will have to take the responsibility when the stoppage which I predict will take place does take place. It will be because this company has made unilateral decisions and has ignored and flouted the desires of its employees in such a way that no self-respecting employee in a democratic society can possibly accept them.
I will bow to the suggestion of the Minister of Transport and go on to something which I think should be discussed. I spoke a few days ago-


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take, as is my right under the rules, exception to one statement and one statement only that I understood the hon. gentleman to make. I understood the hon. gentleman to say that Mr. McGregor had lied to me. I do not believe that Mr. McGregor has lied to me. I have not the slightest vestige of evidence for this statement and I do not think it would be fair to Mr. McGregor to leave it on the record.


David Orlikow: I do not want to continue the debate, Mr. Chairman. If the minister makes the statement that Mr. McGregor has not lied to him, then of course I will accept that. I said that Mr. McGregor lied to former ministers of transport. If he is not lying to this minister I am quite happy, but I retract nothing-


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I regret to interrupt but the time allotted to the hon. member has expired.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Scott:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that after a member ceases to speak in committee and another member intervenes in the debate the member who has been interrupted may continue. If he wishes he can go on for another 30 minutes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He has to be recognized.


Edward Nasserden: I think the hon. member should not refer to somebody else as lying or as a liar and repeat it two or three times before the committee when the person involved is in no position to protect himself, not being a member of the house.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That is typical of the N.D.P.

February 14, 1966
Supp ly-Transport


Maurice Rinfret: I did not recognize the hon. member and the time allotted for his speech has elapsed. I recognize the hon. member for Coast-Capilano.


Mr. Davis:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about the development of the port of Vancouver. I should like to urge the government and the harbours board to press on with their imaginative plans for the development of this port. Meanwhile I would ask the minister and hon. members to ignore some of the criticisms which have been directed against the manner in which the port of Vancouver is operated. I am referring in particular to comments made by certain provincial cabinet ministers in British Columbia.
At the outset I would emphasize the importance of the port of Vancouver. If it is not yet it will soon be the busiest, most productive and most efficient port in this country. As some hon. members have said, it is the busiest port on the west coast of North America. It is busier than Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Francisco and Seattle combined. It is moving more than 20 million tons of cargo this year. The largest port in the world, the port of London, is moving cargos of the order of 60 million tons. In other words, Vancouver already looms large on the world scale. Vancouver is gaining on Montreal. By 1967 or 1968 Vancouver will probably become Canada's busiest and most important port. I have drawn this quick comparison with Montreal because I wish to make certain other comparisons using figures I have extracted from reports of the National Harbours Board. First of all, speaking as a British Columbian I want to say that we in the west do not want to miss out on anything. We are out on the end of a long limb, and we do at times feel we are left out of things-that we should speak out more often and more effectively, particularly in parliament and other places in eastern Canada, in order to get our fair share of federal assistance with respect to national development and expenditure by the harbours board. People out west, in other words, think of the port of Vancouver as being a sort of Cinderella. Her governess has other daughters in eastern Canada of greater age. Though less attractive they have been able, year after year, to get more attention than Vancouver, the Cinderella among our ports.
Here are a few figures to emphasize the point I am making. The capital assets of the port of Montreal are now of the order of $188

million. This figure is taken from the last published report of the National Harbours Board. The capital assets of Vancouver amount to about $58 million. In other words, there has been three times as much invested over the years in Montreal as in Vancouver although, as I have mentioned, the tonnage moved by the two ports is now comparable. From 1956 to 1964 investment in Montreal has been about six times as great as investment in Vancouver. I am speaking, of course, of investment by the National Harbours Board. In other words, despite the comparability of the tonnage moved there has been a much heavier investment by the nation in the port of Montreal and an increasingly heavy bias toward Montreal a bias which I believe is about to be corrected and will be further corrected in the years ahead.
I have looked over the estimates for the current fiscal year. I have glanced too at the estimates tabled today for the year ending March 31, 1967. As I looked over the details on page 517 under the heading "Department of Transport-National Harbours Board" I saw many ports listed as receiving capital assistance toward construction, acquisition of buildings, equipment and so on. I saw reference to such ports as Halifax, Saint John, Quebec and Churchill. These are all ports which will receive investment capital during the coming fiscal year in sums totalling more than $5 million. This money will come out of the general revenue of Canada.
I noticed specifically reference to the area of Montreal. The estimates for 1966-67 also include $544,000 for Expo '67. This year I believe this figure is in the order of $4.8 million. Another item is the Jacques Cartier bridge deficit, $328,000, also paid through the National Harbours Board. These are all items which involve the expenditure of taxpayers' money. They involve taxes which have to be collected currently in order to meet losses in these harbours of eastern Canada.
What were these losses? At Saint John the total was $1.1 millions, at Halifax, $442,000, at Quebec, $700,000, at Montreal, $1 million, at Churchill, $336,000. These figures are for 1964 as reported by the National Harbours Board. But the port of Vancouver, as is typical, made a profit, last year amounting to about $1,500,000. So we have in Vancouver a harbour which handles a volume of shipping comparable with Montreal. It does this on the basis of a federal investment one third of that invested in Montreal. It is a harbour
February 14, 1966

which earns a profit whereas the port of Montreal loses money.
I would suggest that the funds amounting to nearly $20 million which have been accumulated to the credit of the port of Vancouver and put away in Canada Savings Bonds should be invested in new facilities around Vancouver at an increasing tempo. I know that the harbours board in Vancouver has a program providing for the investment of $5 million this year. But I suggest this tempo should be doubled and that an investment in the order of $10 million a year be made for the next five or six years in order to reinforce success.
Vancouver is an efficient harbour. There is no need there for continuous dredging. It does not have a pollution problem like that which the port of Montreal faces. It is thoroughly profitable and it is well run. I should like to underline this fact. The credit balance which has been developing over the years speaks well for the management in Vancouver. Personally I have only the highest praise for the chairman of the board. Mr. Howard Mann is, I think, a perceptive man; he looks a long way ahead. I should also like to congratulate the local port manager, Captain Barney Johnson, who runs a very tight ship. But we still need more imagination, a bolder approach, a more outward-going attitude. I have no doubt that the funds which have been accumulated by Vancouver could earn far more than 4 or 5 per cent. I am confident there are investments to be made in Vancouver itself which will earn 10, 15 or even 20 per cent. Evidence of this can readily be found in the activities of private enterprise in the area.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The harbours board occupies about one third of the waterfront. The remaining two thirds are occupied partly by Indian lands and partly by private corporations. Those corporations have recently been building bulk terminals. Two have already been completed. Both are being expanded and a third very large one will soon be announced for construction on the north shore in my riding. There is also another new grain elevator there. Developments are forging ahead in terms of tens of millions of dollars in investment, and these firms are raising money in competition with other parts of Canada, money on which returns of 10 per cent, 15 per cent or 20 per cent are envisaged.
Supply-Transport
I suggest that the National Harbours Board would do well to match private enterprise development in that area rather than nurse Vancouver along as has been done with some eastern ports. We should do our best through the National Harbours Board to make a complete success of a port which serves all of western Canada, which serves at least a quarter of the people of this country and which serves many industries based on our national resources, be they forest, mineral, agricultural or otherwise.
I should like now to say something briefly about the rates levied in the various harbours across Canada. It has been charged by the minister of industry and commerce of the province of British Columbia specifically that the port rates in Vancouver are three times those in Montreal. This is nonsense. He or certainly his staff, by going carefully through the annual reports of the National Harbours Board, could have found out to the contrary. The facts are essentially that the rates are comparable.
I have made a rough attempt to arrive at figures by summarizing the various charges which have to do with wharfage, docking and dry cargo handling charges, and I came to the conclusion that the average income of the National Harbours Board per ton in Vancouver is of the order of 23 cents and in the port of Montreal is of the order of 26 cents. So in an over-all and very general way the cost is somewhat lower in the port of Vancouver. In other words, the rates are somewhat less there.
I asked for an example of the berthing charges and the National Harbours Board has given me an example indicating again that the berthing charges are less in Vancouver. They tell me that a modern vessel, 550 feet long and of 13,950 net registered tons, in berth from 8 a.m. on Monday morning until 4 p.m. on Friday, would pay $726.70 in Vancouver and in Montreal it would pay $1,778.63 or more than twice as much.
Again I should like to stress that there is a good reason why costs and charges in Vancouver should be less. We have a large harbour provided by nature for the convenience of man. We do not have to spend a lot of money to create such a harbour. In Montreal they are fighting against nature. They are fighting a river. They are fighting low temperatures in wintertime and at the moment at least, they are also fighting; municipalities which have not made adequate:

February 14, 1966
Supply-Transport
arrangements to look after their own pollution problem.
I should like to compare very briefly the charges on the United States west coast with those in Vancouver. Generally speaking they are 15 to 25 per cent higher. In other words, the port of Vancouver levies rates similar to those charged in Montreal and lower rates than those charged on the west coast of the United States. Therefore I do not think we need bow our heads or apologize in any way for the manner in which charges are levied in Vancouver harbour.
I should now like to say a word about forward planning. I have mentioned that the National Harbours Board in Vancouver occupies about a third of the waterfront, that private enterprise occupies a large area, and that increasingly Indian lands are being leased to private corporations for bulk loading plants, new grain elevators and the like. Up to about three years ago the port authority in Vancouver by and large went its own way, and while it endeavoured to answer inquiries from the neighbouring municipalities around the Vancouver area it did this on an ad hoc basis. Its relations with the railways and the various other companies were also on a piecemeal basis.
Then it was decided that we should have more information on the long-term plans, not just of the harbours board, but of the other operators around the harbour, including the much maligned C.P.R., the C.N.R. and so on. After a number of meetings we managed to set up-this was done under the former minister of transport, now Minister of Public Works-the port of Vancouver development committee.
I will briefly run over its terms of reference:
1.	To ensure the preparation and periodic revision of short and long-range development plans for the port of Vancouver, with estimate of capital requirements and economic feasibility.
2.	To ensure that such plans, when endorsed by it, shall be brought to the attention of the public and that appropriate action be taken by the various interests concerned.
3.	To ascertain and advise on priorities for specific projects within the context of such development plans.
4.	To provide a continuing means of liaison between the various economic interests of the port area and the port administration, with respect to both short and long range plans.
The membership of that committee includes the shipping interests, such as the Vancouver Chamber of Shipping, the Vancouver Merchants' Exchange, the railway

companies, the trucking companies, the B.C. Wharf Operators' Association, the B.C. Terminal Elevator Operators' Association, the Vancouver Board of Trade, the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce, the city of Vancouver, the city of North Vancouver, the city of Port Moody, the district of north Vancouver, the district of West Vancouver, the corporation and district of Burnaby and the National Harbours Board. There is also a labour delegate and the National Harbours Board has one representative on the committee of 16.
This port development committee has a budget. The budget is provided under one of the votes of the National Harbours Board. An executive secretary has been appointed together with a small staff, and a number of studies have been commissioned with consulting and other firms. The several studies now under way include a hydraulic model of the harbour to see what dredging, breakwater installations, dock installations and, even causeways might do to the harbour. Another project is a land inventory all around the harbour which will provide a comprehensive review of existing developments, developments under way and others that may be undertaken. A third project is the preparation of a long-term forecast of the traffic volume covering the nature of traffic and how it might ideally be served in terms of new facilities. The committee is also advising, although it does not have the last word, both the minister and the National Harbours Board with respect to the purchase of land for port development projects.
The port development committee is performing a very important function in that it is bringing the most knowledgeable people in the port area together and giving them a forum in which they can table their plans for the future. It gives those on the committee an opportunity to discuss individual plans, and the committee can publish reports on these plans. This it has an opportunity to do on an annual basis. It gives members of the public frequent opportunities to express their reactions to plans and revise their plans so that they are looking ahead in concert with one another.
I should now like to make a protest in this connection. The C.N.R., of course, does a great deal of business in and through the port of Vancouver. About a year ago, out of the blue so to speak, the C.N.R. chose to announce the construction of a tunnel and
February 14, 1966



bridge leading across to the north shore from Vancouver. As a representative of the north shore in parliament I am all for this tunnel and bridge concept. It is long overdue. But certainly a plan of this type should have been brought before and discussed with the port of Vancouver development committee before it was announced in all its detail to the press and public at large.
I think the C.N.R. would do well to co-operate effectively in every way with a consultative agency of the federal government like this port committee, a committee which I am convinced will assist in efficient long-term planning, one which will permit the public and certainly members of parliament like myself and others to understand what developments are under way in the port of Vancouver and what corrective action can be taken in the event of difficulties.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The C.N.R. is in process of building a tunnel costing about $12 million and a bridge costing about $9 million which will reach across to North Vancouver. This will for the first time give the C.N.R. access to the port of Vancouver in its own right without having to go over the rails of the C.P.R. The C.N.R. will have secure operations on the north shore in Vancouver. The C.P.R., as many members know, dominates the south shore. Some individuals have been critical of the fact that the C.P.R. appears to be a vested interest, very difficult to move at times, dominating the south shore. The C.N.R. has a great opportunity to serve the north shore giving proper access to adequate depths of water and so on. The length of the coastline, I can assure you, is just as good in this respect. Soon we will have our two national railways reaching tidewater in the port of Vancouver with their own rail access directly to ocean shipping. These operations will be fully effective within two or three years' time.
I would not refer to highway bridges except for the fact that the federal government, in so far as the port of Vancouver is concerned, has not paid one red cent for highway bridges across Vancouver harbour. There has been some argument about the Second Narrows bridge, but the First Narrows bridge was built by private enterprise and taken over by the government of British Columbia some years ago. The government of British Columbia began to build the Second Narrows bridge in 1957 as a toll bridge. Toll bridges are precluded from being part of the trans-Canada highway by definition. The province of British Columbia, with full knowledge of
Supply-Transport
the consequences of its action decided to build this six lane bridge as a toll bridge and make it self-liquidating. That was the businesslike thing to do in the eyes of that government and it did it. This prevented the federal government forever, unless the Trans-Canada Highway Act is changed, from participating in the financing of that bridge even though it is an integral, physical part of the trans-Canada highway.
I mention this fact because in looking at the reports of the National Harbours Board-I am looking more specifically at the latest one for the year 1964-after the usual accounting of assets and liabilities I find a statement in respect of the profit and loss of the Montreal harbour operation. This shows the annual loss as $1 million. 1 find that the following page deals with the Jacques Cartier bridge at Montreal. It was operated at one time as a toll bridge but the previous government removed the tolls just prior to the 1962 election. These tolls were removed when that bridge was still a long way from being paid for, so the Canadian taxpayers must foot the bill for that bridge with a book value of $24 million and a net loss for 1964 of $683,239.
The next page deals with the Champlain bridge which has an asset book value of $37 million and had a net loss of $1,713,471 for the year 1964. So wrapped up in the Montreal situation so far as the federal taxpayer is concerned is not only the loss of $1 million on the harbour itself but a loss in respect of bridges totalling close to $2,500,000 per year.
We need another crossing over the harbour of Vancouver. One of these days we are going to have to come to the federal authority, if only because the National Harbours Board has a veto in respect of where such a bridge can be located. It must be located in such a way that it will not hamper ships moving in and out of the harbour. It must also be located so that waterfront development is optimum from the point of view of having the right facilities in the right places. I hope and trust that the federal government will participate in the financing of such a crossing and I hope and trust that we will be able to arrange, with the original impetus coming from the province of British Columbia, for a freeway development through the downtown area of the city of Vancouver, with federal assistance for an urban renewal program and so on. With assistance from the National Harbours Board in respect of a freeway development

February 14, 1966
Supp ly-Transport
we will begin to solve our other surface transportation problems as well.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word about a passenger terminal and by that I mean a terminal for ocean-going passengers. Vancouver has been used for decades by large passenger ships. Ships currently on world tours still come into the port of Vancouver. They come there to woefully inadequate facilities, ancient facilities, second rate facilities which certainly do not show Vancouver to its full advantage. These facilities are owned by the C.P.R. which loses money in their operation. It could use the same dock space for handling dry cargo and realize another $100,000 per year but it is not economical for the C.P.R. to do so when there is, at least for the current 12 month period, a continuing arrangement with the operators of the ocean liners to the effect that the C.P.R. will permit them to embark and disembark passengers at this point.
I understand that the Canadian Pacific Railway has a very large multimillion dollar real estate development in mind for the downtown area of the port of Vancouver involving downtown Vancouver right along the oldest section of the waterfront for a distance of up to a mile. This involves not just millions but perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars and will include passenger dock complex with stores and a trade centre to display the wares of western Canada thus giving passengers an impression of western Canada as it really is and not as it was 50 or 75 years ago. I understand that the National Harbours Board has been holding discussions with some of the executives of the C.P.R. in this connection, and I trust that this passenger terminal will be an integral part of the port, including a freeway along or close by the waterfront, and that working with the new port of Vancouver development committee the C.P.R. and the National Harbours Board, like the local boards of trade and other interests, will settle on a plan which will be to their mutual advantage and which will shortly begin to take form on the waterfront of Vancouver.
Finally, Mr. Minister, I have seen a reference in the press to the effect that you may be coming to Vancouver. We will welcome you there and we would like to take you around the port of Vancouver. We would like it even better if you could bring some of your colleagues. It would be very pleasant to have the cabinet come to Vancouver to hold one of its meetings there. If the cabinet considered

nothing else than giving the port of Vancouver parity of treatment with the port of Montreal I think this would be in the interests of the people of Vancouver, the province of British Columbia, all of western Canada and, I suggest, the country as a whole, because in Vancouver we have what is going to be Canada's biggest port, what is, already, our most efficient port. I trust that in the forward planning of the National Harbours Board this vision will be kept in mind.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few comments in this general discussion of the railway transportation system in Canada. I intended to refer in some detail to the box car situation and the movement of grain in the west, but this subject has been specifically covered by a number of members and particularly this afternoon by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose. All I shall say on this subject at this time is that I endorse what those hon. members have said.
We were all very interested this afternoon to hear the minister outline what he referred to as an improvement in the movement of grain during the last few weeks. In this regard I should like to ask why the government waited so long to take action of this kind. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle, a former minister of agriculture, advocated the establishment of a committee some months ago. I was in the house when he made such a suggestion but evidently his suggestion has only recently been acted upon. In this regard perhaps I should paraphrase what the Department of Labour has been suggesting: Why wait for spring? That is apparently what has happened in this regard because this problem has continued during the winter months.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I should now like to make a comment or two about the curtailed railway passenger service on the prairies. A few days ago the minister said in the house that the decision of the Board of Transport Commissioners to allow the cancellation of the C.P.R. transcontinental "Dominion" to carry on into the summer would not help him pass his estimates, and he now knows that it has not. However, Mr. Chairman, I think the fact that he has agreed to refer the whole question of railway passenger service to the standing committee on transport and communications will probably shorten this debate, because we intend to make more speeches at that time and go into the details of this subject a little more fully.
February 14, 1966

I should like to put the minister's statement on record. As reported in Hansard of February 4 the minister said:
-we might arrange to have the Canadian Pacific Railway appear before the Standing Committee on Transportation ... to explain what they are doing and proposing to do in connection with their passenger service-
That was just a general statement. Then on February 8, as appears in Hansard-I put this on record because it is a definite commitment and we are sure the minister will live up to it-the minister moved:
That the subject matter of the adequacy of the present program and future plans for passenger service on the lines of the Canadian Pacific Railway to meet the effective demand of the public for such service, and the effects of such program and plans, be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for their consideration and report.
I am very pleased this is going to happen because I represent an area that is on the main line of the C.P.R., namely, the city of Moose Jaw and a large part of the city of Regina. These two cities are very much concerned about the curtailment of railway passenger service and the effect it will have upon the economies of their communities.
In order to impress upon the minister the great concern in western Canada over the fast developing curtailment of railway passenger service I should like to quote one brief statement in a notice by the Civil Service Commission of Canada. I received this notice a few days ago. It is in regard to vacancies in the position of district inspector on railway car equipment. I was impressed by this first statement:
The operating branch of the Board of Transport Commissioners of Canada is concerned primarily with matters relating to adequacy of rail services to the public-
We intend to impress upon the government that we expect them to follow this policy in determining what is needed in regard to passenger services. I should like to repeat what was said by the Civil Service Commission of Canada, that the Board of Transport Commissioners is concerned primarily with the public interest in regard to railway passenger services.
In connection with railway policy, Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to another statement attributed to the Minister of Transport. He is reported to have said that economic and social factors involved in railway problems should overrule the railways balance sheet. The minister said that in his view that public interest should be put first. These statements
Supply-Transport
put both the Board of Transport Commissioners and the minister on record as supporting a railway policy primarily concerned with public needs.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, I represent two important cities that are situated on the main line of the C.P.R. These are only two of eight cities between Calgary and Winnipeg. On January 25 the mayors and aldermen of these eight cities met in Moose Jaw and had a very long discussion. I have here the minutes of their meeting and they fill 12 pages. I shall not inflict them upon this committee or the minister but I should like to give a short summary in this respect. I have read all of the minutes. The delegates were from Winnipeg, Portage la Prairie, Brandon, Regina, Moose Jaw, Swift Current, Medicine Hat and Calgary. They all expressed concern at the curtailment of railway passenger service in western Canada. As I say, Mr. Chairman, I am just summarizing the minutes of the meeting.
It was agreed that positive action had to be taken through a meeting with the federal government to emphasize that service to the public should be the main consideration in any railway operation. It was stated that railways were a prime factor in tying western and eastern Canada together. The delegates all agreed that there was need for greater passenger service rather than less. They said it was apparent that the C.P.R. had cut service to the point where no one used the "Dominion" and then had been able to go to the Board of Transport Commissioners and claim that the "Dominion" operation was losing money. To counter this move the delegates agreed that it was necessary to insist that the C.P.R. had undertaken an obligation to the Canadian people when it was given large cash and land grants, on the understanding that it was to efficiently maintain, work and run the railway in perpetuity. The delegates said that the railway should be held to these obligations and responsibilities.
One city official said that the time to fight it out with the C.P.R. was long past and the cities must now take their fight to the federal government. Referring to the Railway Act it was pointed out that the federal government had the power to vary or rescind regulations of the Board of Transport Commissioners. At the end of the Moose Jaw meeting a motion was passed calling for a personal presentation of the whole railway passenger problem to the Prime Minister and his cabinet in Ottawa

February 14, 1966
Supply-Transport
at as early a date as possible. The motion which was passed unanimously, stated that it was apparent that the Board of Transport Commissioners had not weighed the economic and social impact on communities affected by rail passenger service abandonment and had not realistically or objectively assessed the case argued by the communities against such abandonment.
I do not believe a definite date has yet been set for the meeting with the Prime Minister and the cabinet and I should like to suggest to the minister that arrangements be made to hold this meeting at the same time as the inquiry is started by the standing committee of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. gentleman would allow me to interrupt and say I am very grateful to him for saying that because I made exactly the same suggestion to the Prime Minister. I said that I thought the mayors would like to appear before the committee as well as before some of the ministers and that to save them two trips, especially when there are not too many trains to travel on, it would be desirable to hold both at the same time.


James Ernest Pascoe: I thank the minister for his statement. We are interested in the Prime Minister's reply. Did he indicate that he would take such action?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister indicated that he is quite prepared to see them and has left the date in abeyance at the moment pending arrangements for the setting up of the committee.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


James Ernest Pascoe: Then, Mr. Chairman, I do not have to impress this upon the minister in view of the fact that he has already suggested it to the Prime Minister. These two meetings should be held at the same time, namely, the meeting with the cabinet and their appearance before the committee. I should like to impress upon the minister the importance of having the meeting of the standing committee as soon as possible so that we can deal with rail passenger service. If adequate transportation facilities are to be provided for summer tourist travel, the question of Canadian Pacific service must be decided within the next few weeks. If the service of the "Dominion" has not been restored this summer, and it appears it is not going to be after the ruling of the Board of Transport Commissioners, at least there should be some form of dayliner

operation to accommodate Calgary to Winnipeg passengers because a considerable number travel between these two points.
I have a transcript of the proceedings before the board on the hearing of the application for discontinuance of the "Dominion". It is a very long document and I certainly will not try to go through it. There are many questions that could be raised about this testimony. It is for this reason I consider it important to have the western city officials at the inquiry to hear the questions and the answers. There will be questions concerning the apparent lack of effort by the Canadian Pacific to encourage passenger traffic. We want to hear the company's answer to the charge that the company has discouraged train travel by inadequate accommodation and equipment. We want to compare the Canadian Pacific passenger policy with that of the Canadian National. It would appear that the operations of the "Dominion" over the last two years compare unfavourably with the Canadian National.
The facts in this regard were brought out in an article in a recent edition of Week End Magazine. The article is entitled, "The Great Passenger Experiment". It makes interesting reading, and I should like to quote one short paragraph to emphasize the point I am making concerning the lack of encouragement given to passenger traffic by the Canadian Pacific:
Under the sceptical but watchful eye of its privately-owned competitor, the Canadian Pacific, the publicly-owned Canadian National is going all out to make the passenger business pay. And to do so it has chosen to apply a classic principle of private enterprise: That the way to drum up business is to improve your product and lower your price.
The C.N. has modernized and speeded up its passenger trains-and it has cut fares. The result: More people rode C.N. trains last year than in any year since world war II. And passenger revenue, after falling ever since the war, is starting to rise again.
As I say, I just read this so that the committee can compare the record of the Canadian Pacific with regard to encouraging passenger traffic with that of the Canadian National. It would appear that Canadian Pacific deliberately curtailed service on the "Dominion" to the point, and I am speaking from experience, where it became unpleasant to travel on it. Prior to 1960 the "Dominion" operated as a conventional, transcontinental passenger train with coaches, diners, sleepers and head-end traffic. When it operated in this fashion the "Dominion" was very well patronized. The "Dominion" service was probably
February 14, I9G6

well maintained up until June, 1965. In the last few months before its discontinuance the "Dominion" had only two coaches and a buffer car for the greater part of the time. Under these circumstances, the railway company should not be able to base its argument on a business loss sustained in the last year or so as the result of curtailed service.
In the judgment to allow the discontinuance of the "Dominion" the Chief Commissioner, Mr. Kerr, said that in his view Section 315 of the Railway Act imposes an obligation on the railway company to furnish adequate and substantial accommodation for the benefit of the public. The Assistant Chief Commissioner, Mr. H. H. Griffin, makes this statement in his judgment allowing the discontinuance:
-in formulating my opinion I have not weighed the economic or social impact on the communities.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this statement is not in line with the statement I read earlier from the Civil Service Commission advertisement. I will read that statement again for emphasis:
The operating branch of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada is concerned primarily with matters relating to adequacy of rail services to the public-
This is all I need to say at this time about passenger service. I should like to refer to one other small item, namely, the slowness of mail service especially with relation to the delivery of daily newspapers from western Canada. I have asked questions in the house in this regard and I have put a question on the Order Paper but have not received an answer yet. I refer, for example, to the Moose Jaw Times-Herald which used to arrive the second day after publication. Last week Monday's edition, in which I was particularly interested, arrived the following Monday, or one week later. I wrote to the publisher of the Times-Herald and I should like to put a brief extract from his letter of reply on the record. He wrote:
In discussing the situation with the local postmaster, I was able to determine that now that the "Dominion" is out of service, truck transit is the only available means of transit.
The papers were, of course, delivered daily to the post office and do leave here on a daily basis. I understand from my discussion with the postmaster that there is a need for transfer at such places as Winnipeg, Fort William and Sudbury going east and Medicine Hat and Calgary going west.
He felt the reason for your receipt of several newspapers on the same day would be a hold-up during transit or even at Ottawa.
Supply-Transport
I just mention that, Mr. Chairman. I have a question on the order paper and I hope to have an answer. I should like to impress upon the minister the fact that there are many side effects of the cancellation of the "Dominion" and the curtailment of passenger service. I give him fair warning that more of them will be brought out at the committee hearing.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Blouin:: Mr. Chairman, I would not want to unduly delay consideration of certain items of the estimates of the Department of Transport, for, if I am not mistaken, we are now discussing sums of money which are already, or will be spent before March 31. Therefore I shall be very brief, and I would simply draw the minister's attention to certain points in connection with the estimates of his department.
There has been much reference to ferry systems across the country to ferry services and port facilities. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I should like to quote a few remarks in this connection from the Auditor General's report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1965. With reference to port facilities, as reported on page 77 of his report, and more particularly in paragraph 122, the Auditor General says:
Continuing federal assistance to intra-provincial ferry services. In our 1963 Report attention was drawn to the continuing federal subsidization of ferry landing facilities for provincial governments despite the general policy of the Department of Public Works and the Treasury Board over many years to regard such facilities at either end of a ferry service linking an intra-provincial highway as the exclusive responsibility of the province concerned.
Further on, he continued:
Construction of the Matane terminal and dredging at Godbout were undertaken at that time on the understanding that the ferry operator would construct the Godbout terminal and acquire and operate the ferry without further federal assistance. Notwithstanding this, executive authority was granted in 1963 for entry into a three-year subsidy agreement.
And he added:
This acquisition has now brought to six the number of locations where the federal government has provided terminals at both ends of crossriver ferry services in the lower St. Lawrence river. The total expenditure over the years for these terminals, which in some cases form part of shipping wharves, had exceeded $7 million at March 31, 1965.
Mr. Chairman, considering these figures and reading this report, I need not tell you

February 14, 1968
Supply-Transport
that I do not agree with the Auditor General when he states that these terry services should be the exclusive responsibility of the provinces.
I know that, in our case, the ferry service between the north shore and the south shore of the St. Lawrence river has been very useful to the people on both shores, and I feel that it should be considered an interprovincial service, because it is also used by people from the Maritimes, not only the passenger service, but also the freight service to ship various products, in particular potatoes from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick as well as dairy products. I should add that this service offers to over half a million people, a means of transportation between the Maritime provinces, the south shore and the north shore.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to add, in passing, that developments on the north shore have been mentioned and that the Auditor General feels that such expenditures are not justified. On the other hand, I would like to call the attention of the house to the publication entitled "The Region with a Future" which contains statistics and says on page 88:

The federal government ought to benefit greatly from the industrial and mining developments on the north shore. On the basis of some $50 million of taxable income the government should obtain about $25 million yearly. Such a revenue would go a long way to compensate the government for whatever expenditure it will have made in the construction of wharves, terminals, icebreakers and for the subsidies it might have granted to ferry services and steamship companies.

I believe this is very significant, Mr. Chairman. And as I see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) right in front of me, I hope he is listening carefully and taking note of all these figures.
On February 11, speaking of the estimates for the Department of Transport, the member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays) has this to say:
Looking back over the estimates, and knowing the riding well, I believe there are two or three major projects which were to be undertaken immediately after that declaration by the minister. Not one of these projects has been carried out. At Ste Anne des Monts the money voted was intended for the repair of the wharf. Because of the bad state of repair of this wharf the ferry service between Ste Anne des Monts and Sept lies has been discontinued, and any connection we have with the north shore of the St. Lawrence is by means of a detour through Matane.
I should like to tell my colleague from Gaspe that this is not quite true. The service
[Mr. Pascoe.l
between Ste Anne des Monts and Sept lies was dropped precisely because the company claimed it was not profitable. In spite of an annual subsidy of $50,000 granted by the federal government to Ungava Transport Ltd. this company considered the service unprofitable and it was discontinued on November 30 last.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
With regard to this subsidy, I should like to point out to the minister that this amount of $50,000 granted by the maritime commission was most welcome. Of course, I should be very pleased if the commission kept on granting such a subsidy because it could be put to good use in some places of my riding, for instance, for the service between Sept lies and Blanc Sablon, this latter locality with a population of 15,000 people scattered along 450 miles of coast and with little or no service at the present time. I ask the minister to bring pressure to bear on those responsible, so that this amount of $50,000 may be used to improve the service between Sept lies and Blanc Sablon.
Mr. Chairman, I said at the outset of my remarks that I did not want to extend the debate on these estimates. I shall have, no doubt, the opportunity to deal again with the estimates of this department later on and, at that time, I shall have a great deal to say about air transport, shipping, icebreakers, lighthousekeepers, construction of landing strips in remote, isolated and often forgotten areas. I shall certainly have the opportunity to say more.
A while ago, the hon. member for Coast Capilano (Mr. Davis) said that the port of Vancouver was more or less neglected. He also mentioned the tonnage handled there each year. I am aware of the fact that Vancouver has advantages we do not enjoy in the east. On the other hand, I should like to remind him that we too have very active ports in the east. I will mention only one at this time, the port of Sept lies which is rated third in importance, not only in Quebec but in all of Canada. I would like to say to my hon. friend that quite recently, from January 1 to date, winter navigation was never interrupted and without assistance from federal government ice breakers. As our hon. friends often say the icebreakers are used in the lower St. Lawrence, let me say that this year, navigation never stopped, even without the assistance of icebreakers. From Sept lies, third most important port in Canada, and since
February 14, 1966

January 1 only, more than two million tons of iron ore have been shipped. More than 16.5 million tons of iron ore were shipped through that seaport last year, and this is very important, I think.
I wanted to point out those facts because there is a lot of discussion going on here and there, and often in the house, about seaports, the importance of seaports, and the federal assistance they should get. Well, according to the publication "Region with a Future", it is crystal clear that the $25 million collected in taxes by the federal government more than compensate for the work the federal government did or could do in that most important seaport of Saguenay county.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to say that I hope the minister-I notice that he is taking notes-will not forget the huge developments which are now going on in my constituency and which will continue in the future.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Chairman, since it is February 14, St. Valentine's Day, I would assume everything is hearts and flowers with the minister today and I thought he might feel rather disappointed if I did not have a few words to say in reference to his estimates while they are before the house. I wish to say a few words on a subject that is causing me great concern and has caused great concern to the residents of the towns of Sydney Mines, North Sydney and surrounding communities in reference to the situation that exists at the port of North Sydney brought about through the actions of the present administration in regard to the change in plans and mode of shipping goods to the province of Newfoundland.
On many occasions during the last session, right until we adjourned on June 30, I believe, I posed many questions in the house to the Minister of Transport and to the then minister of labour in regard to this matter. Those questions were evaded in every possible way. The ministers always said: Do not worry about this. It is not going to get worse. There will be more employment and everybody will be happy.
We did not have much success in extracting much information from the Minister of Transport or the then minister of labour. However, when we were safely out of here

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion after June 30 the minister concerned issued a press release as to what would happen at the ports of North Sydney in Nova Scotia and Argentia and Port aux Basques in Newfoundland. We find, despite the fact that there was a reply to the question I posed to the minister almost two years ago, that there has been no real answer. As reported in Hansard on page 1359 of March 23, 1964, I asked the Minister of Transport the following:
Is the minister aware that it has been suggested that employment will be reduced by 75 per cent? So it is not too early to start investigating the problem now?
I meant the problem of finding employment for those who would be involved in the releases and cut-backs announced by the government. The minister on that occasion replied:
Experience has been that traffic has grown so much since confederation that employment is always going up, and this is likely to continue if we improve the communications between Newfoundland and the rest of the country.
I fully agree with the minister that freight shipments and so on have been going up every year. However, Mr. Chairman, it would be absolutely impossible to have shipments go up to such an extent as to take up the slack and create the employment which will be needed at the port of North Sydney when the cut-backs take place. Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, in conformity with standing order 39A, to inform the house that the following questions will be discussed on the adjournment motion tonight: The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), Expo '67-Montreal-possible strike of construction workers; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Pensions-inquiry as to legislation regulating private plans; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), equity of railway employees pension fund in provinces other thar. Ontario.
The house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper namely, notices of motions.
1180	COMMONS DEBATES
Dominion-Provincial Relations


Gerald William Baldwin: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should issue a white paper outlining with clarity and in succinct terms its views on certain areas of federal-provincial responsibility and, in particular, in order to settle confusion and to enlighten the people, give its opinion on the Question of federal jurisdiction in matters involved in a program of manpower development, the war on poverty including assistance, welfare and family allowances, and corporations and institutions with credit and related functions in their objects and powers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the reasons which persuaded me to put this motion down for debate have an additional urgency imparted to them following the recent scuttling of the Fulton-Favreau formula. It is typical of the strange political world in which we live that this final blow was struck by Mr. Lesage because in its final stages the form of the proposal had been tailored, at least in part, to meet the wishes of the Quebec government after the 1961-62 meetings. I am sure that if the formula could have spoken it would have said "et tu Jean" after he administered the coup de grace.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
For the purpose of this discussion we can forget the merits and demerits of the proposal, though I must say that I made no secret that I had doubts about certain aspects of the formula when the matter was first up for discussion a year ago. But this is beside the point. At least if there had been approval of all parties it would have shown that the provinces and the federal government had developed a real ability to get along together. It would then have been possible to move toward the necessary constitutional changes that the exigencies of the present day demand. But now, weighing the results of the action by Mr. Lesage and his colleagues, it is quite certain that the mistrust and indignation with which at least some of the other provinces will view his stand render it unlikely, if not impossible, that any alternative proposal can be put forward or found acceptable in the foreseeable future.
There should be no doubt that some provinces had reservations about certain terms of the formula. They yielded, however, and set aside their objections in the hope that the mere fact that the 11 governments could have a meeting of minds, a consensus ad
IMr. Speaker.]
February 14, 1968
idem, on a compromise basis on such a contentious issue would augur well for the future. Having done this and made their concessions and now having had the rug pulled out from under them for obvious, pragmatic, political reasons it is sure to be a long time before they come to another conference table and accept any alternative suggestion. So, at this pause in our national journey, when we thought to achieve a new and more modern means of constitutional motive power, we find that all of the careful plans and preparations have gone with the wind and we are back with what we started with so many years ago.
I did not really think we would get the sort of jet propulsion that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) has been yearning for in a more material way, but I did think that we might have been able to trade in our team of oxen on a model A, something which would have had marked on it a "made in Canada" label, for the purpose of amending our constitution and effecting changes in the distribution of powers and responsibilities. And I had hoped that because of this there would be a closer liaison and understanding not only between the provinces and the federal government but amongst the provinces themselves.
Thinking Canadians are so deeply concerned about the fact that there are so many areas and so many problems which increasingly will yield only to solution on the basis of co-operation and understanding as well as changes in the distribution of powers and responsibilities. I am thinking of such things as water resources, water pollution, air pollution, agriculture and agricultural rural development and improvement, a national transportation program, manpower development and so on. Thus today we are driven back to the often-used and greatly abused system of federal-provincial conferences as a rough and ready means of working out programs of executive and legislative action in the areas where there must be shifts and changes and co-operation between the governments. This is so because the courts have held that there is no right in the provincial and federal governments to delegate legislative authority each to the other.
It is, of course, possible that the Established Programs Act 1964, otherwise known as the so-called opting out legislation, can be modified and extended to cover additional areas. But this applies, of course, only to
February 14, 1966

cases where the subject matter is under provincial jurisdiction, and financial and other aid is required from the federal treasury, and joint programs thereby emerge. In addition, the service to be provided under the sole administration of the province must be of a similar kind as that which was carried out jointly by the two governments.
To most of us this understanding of the opting out arrangement seems very clear and very definite, but not to the somewhat mildewed, slightly aging pseudo-revolutionaries who, from their vantage points in the seat of government in the province of Quebec, are shrilling out their demands to opt out in family allowances, unemployment insurance, for example, and in other matters where the federal government has occupied the field either under specific power or under general authority.
How can they opt out when they were never in and were never in these fields because they are matters of federal responsibility? I suggest it is not so much a matter of their opting out as their attempting to muscle in. Then there are demands in connection with the conduct of external affairs, the right to deal with banking through alleged control of near banks and so many other instances, none of which could ever be the subject of a true opting out agreement because they were never matters over which the provincial governments had jurisdiction. Surely the Liberal government at Ottawa must realize that many of the proposals which it has advocated, some of which are included in the Speech from the Throne and others which have been discussed, will all wither on the vine if Quebec initially and other provinces later are allowed to trespass on and occupy these fields.
I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that the impression created in the minds of the people of Canada from watching most federal-provincial conferences in the past two or three years has been that of weak, fumbling, federal participation, not knowing what it wants and where it is going, quite prepared to surrender in most things merely to obtain unanimous concurrence in a final communique which applauds the "frank and fruitful" discussions but does not add up the spoils which have been taken away. The picture which comes through of one party is that of a poor pitiful caricature of a government. This contrasts with what appear to be strong provincial delegations, very aggressive, very knowledgeable and very demanding and,
Dominion-Provincial Relations of course, in some instances, very unreasonable and quite prepared to sacrifice the national welfare for regional interests.
One can quite properly suggest here, at least parenthetically, that the proposal that many of these conferences be open and be fully and adequately reported by the media of public information should be accepted. Let there be no doubt that, in my opinion, by far the worst offenders have been some of the leaders of the government of Quebec whose intransigent, provocative attitude, particularly in recent months, has indicated an arrogant disregard of the national interest. This is not an attack on Quebec or the people of Quebec. Some of the other provinces have from time to time asserted claims which cannot be conceded. But it is most unfortunate that it has been some of the Quebec leaders, making what seemed to be the most unreasonable demands, who have caught the attention of the people of Canada by their actions in doing so.
But in this are they acting in the best interests of the people of Quebec? I do not think so. Messrs. Kierans, Levesque, Wagner and others have become so enamoured with the sound of their own voices that they seem to have forgotten the purpose and the meaning and the real objective of the movement in Quebec which so many of us have watched with approval and applause. They have become so obsessed with the means that they have forgotten the end which ought to be achieved. Even if we discount much of what Mr. Levesque said on his last appearance in Ottawa and even accepting the fact that since he has been in public life he has rarely had an unuttered thought, nevertheless we can only conclude that his approach to the course he would have the province pursue can be compared to the phrase coined by railway companies about the advantage of rail passenger travel -"getting there is half the fun".
This is an opportune time to deal with the argument strongly and frequently advanced that all that is being done, all of the claims which are being made can be justified because Quebec is not a province like the other provinces. This is quite true in one sense in which the phrase is used and to that extent I accept wholeheartedly the implications.
Confederation came about and the constitution took the shape it did because in very considerable part an attempt was made to preserve certain characteristics of the inhabitants of Quebec, including a distinct people,
February 14, 1966

Dominion-Provincial Relations culture, civil law, language and so on. To maintain this distinction and preserve and strengthen these characteristics is natural and proper and should receive support from all Canadians. There is, then, some justification for contending that this is one way in which Canada, the nation, differs from our neighbour to the south.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
In this sense there can be no doubt at all about the uniqueness of Quebec and their right to have, within the limitations I have mentioned, the powers it requires to be unique. But when those who use this phrase attempt to stretch it to include an argument of a different kind, when they say that Quebec is not a province like the other provinces and this per se justifies substantial increases in provincial economic and other powers which are consistent only with national sovereignty, then they are attributing a meaning to the phrase which is unacceptable.
In the same way could it not be argued just as easily that the province of British Columbia, remote from the rest of Canada behind the Rocky Mountain wall, with natural lines of communication to the south with the Americans of the Pacific States, is not a province like the other provinces? The prairie provinces, which experience adverse effects from a national transportation system that has made them the victims of a series of horizontal freight rate increases, as well as being subject to the evils which arise from the people of these provinces being the low man on the tariff totem pole, could also be characterized as provinces not like the rest. The Atlantic provinces, which as a result of Confederation were cut off from their natural markets in the New England states and which also suffer from problems of high transport costs, are provinces unlike the others.
If all of these were to contend, as does Quebec, that because of their very distinct positions they too are provinces which are different, that they too are entitled to trespass on the rights which have been given to the nation of Canada, they could make out just as effective, just as sound a case. If this were done, then we would find that the sum total, the aggregate of all the powers and responsibilities given to all these provinces because they are different, would be so substantial, so all encompassing, that there would be nothing left upon which to found a nation. Thus, when this phrase is used in this way it is deceiving, it is improper, and it must be

rejected. And so for these reasons it becomes our duty in this house to do what we can to strengthen the federal government in its confrontations at these conferences, to give it courage and determination.
It is because of this that I have proposed this resolution to urge the government to incorporate in a white paper its views vis-avis federal-provincial relations, including a clear outline of the position the government takes or should take in areas of federal jurisdiction which must not be and cannot be whittled away. These must be asserted positively although not provocatively. This white paper should be prepared and filed as a caveat so that all may take heed and govern themselves accordingly.
The federal government must reaffirm its rights under the specific established powers of the constitution and in addition might well seek a review in certain areas where Privy Council decisions in the past have deprived the federal authority of jurisdiction which it can well be argued was intended for it by the Fathers of Confederation. Some of the earlier decisions dealing with rights under the peace, order and good government clause and trade and commerce are examples. The principle of stare decisis should not apply in constitutional, legal decision-making. There is no reason why the Supreme Court of Canada could not feel free to review and alter these decisions or for the government to ask it to do so.
In such matters as family allowance payments, for example, the federal government has a very wide scope through exercise of the general taxing power and the right to distribute the resulting funds to the people of Canada. The government can also draw comfort from what is known as the growing tree principle, a phrase which appeals to me very much. One of the learned judges said that the B.N.A. Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits. This could apply to banks and banking, as a Privy Council decision in connection with Alberta's Social Credit legislation has already indicated.
Let the government of Canada take the initiative for once. Let them be strong, decisive and resolute. Who knows, they might even seize upon this as an opportunity to test the bold and excite the daring. I am sure if they do so they will secure from many members, certainly from me, such measure of support as they may require.
On an issue of this kind, they will not be a minority government and, Mr. Speaker, they
February 14, 19G6	COMMONS DEBATES	1183
Dominion-Provincial Relations
were not a minority government before the last election on an issue of this kind. The Prime Minister called that election declaring that he required a majority government to help him in his confrontations with the provinces. On an issue of this kind, I am quite confident he would always have a majority to support him. In any event, I made my position clear on this matter both before and during the election and I have not changed since.
Surely on a matter so important and crucial as this there can be no politics and no partisanship in this house. On this matter we cease to be Liberals or Conservatives or N.D.P. or Social Crediters or Creditistes; we are and we must act only as Canadians.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, this motion asks the federal government to issue a white paper putting forward policy regarding federal-provincial responsibility in certain areas, namely, (1) manpower development, (2) the war on poverty including assistance, welfare and family allowances and (3) corporations and other institutions in the credit business. The three general areas mentioned, or the six if we include the subheadings under "war on poverty", are not explicitly mentioned in the divisions of jurisdiction under our present constitution.
With respect to manpower, whatever may be its definition it is not mentioned at all in the constitution. "War on poverty" is a phrase coined in the United States and has reference there to a comprehensive program for social and economic opportunity. Its purpose has been the elimination of poverty rather than stopgap periodic assistance. Sections 92(7) and (13) of our constitution refer to charities, civil rights, etc. and these sections have been interpreted to include wider programs of welfare and social security, but no consideration to date has even been given to a program as broad as the U.S. war on poverty.
Sections 91(2), (15) (16) and (19) cover trade and commerce, banks and interest, and the trade and commerce section has been interpreted to include the incorporation of companies irrespective of objects which would include companies in the credit business.
The significant thing in all these areas is that they have aspects which could fall under both federal and provincial jurisdiction. This is a natural phenomenon. In our modern complex world, human creation and conduct
are not easily categorized and certainly are not easily fitted into jurisdictional slots conceived 100 years ago. There are a few problems and needs today which can be approached and dealt with adequately under any one area of legislative jurisdiction. As a result of this situation most federal states have resorted to what is known as co-operative or creative federalism. Several areas of government, federal, provincial and even municipal, get together to attack a problem which because of its many legislative aspects could not be attacked alone.
In a federal system this approach is much more efficient and beneficial than one where the different levels battle for jurisdiction in the courts and elsewhere, although sometimes this will be the last necessary resort. It must be remembered that a constitution is meant to serve the political, economic and social needs of the people and is not to be used in political power plays for the political aggrandizement of politicians.
In the Speech from the Throne we have two references to the manpower department. It says that the manpower department is to be a conversion of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and that the government will develop manpower policies which are essential to the sustained growth of a highly productive economy and to the elimination of pockets of poverty. There is no direct use of the phrase "war on poverty" but job retraining and mobility, education and rural reform have all been described by this term.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
It is doubtful that anyone could speculate as to all the possible legislation that might be enacted under a manpower or poverty administration. Some projects may be clearly federal, others provincial and others questionable. I can see no objection to the government issuing a white paper indicating the general jurisdictional bases for these matters and I think this would be good, but I think it would be impossible to set out with any finality the strict lines of constitutional jurisdiction that this motion demands, especially under our present constitution which in my opinion is extremely inadequate.
It seems to me that we do require a broad and deep study of federal-provincial jurisdiction and the whole role and purpose of federalism in Canada, but such a study should consider all areas of jurisdiction and should be done by a committee of this house
February 14, 1966

Dominion-Provincial Relations or by a royal commission rather than by a white paper. Such a committee or royal commission would be desirable before any wide-ranging constitutional amendment. It is to be noted that the province of Quebec has already established a similar commission.
While we are discussing problems of federalism and the concept of co-operative federalism, I should like to make a few observations regarding some of our recent federal difficulties. As a Quebecker whose principal language is English I consider these questions of utmost importance. My family has lived in Montreal for at least four generations and I consider it my home. I think it is a great and exciting city and I would not consider living anywhere else. However, in recent years there are some in Quebec who act and talk as if everything within the territory of Quebec, including Montreal, is for the benefit of and within the sovereignty of Quebec. In opposition to this view there are many who consider Montreal as much Canadian as it is Quebec. Most of the great economic and cultural institutions which helped build Montreal serve all Canada, not just Quebec. They were built by Canadians of all provinces to serve Canadians of all provinces. I refer to Montreal's port, its railroads, air lines, banks, universities, industries, hospitals and many other things.
These institutions and this city should belong to all Canadians both French and English. I realize this was not always the case in the past when our economic and cultural institutions were not only controlled by English Canadians but by certain established groups of English Canadians, to which my family did not belong, I may say. The solution to this situation, however, is not to transfer control from one nationalistic minority to another nationalistic minority. With this in mind many of us in Montreal are beginning to wonder whether the trend to increasing provincial jurisdiction in Quebec will not lead to injustice for its minorities and stifle the effectiveness of Canadian institutions which are situated in that province. It would seem to me that works and institutions which are interprovincial and which serve people beyond the boundaries of a province should be subject to federal jurisdiction, which does not mean English Canadian jurisdiction or a jurisdiction dominated by English Canada. There are several articles of the constitution which would support this view.

It has been rather disturbing in recent days to hear provincial governments state that they feel they have some sovereign right to share in economic and fiscal policy. These are the same governments which would become immediately disturbed if the federal government dared cross in the most minor way the boundaries of provincial jurisdiction. Sections 91(2), 91(3), 91(14), 91(15), 91(19) and 91(20) of the B.N.A Act clearly give the federal government sovereign authority in determining national economic and fiscal policy. This is not an area with several aspects which require co-operative federalism, although this is not to say that it could not be approached in that way. Until the constitution is amended it must be repected on both sides and, where the job requires, worked out co-operatively by both sides.
In an editorial appearing in Saturday's Le Devoir the editor, Claude Ryan, made the following statement in an article which was entitled:

The English speaking community in the Quebec of today.

At another place he said:

In private life, the last few years have revealed numerous situations in which the minority wields excessive power over the majority.

He says at another place:

The prime responsibility of the English speaking group is to open wide the doors of its institutions to the members and values of the majority, so that they might become, instead of ghettos of power, true expressions of the environment in which they exist.

Mr. Speaker, I agree fully with these statements but I would also suggest that this could be done without weakening the federal authority.
At another place when discussing the role of the English speaking Quebecker in the public life of Quebec Mr. Ryan referred to Mr. Kierans, the Quebec minister of health and welfare, and said:

Instead of considering himself as the "professional defender" of the rights of a small group, right from the start he asserted himself as a Quebec citizen and a Quebec politician. He espoused the over-all problem of the society in which he lives.
February 14, 1966



Once again I would agree with that statement, since Mr. Kierans was elected to the Quebec legislature. But members of parliament elected to the Canadian parliament, even from Quebec, are elected as Canadian citizens in a Canadian milieu to propose Canadian programs.
In concluding his article Mr. Ryan said:

In the difficult phase before us, we must avoid, on the one hand, panic action and, on the other, blackmail. Between those two extremes, men of good will are bound to find the right formula to get us all out of the vicious circle where we have been for many generations.

Again I agree fully with this high principle but I must make the comment that this must apply to Quebec and to the other provinces as well as to the federal government.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like first to commend the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) for introducing a motion of this kind. I think the time is long past for, as this motion seeks, a white paper outlining with clarity and in succinct terms, the government's view on certain areas of federal-provincial responsibility, particularly with reference to the war on poverty. I say that this afternoon because we seem to have developed in this federal administration some kind of a double standard in so far as federal-provincial responsibilities are concerned. Certain provinces, mainly Ontario and Quebec, seem to receive a different kind of response from the representations and negotiations they carry on with the federal government than can be expected by other provinces. The hon. member for Peace river performed a commendable job in discussing the many areas of vagueness in respect of these responsibilities or jurisdictions of responsibility if I may use that term.
I intend to speak more specifically about certain matters using them as examples of what I have termed a "double standard" as it applies to different provinces coming to Ottawa with programs they consider necessary in certain areas. The first I wish to refer to is the program the province of Alberta brought to the federal government in respect of some pockets of poverty in that province. So that it is clear in the minds of hon. members that there is authority under the B.N.A. Act for
Dominion-Provincial Relations the federal government to engage in shared programs of this kind dealing with agriculture, I refer hon. members to section 95 which states very clearly that the federal government may, without encroaching on provincial jurisdiction, pass laws and enter into programs that deal with agriculture anywhere in Canada.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
In addition, in the Speech from the Throne we have this statement. I shall not read all of it but just the pertinent parts:
The purpose of this re-organization is to provide for closer and better co-ordinated action in the following areas of public policy: manpower policies, which are essential to the sustained growth of a highly productive economy and to the elimination of pockets of poverty within that economy-
Then it goes on:
-rural development programs, which are necessary to agricultural progress and a better rural life

It seems to me that it is very clear both from the terms of the British North America Act and what was contained in the Speech from the Throne that the federal government not only has the authority but also seems to have the desire to do what it can and participate in these kind of programs which will ameliorate some of these pockets of poverty.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, those words are used in the Speech from the Throne. Yet when the province of Alberta came forward and asked the federal government to participate on a 50-50 basis in payments to farm areas in that province which have had almost complete crop failures for the last three years, they were turned down flat. One cannot help but feel that if this kind of request had come from either Ontario or Quebec they would not have been turned down, because on the basis of what happened last summer we know that many millions of dollars out of the federal treasury went into programs in both Ontario and Quebec for exactly the same purpose.
I wish to be fair to the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) because apparently the first refusal of this request was sent to the province of Alberta before he was appointed. I realize the problems of a newly appointed minister in attempting to reverse decisions. But the point I am trying to make is that this decision was completely contrary to what has been done in the past and to stated government policy in the Speech from the Throne.
February 14, 1966

Dominion-Provincial Relations
Let us examine for a few moments what the province of Alberta wanted to do. They designated two areas, one in the Peace River district and one in west central Alberta, as being areas in which there had been a long period of severe crop losses. The province of Alberta went into these areas and made a survey. To make a long story short, they decided to make some payments out of the provincial treasury for the purpose of keeping these farm units from collapsing. What could possibly be a more effective program in a war on poverty than to move in and keep these farm units from collapsing so that the farmers would not be turned off their units, find their way into an unemployed area and go on relief and so on?
If the federal government had come along and co-operated with the province, the problem of these crop losses could have been dealt with. These crop losses are not going to carry on forever. This is an unusual thing in this part of the country; it is not a long, continuing situation. What is more, Mr. Speaker, the province of Alberta made this very clear to the federal government.
Therefore I think we need the kind of white paper that is called for in this motion so that the provinces, and I mean all the provinces, will know what the federal government intends to do when the provinces are faced with these kind of situations. Surely we do not have to face each one of these problems and programs individually. I know this government does not like the phrase "guidelines" because of the connotation that has been attached to these two words, but I believe that if a white paper as called for by the hon. member for Peace River were prepared we would be able to arrive at some guidelines so the provinces would at least have some idea of how far the federal government would go in participating in programs to deal with these severe areas of depression and what could almost be called disaster.
What makes this situation even worse is that on many occasions during 1965 and 1964-I do not have all the quotations before me but this happened on many occasions-when a member rose in this house and asked the federal government to do something by way of assistance in areas that had suffered a tragedy or disaster for one reason or another, the standard answer was, "If the province requests assistance and is willing to pay 50 per cent, we will co-operate". That is

exactly what the government of the province of Alberta did. They set up the program and asked the federal government to pay 50 per cent of the cost. They said the province was willing to pay the other 50 per cent. As I said, Mr. Speaker, they have been turned down.
This is not good enough. We need these guidelines and we need, as the hon. member for Peace River said, some kind of paper outlining with clarity and in succinct terms what is going to be the position and the policy of the federal government in matters dealing with the war on poverty, including assistance programs. I should like to impress upon the members of the government that this kind of program will not go on and on. As a matter of fact, I do not think the government of the province of Alberta would set up such a program and ask the federal government to participate if it was not what they considered to be the best kind of program to meet the situation. This area is not known for a long series of crop failures such as have occurred during the last two or three years. It is one which has a reasonably good chance of getting a crop year after year. What is more, Mr. Speaker, if we can save these farms from complete financial breakdown they will probably be able to carry themselves for the next X number of years, whether it be 10 or 20, without further assistance.
I think this is the most effective kind of program that can be used in this so-called war on poverty. Suppose the province had not moved in and these people had gotten into so much financial difficulty that they had to leave their farms? Where would they have gone and what would be the expense to the provincial and federal governments? I suggest this expense would be far greater than the few dollars the province is now seeking in order to get these people over this difficult period.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say again that the time for a statement of policy in the form of a white paper is long overdue. We certainly hope that when the government comes along with it, it will not be substantially different for any one province than for another. The people and government of Alberta feel there has been something of a double standard up to now. All we ask is that the province of Alberta be treated in the same way as any other province of Canada
February 14, 1966	COMMONS
when they come forward with a useful, legitimate program in which the federal government ought to participate.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Mr. J. P. Goyer (Dollard):: I would readily agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) for a white paper outlining certain areas of federal-provincial responsibility, but the field should not be limited, as suggested in his motion, to -a program of manpower development, the war on poverty including assistance, welfare and family allowances, and corporations and institutions with credit and related functions in their objects and powers.
It can be said that the notice of motion, as such, points out that all social areas should be considered as well as a major part of the economic area but, on the other hand, forgets just the same something that is essential to the constitution, the cultural and linguistic point of view.
The hon. member says that we must consider this problem as Canadians, but as such I realize that cultural and linguistic problems are neglected, put aside and totally ignored in some provinces of the confederation. That is an important matter when it comes to publishing a white paper.
If all those matters were to be considered, it would be necessary to take a lot of time to write a new constitution, whereas, in practice, we realize that the constitution is going more and more toward important changes, asked for not only by the federal government but by the provincial governments, and not only that of Quebec.
On the social level, for instance, the health insurance scheme has raised in the provinces questions which had not been raised previously when the federal government enunciated a social policy. Today, not only Quebec but other provinces such as Ontario are raising questions and asking various things of the federal government about a health insurance plan.
As a matter of fact, when the whole field of social security is considered, we realize that it has developed thanks to the federal government. In fact, the provinces which were the first responsible in the social field, were negligent or failed to legislate within their own jurisdiction. In addition, the social security program of Canada was evolved during the war when the required taxes and capital
DEBATES	1187
Dominion-Provincial Relations were and still are available to the federal government.
Therefore, the provinces took no action. Actually, the constitution prevented them from doing so. Under a good constitution, the role of municipal and provincial governments is to administer and legislate in fields belonging to them, while that of the federal government is mostly to legislate.
This is a healthy policy because the government closest to the population, especially in the area of social security, is in a better position to understand the problems and meet the aspirations of the population as a whole. It is also a simple question of efficiency that the government closer to the population can better supply its livelihood.
Why, on the whole, does the federal government hesitate to transfer social security to the provinces? Are they not better able to handle it? Why do we hesitate to turn over the war on poverty to the provinces, to let them handle the entire assistance, welfare and health programs? As I said a few moments ago, the provinces are asking for that. Why not meet their wishes? Why would we, in the federal government, not seek to simply mind our own business. There are several fields in which we could be active.
I think the demands for minimum national standards in the field of social security are right and could be very easily negotiated with the provinces. The provincial governments should realize that they are not only subordinate governments; it would be necessary for them to take the time to read the constitution and realize their fields of jurisdiction and act accordingly. That is the white paper now in existence in Canada. Thus, this would make easier a revision of the social security field for, in fact, it was realized, with the question of social insurance and family allowances, that the federal government fails to adjust its policies in the field of social security. That may be due to a certain conformity or to a certain negligence on the part of a civil service, which lacks creative ideas, new ideas, but the turning-over of social security to the provinces could result in the organization of the social field in such a way that present day demands be better met.
It will be said that to achieve social security, one must have the necessary economic instruments. That is true. It is sound democratic principle that the government which provides a service must be the one which collects the taxes.
February 14, 1966

Dominion-Provincial Relations
We have heard, during the last election campaign, statements to the effect that more money was to be given in the case of a certain pension, while the matter did not come under one's jurisdiction, but simply because there was a surplus of money available. We often see provincial governments creating diversion by attacking the federal government in order to excuse their shortcomings.
If the federal government said once and for all to the provinces: "Here are your jurisdictions and here are the means to get the necessary taxes", then the citizens who would vote in a federal, provincial or municipal election could say: "Well, here is a government which promises a certain legislation, here is a government which taxes me for such measure and it is normal." In fact, we, federal legislators, must not fear the loss of economic control by the central government.
Through what means can we control the economy? Through the budget, tax legislation and monetary policy. The first means to control the economy is the budget. Now, we realize that in Canada, at this time, nearly three quarters of public expenditures are incurred by school, municipal and provincial authorities.
This means that even though the federal government still plays a prominent part in the economic field in Canada and controls the economy of the country, while three quarters of the expenditures are made by other governments, the country is nevertheless not faring too badly.
In the field of taxation and direct taxes, the federal government has already agreed to hand over to the provinces a certain proportion of personal and corporate income taxes. We should strive to hand over a greater proportion of indirect taxes, because they are not as important as direct taxes in the control of the economy.
And in the monetary field, it is quite obvious that only the federal government should continue to take action. On the other hand, if we agree to let the provinces collect the revenues they need, we can tell them: Go ahead, yes. But tax and pay accordingly.
I think it is absolutely necessary that some tax equalization remain under strictly federal jurisdiction. Much is being said about foreign aid, and rightly so, but foreign aid has also its equivalent. We should help the poorer provinces of Canada and the richer provinces must agree to pay to the poorer provinces the


amounts required so that all Canadian citizens can live according to certain minimum standards of well-being.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that you recognized me here away out in Siberia. I just wanted to say to the few backbenchers who are feeling independently rebellious that such are the wages of sin.
I want to say a few words on the motion moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and I should like to ask him whether he actually thinks a white paper defining the opinions of the government is really what is necessary. I think we are all agreed that by and large the British North America Act is really a pretty cold piece of fish without much substance. It was devised by the Fathers of Confederation at a time when they had absolutely no concept of this nation as one concerned with industry, export and finance. At the time the act was devised the economy was entirely agrarian.
Unfortunately we are stuck with a very static constitution. Certain powers have been delegated to the provinces; others have been delegated to the central government. But the situation has changed in all spheres and we have not the machinery to bring about a fluid constitution to meet changing conditions as time goes on.
For instance, I am quite sure that in 1865, 1866 and 1867 education was a matter of reading, writing and a little bit of arithmetic. At that time no one could have imagined that in 1965, 1966 and 1967 education would be a matter of whether or not one could make a living. Consequently it was a matter which was given entirely to the provinces. The situation now is that education is definitely of national concern.
On the other hand, other jurisdictions which have been given to the federal government could now very easily become provincial. Let me give you as an example some of our waterways and our canal systems. Apart from the St. Lawrence canal system we have the Rideau and the Trent which are used entirely for pleasure purposes and yet are under federal jurisdiction. They originally came under federal jurisdiction when water transportation was a matter of defence. So that although times have changed and the situation has changed our constitution, the British North America Act, will not permit
February 14, 19B6

the necessary change. What we really need and what the White Paper mentioned in the motion should demand is some machinery to keep in tune with the times.
Who is to compose the body which has been suggested? Should it be a commission? It must be a continuing thing because five years from now agriculture may have a completely new concept. Finance may have a different concept. I recall the many times the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has criticized the Senate, and I am wondering whether he would perhaps agree that an invigorated Senate with men of quality, qualification and learning could be given the power to study-I say only to study-the B.N.A. Act, to hear evidence, to consider it and then to recommend certain changes in jurisdiction. Surely the Canadian people are not aware of the fine points of difference.
I am quite sure that the people who elect the members of this house and who also elect the members of the provincial legislatures do not think for a moment that these two elected bodies, elected by the same people, would sit down at a table to fight over their jurisdictions, over who is to spend the taxpayers' money and how this is to be done. They want the job done. So far as the people are concerned they are not aware of any jealousy. It is a different story so far as the politicians are concerned. They are very jealous of their rights. But surely this should not be the concept of governments federally and provincially related.
One of the members who spoke today mentioned co-operative federalism, and I have often wondered what it is and whether co-operative federalism will work. The essence of it is government by co-operation. I daresay that in that sense many of the fields of jurisdiction could be divided. In other words, a given policy may be a federal policy and the administration of it may be provincial. It could also be regional to a certain extent.
We need constant and continuing machinery to keep our constitution in tune with the times, to keep the jurisdictions in tune with the times. I suggest that this should have been the objective of the motion. An opinion is not enough because it would be today's opinion and may not be valid tomorrow. I think not only the government but all members of the house should give serious consideration to what is the solution to the changing times and the changing jurisdictions in
Supply-Transport
order to best serve this nation and the people therein.
May I call it seven o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


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

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


[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $4,862,900.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the item carry?


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, before-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is the new minister?


Robert Muir: I do not happen to see him in his seat. I trust he will be along shortly. A few minutes before six when I commenced my remarks I started to outline to the committee and to remind the minister of the body blow struck by him against the employees of the docks at North Sydney, Port Argentia and Port aux Basques as a result of his statement on July 9, at which time he finally announced in public what was going to happen at these docks, how many men would be laid off, and what a drastic effect it would have on the members of the International Longshoremen's Association. He also indicated what might be done by the government to assist these people.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
As I mentioned, we could not get anything from the minister, or from the then minister of labour prior to June 30, when the house adjourned. As soon as we got away from here, however, the minister in the safe confines of his office gave the press release relating to the situation. This was before the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) had had his vision of a majority, and that sort of thing. I do believe if he had not had that vision the minister would not have made his announcement.
On July 9 the minister in an announcement stated:
The primary purpose of these very extensive plans has been the improvement in the quality, efficiency and variety of the service that can be

February 14, 1966
Supply-Transport
offered between the mainland and Newfoundland. With the completion of the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland and the general growth in freight traffic, these major steps have become necessary to handle the anticipated volume of traffic. These improvements in the service between the mainland and Newfoundland will necessarily have an impact on employment. While some of the existing employment will decline, new jobs will be created and many economic advantages will accrue to the communities affected by reason of the increase in traffic.
I want the minister to advise the house how many new jobs will be created and what are those economic advantages that will accrue to the communities? What is going to be done for the number of men who are going to be released from their employment? The only information we got from the minister was when he addressed a meeting of the board of trade in North Sydney in 1964. He had a good time, and he made a very lovely speech. He did it very well, had a nice meal, announced what ferries were going to be introduced to North Sydney, took all the plaudits and all the applause, but did not mention that the ferry was going to be a rail car ferry to be put into operation, and thus eliminate so many jobs.
Last week he complained that some members of the official opposition and of the New Democratic Party were suggesting that he might be secretive in negotiations regarding television channels and so on. However, in this instance he has been playing that old television game "I've got a secret" for many, many months because he would not outline to the union, to myself or to the people concerned just what was going to happen. Following the minister's visit, the employees of the Canadian National Railways received a letter from E. J. Cooke, general manager of the Atlantic region. I received a copy of this letter, together with a covering letter, from Mr. H. J. Grayton, vice president of the Atlantic region. We had a meeting with the mayor of the town and other interested officials and from that meeting we were advised that there were an average of 675 persons employed at the docks of North Sydney during the past year.
I should like to place on record an excerpt from the letter sent to the C.N.R. employees by E. J. Cooke as follows:
Indications are that when all changes have been made by late 1968 there will be approximately 100 longshoremen in the North Sydney operation. Most of you know that the introduction of the Patrick Morris and the recent settlement of the longshoremen's strike at St. John's will result in a reduction in staff. Providing present traffic levels

remain the same, no further major reductions are expected until the fall of 1967. At that time it is expected the rail car ferry will commence operation. A further decrease in staff will take place in late 1968 when it is expected the Patrick Morris will operate as a rail car, truck and passenger ferry.
As a result of that meeting Mr. Grayston said that out of the 675 employees only 100 would be required when these changes were made. At Port aux Basques 226 positions would be eliminated; at Argentia 102 positions would be eliminated and the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers employees of North Sydney would be reduced from 62 to 40. Shop crafts employ 22 at present. When these changes come about it will only require ten.
If my mathematics are close to being correct, and sometimes they are apt to be in error, approximately 937 positions are going to be eliminated. As I have already said, at any time this subject was brought up-and I am sure that the minister will agree with me-he always insisted in maintaining that there was going to be more employment. Can he tell me where this employment is going to take place? That is what I should like to know.
Suppose freight going through the port of North Sydney would double in tonnage, what then? I want to know if the jobs of these 575 persons in North Sydney are going to be brought into being as a result of this expected increase and continued increase in freight.
The minister finally got this off his chest and made an announcement, in Sydney as reported in the Cape Breton Post of Thursday, October 28, 1965, the headline of which reads "Pickersgill says bright future for northside". This report reads:
Transport Minister Pickersgill said in Sydney, Wednesday night that North Sydney will continue to be the main gateway to Newfoundland-
We have always felt that that is correct, and should be. The article continues:
-and predicted that within three years the town will be more prosperous than it is today. He told one of the biggest Liberal rallies ever held in Cape Breton that workers at the port of North Sydney are concerned with changes that are being made at the waterfront.
"These changes are necessary to handle the vast amount of freight that must be moved to Newfoundland.''
I do not know why he is emphasizing that so much. Surely he did not intend to take that away from North Sydney, too.
The article then continues:
The new public wharf will have rail facilities and will continue to service vessels other than the C.N.R "
February 14, 1966

Mr. Pickersgill said that it is "my opinion that North Sydney will grow, employment will increase and within three years the town will be more prosperous than it is today."
Mr. Chairman, to my mind this is a new definition of economics. You do away with 575 jobs plus at North Sydney and the minister has not yet said how these people are to find work. He says, in effect, that everything is going to be better than it was. He says that we are in a new era; that the millennium is coming. We are going to do away with all these workers, and many of them are at an age when they cannot move. The government is going to put into practice the Gordon report which has been the theory of this administration when they are in government-and they are in government now. The prevailing philosophy is: We will provide you with one-way tickets and with transportation to get out of an area.
Let us follow this a little further. A committee was set up comprised of representatives of the Canadian National Railways, the Department of Labour and the officials of the I.L.A. They more or less told me that there is no alternative but to work with this committee. I am sure that they will do a good job to assist those who will be displaced.
During the election campaign the former minister of labour and the Liberal candidate in my area, said that no one will suffer; that everything will be lovely; that nobody will be hurt and that everybody will be looked after. I hope that the minister is going to be prepared to look after those people who are going to be unemployed. Of course, this was mentioned before; but then it was alleged we were the rumour mongers, and that sort of thing. Prominent Liberals in my area said that this could not possibly happen: "Muir is spreading wild and weird rumours." However, we find out now that the minister must be spreading rumours too, in his official statement of July 9. I hope that the minister will get to his feet and say that it is nothing but a rumour. However, I am afraid it is the truth.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
Another point to be considered is why transshipment is to take place out of Port aux Basques. I hope the minister will explain why it was placed there. Possibly the same work could have been carried out on the mainland. I do not know. I hope the minister will explain why Port aux Basques was chosen. It seems to me this was not the most suitable location either geographically or 23033-76
Supply-Transport
economically. I suggest it was against the advice of C.N.R. officials that these facilities were located at Port aux Basques. It is likely we shall spend millions of dollars more at Port aux Basques than would have been necessary had these facilities been placed on the mainland.
Now I should like the minister to tell us just what are the official duties of Mr. Ron Kay. From what I can find out about Mr. Kay, he is an efficient and capable man. His official title is "manpower co-ordinator". I hope every assistance will be given him by the government in placing the men from these three ports about which I have spoken. Concerning this appointment the Cape Breton Post of December 8, 1965 had this to say:
Mr. Kay will interview men likely to be affected by the changes in employment and will keep closely in touch with new jobs developing as a result of improvements in the Newfoundland service.
He will also develop training programs for people who want to fill new jobs and work with local and government organizations in finding solutions to problems arising from the changes.
I think Mr. Kay has a man-sized job on his hands. I urge the minister to give serious consideration to the nature of his duties and to the facilities made available to him. It is all right to make fine speeches and statements, but this is a bread and butter issue and something more than that will be needed. As I have mentioned, some of these men are at the stage when they cannot leave their homes. All they have accumulated over the years is in the North Sydney area.
I understand that some interviews have already taken place and it has been suggested to a number of these men that they should take training. I suppose that while they are training they will receive $35 or $40 a week

quite a decrease compared with what they were earning.
May I propose to the minister that he give consideration to the adoption of the plan which was put into effect with application to automotive workers in Windsor. A transitional benefits plan to assist workers in this industry was announced by the former minister of labour on June 28, 1965. A pamphlet describing it says:
The reasoning behind the assistance program is that because the economy as a whole will benefit from the new automotive agreement, the people of Canada and the automotive companies themselves should bear an equitable part of the resulting financial burden of adjustment which will fall on some groups of workers.
The situation which will arise at North Sydney will not be the result of anything

February 14, 196$
Supply-Transport
done by private enterprise; it will be the result of what is done by the government indirectly through the C.N.R., call it mechanization, technological change or whatever you wish. It will have a profound effect on those involved. Surely some method could be devised by the government to assist these workers along the lines used to help workers in the automobile industry.
Further on, this pamphlet tells us, under the heading "Who is Eligible?":
Any worker in the automotive or parts industries with at least 30 weeks employment in the last 52 weeks in these industries prior to lay-off, and who is qualified to receive unemployment insurance benefits. The Adjustment Assistance Board, set up by the government to deal with transitional problems of workers and manufacturers, must find that a significant proportion of workers in a firm or plant will be laid off for at least 30 days; and that this lay-off was the result of the termination, or decrease of, production, or activity arising from the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement.
We might substitute for those final words the phrase "arising from the action of the government through the C.N.R. at the Port of North Sydney". Perhaps the minister could give this some thought and try to arrange something for these men along the lines of the transitional assistance benefit plan.
As I mentioned a moment ago, the minister has a new definition of economics. Some of his statements are quoted in that issue of the Cape Breton Post of Thursday, October 28, where they appear along with a picture of himself, the minister of labour at that time and the two Liberal candidates from Cape Breton Island-they are looking upon the great minister as though he were God's answer to the women of Canada, or something like that. Any way, he is being much admired. I must say, however, that at the present time the minister is not greatly admired by the workers who will be affected. Let the hon. gentleman take positive action, apart from what has been announced. We know thebe is a committee set up. We know that Mr. Ron Kay has been appointed as co-ordinator. There is still some time before this change will hit us badly.
The hon. gentleman has already told us that the Prinz Bertil operating between Denmark and Sweden for one of the Scandinavian countries has been bought by the Department of Transport. Would he please tell the committee whether this ship will go into service "as is" or whether she will be sent to Marine Industries, Sorel, before taking up her new duties? In the latter case, will

the work cost the amount which is stated beforehand or will we find that the cost of alterations to the Prinz Bertil, if she has not been renamed-


John Whitney Pickersgill: This ship has been renamed the Leif Eiriksson.


Robert Muir: I am glad to hear that. As long as we do not call it the Jack Pickersgill, I am very glad.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, we thought of calling it the Robert Muir but wisdom prevailed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is it-a windjammer?


An hon. Member:: A garbage scow.


Robert Muir: I appreciate these interjections. They are most interesting.
As I said at the outset, since this is St. Valentine's Day, the minister will surely have some good information, in the spirit of hearts and flowers, for the workers who will be affected at North Sydney. As for the ship, as long as they did not call it the Jack Pickersgill, that is all right. "Leif Eiriksson" is in a different class. I would assume that, like the hon. member from heaven, those who have been behind the pulpit are more efficient at being windjammers or blowing a lot of wind than are ordinary members of parliament.
Before I was diverted by the name of the ship, I was about to ask the minister whether this vessel was to be placed in the yard of Marine Industries, as was the Patrick Morris.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, it is. It is going into the yard at Saint John, New Brunswick.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)


Robert Muir: Well, I am so glad to hear that. The minister is still playing "I've got a secret" to a certain extent, but we can squeeze a little information out of him once in a while. It is all right so long as it is not another Patrick Morris. The Auditor General did not appreciate that episode. This was a bargain ship which was going to cost $1,200,000, then with conversion $1,250,000, but when it was finally put into service the cost was $3,960,000.
I ask the minister to tell us, when he is replying, whether the Patrick Morris is now in the position where it can buck ice? Will it be able to function as an icebreaker, like the William Carson? Or, when the ice comes into harbour, will it be diverted into the Strait of
February 14, 1966

Canso area, thus releasing the men at North Sydney from employment a little more quickly?
May I also ask the minister what is going to be done with the C.N.R. ships, those that are presently operating out of North Sydney under charter by the C.N.R.? Are they going to be kept in service when these other new ships come into operation, or will their numbers be reduced? Can he tell us whether under C.B.R.T. seniority rights-and this is only quite proper-the crews from these vessels will receive priority if any positions become available when these new vessels come into service?
In one of the letters we have received it is stated, with respect to members of the I.L.A., that all the employees affected, "other than stevedores," have seniority rights which will help them get similar jobs with the company. In other words, it would appear that stevedores are at the bottom of the list so far as any new positions that open up are concerned. Mr. Grayston said in his letter that solutions to complex problems do not come easily. I think the man is correct because this is certainly a complex problem brought about by the action of this government.
This is the second heavy body blow dealt by this government. A year of two ago it closed down the Point Edward naval base which had a working force of 600 or 700, but now that working force is down to little more than 100 the same situation is going to occur in North Sydney. I would ask the minister to think seriously about this problem. Now that it is out in the open I tell him not to try to evade anything any more. His job, along with the C.N.R. and all the rest of us who are concerned, is to try to see what can be done to assist the men who will be affected.


Robert Norman Thompson: February 14, 1966
Supply-Transport
C.N.R. It has been lowered to the point where people do not want to use the C.P.R. if they can avoid it. It is strange that this standard of efficiency- should be lowered with respect to passenger service. But when it comes to keeping up competition with respect to moving certain freight, which is more profitable, the company is able to meet competition either through the use of piggyback trucks or the consolidation of commercial and express service.
Another point that is obvious so far as the C.P.R. is concerned is its elimination of passenger trains, in particular the "Dominion". It was not just a question of whether or not the "Dominion" was needed to transport passengers across the country. It was a deliberately planned program of the company to make the "Dominion" a train that people would from a financial standpoint not use, thus letting the company justify its removal.
It has already been mentioned today that the "Dominion" was finally cut down to two coaches and a passenger car. What a standard for a transcontinental service, leaving only one transcontinental train on the C.P.R. lines. Yet the C.N.R. has two full transcontinental trains each way each day, with such a large number of passengers that one finds difficulty in obtaining reservations.
Another interesting point in this story relates to the use and privilege of rail passes, which were long looked upon as one of the fringe benefits for railroad employees. Today the situation has become such that an employee of the C.P.R. who has laboured down through the years for the privilege of using his travel pass, particularly on reaching retirement age, does not have a pass left at all because there is not a train on which he can use one. The trains on which he was entitled to travel have now been eliminated.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
It is obvious that this policy of deterioration as far as passenger train service is concerned is a deliberate one that applies not only to trains such as the "Dominion" but to many local trains as well. This is a policy which means practically the total closing down of intermediate stations. One of the divisions involved is the Lethbridge division of the C.P.R. in my own area where, through their customer service program, as they call it, the C.P.R. has closed 75 of the 112 local stations. Of the remaining 37 stations, it is proposed that 34 will be without agents. It is also proposed to retain only a train operator

at seven of these 34 points. Such an operator could provide little or no agency service to the general public.
This is an indication that the C.P.R. has no intention of continuing either passenger, express or communications services to these communities, many of them towns of 3,000 or
4,000	population.
One might go to the extent of saying that the closing of many of the small stations is not justifiable, but one certainly should not go to the extent that is now taking place in the particular division to which I have referred, and which is being repeated in various divisions across the country.
Another problem relates to the ridiculous fare structure implemented by the C.P.R. In my own constituency the Edmonton to Calgary run is a very important passenger service. A year ago three trains a day ran in each direction, filled to capacity. As a result of the new fare structure and poor service these trains are now running at less than one third capacity. The ridiculous situation has developed in which one can buy a ticket from Calgary to Edmonton for $9.75. However, if you are enterprising enough you can buy a ticket from Calgary to Red Deer, get off the train there and buy a ticket from Red Deer to Edmonton, thereby saving 50 cents. If you stop at every station along the line, buying tickets between stations, you can cut down the fare by another dollar or more. This situation exists in the face of the fact that one can use the same C.N.R. facilities at a cost of $4.50.
A year ago fares were competitive. Today we find a situation in which they are not only not competitive, but twice as expensive on one as on the other. This whole structure is designed to discourage people from using passenger train service, thereby giving the C.P.R. a case to bring before the Board of Transport Commissioners and the government in support of its contention that passenger service is no longer profitable.
We have already heard a number of remarks in relation to the slow movement of grain. We learned over the week end about the emergency situation developing in India. Statements have been made by the Secretary General of the United Nations and Secretary General of the Food and Agriculture Organization to the effect that the hunger situation in India has become a major world crisis. Millions of people are going to die this year of starvation unless something is done,
February 14, 1966

yet we have seen evidence in the last few weeks of what seems to be a deliberate slow movement of grain to the west coast-grain that has been designated to India through commercial sales or aid contributions.
Mr. Chairman, certainly these things are tragic and I would suggest to the Minister of Transport that the government has a responsibility to see that this situation does not continue. After all, the C.P.R. is a public carrier, and as a public carrier has a responsibility for carrying traffic express and freight in this country. It has this responsibility because of the contract it originally entered into with the government and the Canadian people. In addition to freight rate subsidies this company has received through the years a tremndous amount of cash, land and natural resources given to it at the time of its incorporation.
I have before me the act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway which brought that company into existence on February 15, 1881, just 85 years ago tomorrow. In relation to the western division of this company, section 11 of the schedule provides that from Winnipeg to Jasper House-
-the grant of land hereby agreed to be made to the company, shall be so made in alternate sections of 640 acres each, extending back 24 miles deep, on each side of the railway, from Winnipeg to Jasper House, in so far as such lands shall be vested in the government,-the company receiving the sections bearing uneven numbers.
This land amounted to 25 million acres in most cases mineral rights went along with it.
This schedule then continues to elaborate as to how this land shall be part of the subsidy to be given to the C.P.R. in return for the benefits accruing to the country as a result of the completion of the railroad.
Schedule 9 of the act states:
In consideration of the premises, the government agree to grant to the company a subsidy in money of $25 million, and in land of 25 million acres-
In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, all the mineral rights have gone to the company down through the years. In my own province an important coal deposit is involved. Fifty per cent of all the coal lying south of the North Saskatchewan river belongs to the company. In addition to that there are important timber rights owned by the company. All these subsidies were given to the C.P.R. in return for building this railroad and for the provision of the services it was expected to render. It is on this basis that the C.P.R. has
Supply-Transport
an obligation to the people of Canada and the country to maintain the essential services.
It is not good enough for the government to-say that the C.P.R. is a private corporation! about which it can do nothing, because the-government has a responsibility to the-Canadian people to see that the essential services are performed and delivered. All the services which are the responsibility of a public carrier must be fulfilled.
As I mentioned earlier, one of the most-significant and evident effects of the C.P.R.'s policy is the demoralizing effect they have-had on the employees of the company. Mem and women have given years of service expecting to have a worth-while pass available during their retirement years, only to find that they have no pass at all because the trains on which the passes could be used are no longer operating.
The attitude of the C.P.R. in respect of pensions and the integration of those pensions with the Canada Pension Plan scheme represent another failure on the part of this comany to fulfil its obligations. I have a letter dated January 18, 1966, which came to my hand just last week, written by a C.P.R. employee in my riding. He states:
Since the introduction of the Canada Pension Plan the company's attitude has been anything but fair or democratic. They have drawn up a new schedule which downgrades the employees benefits from the Canadian Pacific Plan.
Any attempt that has been made by the unions or by the association of federated trades has met with blank silence as far as the company is concerned.
This man then states:
We think that the Canadian Pacific's attitude can only worsen the already strained labour relationship between it and its employees. Other firms, by mutual agreement have integrated their plans along with the Canada Pension Plan to mutual satisfaction. Why is it not possible for us to do likewise?
As you can see, the company persists in using the Old Age Security pension to substantiate its stand.
We claim the old age security is a condition of Canadian citizenship paid out of income tax by the individual and has no bearing on the Canadian Pacific plan.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am raising a point of order but not in any contentious spirit. I do not know whether the hon. member for Red Deer was in the chamber when I raised the same point with respect to some remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. It does seem to me that,

February 14, 1966
Supply-Transport
while observations about the Canadian Pacific pension plan may be relevant to the estimates of one of my colleagues, by no stretch of the responsibilities of the Minister of Transport does it come in any way within the purview of my rather wide administrative responsibilities. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would be willing, as was the hon. member for Winnipeg North, to save this part of his remarks for the appropriate minister.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I was in the chamber when the minister replied to the hon. member for Winnipeg North, but I am emphasizing two aspects of this matter tonight. The first is that unless the government does something about the present policies of the C.P.R., there will be no alternative but for the government to take it over. It seems to me that the government has some immediate responsibility-and the Department of Transport is involved in this matter-in the over-all picture to make sure that the C.P.R. lives up to the obligations it has to the Canadian people and the country as a whole.
I was mentioning this point as it relates to pensions only to emphasize the fact that these policies are having an extremely demoralizing effect on the employees of the C.P.R. This is bringing us to a point of strain in labour relations which could well, as it goes along with other problems that are today facing the employees of the railways, reach a point where we could be facing before our centennial year a national rail strike. One has only to read the newspapers day by day to understand that this threat is coming closer and closer.
What I am saying is not dealing with the Canada Pension Plan as such, but is only emphasizing the fact that the Department of Transport has a very specific responsibility in this connection. The minister of this department carries a responsibility as far as transportation and public carriers in this country are concerned. I am convinced that the government is not doing what it should be doing at this time to make sure that the critical situation which is now developing is stopped.
In a matter of months we face our centennial year. The demand for passenger traffic on the trains across this country will be greater than ever before. This heavy demand will also apply to other forms of transportation. It seems to me that the C.P.R. should be following the pattern that has been set by the C.N.R. to upgrade the passenger service and prepare for the tremendous traffic load that

will occur next year, and which I am convinced will continue after 1967. I say this, Mr. Chairman, because I believe we have entered that part of the cycle following a period where rail passenger traffic has not been as profitable as it should have been, will begin to come back into its own.
It is interesting that the policy which the C.N.R. has followed has been adopted by a public corporation when it should have been the private corporation that took this lead. The C.P.R. is certainly failing in its obligations to the Canadian people. Therefore I would emphasize in these remarks the need of the governments taking action as it relates to the Canadian Pacific Railway. Before leaving the question of the C.P.R. I would again emphasize this point to the minister. If the C.P.R. is deliberately asking for take-over, then it should consider its responsibility to the people of Canada as this responsibility relates to assets other than tracks, right-of-way and rolling stock. We find that the real estate of the company has been placed completely in the hands of an entirely separate corporate structure. Its mining, industrial developments and natural resources have been removed as the assets of the company, leaving only the railroad as such. This is something that was never intended in the original agreement with the C.P.R. These resources were provided to the C.P.R. in order to compensate for the tremendous costs and risks involved in constructing and operating the railway. Now these assets are being used for other purposes altogether.
These resources did not belong to the government or to the C.P.R.; they belonged to the people of Canada and are not being used for the benefit of the people of Canada as they should be.
There is one other point I should like to raise at this time, Mr. Chairman. It relates to my constituency and the need for a municipal airport in Red Deer. I dare say the city of Red Deer, a city now of some 27,000 people with a greater population in the immediate hinterland, is one of few such areas in this country that does not have a municipal airport. The reason an airport has not been established has centred around the uncertainty of the future of the R.C.A.F. air base at Penhold. The Department of National Defence have now indicated that in their plans for this base they do not intend to use its flying facilities for military purposes. They have indicated that the flying facilities at
February 14, 1966

Penhold air base will be available to the Department of Transport, as a civilian airport.
I would impress upon the minister that the need for a municipal airport in the Red Deer area is such that action on the part of his department is urgent. I think it was only last week the Department of National Defence indicated that their program did not require the flying facilities at Penhold, and I would hope the Department of Transport would move rapidly in making a reasonable arrangement in respect of these facilities, which include the weather station and the radio communications system that are now available at the base through the Department of Transport. I am grateful there has been some indication that action will be taken soon in this regard. I would remind the minister, however, that the facilities at R.C.A.F. Pen-hold are much more elaborate than the normal aiport requirements of a community of this size.
For this reason, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion it will be necessary for the Department of Transport to make a special allowance because there are available not only the airport facilities but the weather bureau and the radio communications system that could well be part of the airport. I mention this point because the matter has come finally to a head in the last few days. It is something for which the community has waited for the last three or four years since the decision was taken by the Department of National Defence to not continue flying training at this base. I believe the city council and the community at large have been patient in this regard, because they realized the folly of spending several hundred thousand dollars for the construction of a municipal airport when those facilities were perhaps going to be available at the military base already there, which has been operation for the past number of years.
I would draw this matter to the attention of the minister. I also emphasize that all he has heard about the C.P.R., not only what I have said but what my colleagues and other members of the house have said, in this debate collectively points up the absolute necessity for the government taking some action.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)


Mr. Watson (Chaleauguay-Hunlingdon-Laprairie):: Mr. Chairman, I am intervening very briefly in this debate to ebtain an assurance from the minister on three points
Supp ly-Transport
that affect my constituency. I hope the government will examine the feasibility of making the locks at Welland, Beauharnois, Cote Ste. Catherine, when they are eventually twinned, at least 1,000 feet in length. This is of immediate concern so far as the Welland locks are concerned. The United States government has already indicated it is going to build a set of locks 1,000 feet in length at Sault Ste. Marie. The indirect benefits of these locks would be as important as the direct benefits. There is no question but that the competitive position of our inland shipping industry as compared with foreign shipping on the Great Lakes, would be immeasurably strengthened.
We should consider also the fact that these new lake carriers which will be built to use the larger locks would be built in Canadian shipyards and would result in increased employment for our shipbuilding industry. I strongly urge the Minister of Transport, if he has not already done so, to restudy the twinning of the Welland Canal. The second set of locks must be built to take advantage of any shipbuilding technology which now makes 50,000 ton lake carriers feasible. There is no doubt in my mind the minister would bequeath to Canadians an inadequate legacy if, under his ministry the Welland locks were twinned at less than 1,000 feet per lock.

In French now, I would like to raise a second point.
I hope the minister will consider favoura-ably setting up a Harbours Board at Cote St. Catherine. The public, even in the region of Montreal, does not know that, since the seaway was built, Cote St. Catherine, in the riding of Laprairie, has a deep water wharf
4,000	feet long belonging to the seaway.
Because of insufficient accommodations, that harbour, which represents a frozen investment of $2 million, has not been used for the last ten years. What a waste, Mr. Chairman.
I therefore suggest that a deep water wharf be built at Cote St. Catherine. With the help of the federal government, that would facilitate the building of warehouses and a grain elevator.
A grain elevator on the south shore is necessary to serve the farmers in the southwestern area of the province of Quebec, and there is no doubt that such an elevator would be an economic proposition. There is now at Ville LaSalle, a municipality located three or

February 14, 1966
Supply-Transport
lour miles from Cote St. Catherine, two large breweries and flour mills which could use a grain elevator.
In order to get maximum use out of the wharf which already exists at C6te St. Catherine, the full co-operation of the Minister of Transport, the seaway officials and the municipality of Cote St. Catherine is needed.
I hope that the Minister of Transport will bring all the necessary attention to that project and that he will give it his full support because it really deserves it.

The third point that is of immediate concern to my Mohawk Indian constituents of Caughnawaga is the possible future twinning of the seaway canal system in their part of the country. They are concerned that another expropriation may occur. The minister is as aware as anyone in this house of the problems which resulted from the initial expropriation, some of which unfortunately have not been settled as yet. I am confident that he and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority will do their utmost to avoid any further expropriation of Indian reserve land in Caughnawaga.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, at the risk of being somewhat repetitive, I should like to add my protest to the many already made in connection with the withdrawal of the "Dominion" by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the general impairment of passenger service so far as that company is concerned. I think there is no question but that the Canadian Pacific Railway has been making a deliberate effort to get out of the passenger business. In order to do that, the company has been reducing service on its trains, except the "Canadian", to a minimum, with a view to discouraging people from travelling on these trains. The company would then get into a position where it could present a good case to the Board of Transport Commissioners and, of course, what it hopes will be a good case to the cabinet during the hearing of this appeal. I trust when the cabinet does hear the appeal concerning the withdrawal of the "Dominion", they will take into consideration all the general factors which I think it is essential to consider in coming to a decision as to whether or not the company should be allowed to withdraw this train.
The chief purpose for which the railway company was given a charter was to provide 
freight and passenger service. I do not believe there is any question but that the various payments made to the railway company were in consideration of the fact the company would provide satisfactory service for both freight and passengers. I believe that provision is laid down in their charter. At this late date it seems to me that any attempt on their part to withdraw from that responsibility for passenger service must be resisted, and it is the responsibility of the government to see that adequate passenger service is provided.
In spite of the fact there are large numbers of people who do not use the trains any more, there are some who do use them. I feel quite a lot more would use them if the service provided were satisfactory. During the last two or three years, certainly, the service provided on the "Dominion" has not been such as to encourage anybody to take a second ride on that train. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that the figures produced as to the amount of traffic it carries do not indicate heavy travel.
On the other hand, I know from my personal experience as well as the experience of many of my friends, that there is always great difficulty in securing reservations on the Canadian Pacific Railway at any reasonable length of time before a person wants to begin a journey.
Another example of the same sort of thing is the train from Calgary to Edmonton.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
The dayliners used on that run were fairly well patronized, but during the past year the C.P.R. almost doubled the fare. The fare to go from Calgary to Edmonton by either C.P.R. or C.N.R.-the C.N.R. train has a more roundabout route and takes a little longer-was the same. At the present time the C.P.R. fare is almost twice that of the C.N.R. I do not think there is any question that this increase in fare was put into effect to discourage people from taking the train. Thus in the course of a year or so probably a fair case could be built up for saying that there was not sufficient demand for the train, and therefore the C.P.R. should be allowed to discontinue it.
Continuation of tactics of this kind will, of course, come to this. If a case can be made that the amount of passenger traffic does not warrant the continuation of a train in service, so that the C.P.R. is able to get out altogether from the passenger business, the general public will be left with only two forms of travel
February 14, 1966

over a good part of the country, namely either air travel or bus travel. As far as the smaller towns in particular are concerned, they have no air service and are not likely to have it in the foreseeable future.
For these reasons I hope very much that some means will be found to ensure that the "Dominion" is continued in operation and that an adequate rail service is provided along other lines, consequent upon the responsibility of the railway to provide adequate passenger service, whether or not that particular service happens to pay as a result of the way in which the line is run. In other words the railway should be made responsible for providing a sufficiently good service to attract sufficient passengers so that the line will pay for itself, or come close to paying. I think that situation would be arrived at in many cases if any real efforts were made by the C.P.R. to attract customers, to make their journey a comfortable one, and to provide them with the type of accommodation which people have a right to expect at the present time.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I have heard almost all the speeches delivered since we began considering the estimates of the Department of Transport. That was my way of going through what I might call my basic training, to use a military term. It was also perhaps my way of showing my sympathy for the minister (Mr. Pickersgill) by staying here with the man who, because of parliamentary procedure, must go through this endurance test.
I learned many things just the same and I come out of it with the personal conviction that the minister is more in need of sympathy and suggestions than criticism. I admired the composure with which he acknowledged the words of praise as well as the harsh criticism directed at him with some vigour at times.
With regard to the riding of Trois-Rivieres, I must admit quite frankly that the harbour at Trois-Rivieres has been well treated by the federal government in the last few years. And to hide nothing, I must say that we must be thankful also to a large extent to the previous government which, at that time, numbered among its members as Minister of Transport, my predecessor who has become a black sheep in the conservative family but who surely had a lot to say when that project was drawn up.
Supp ly-Transport
I do not want to repeat what I said here the other day, but I want to point out once again that Trois-Rivieres is the heart of the province of Quebec. It is also, to a certain extent, at the cross-roads of all the important means of communication by sea, highway, railway and air, in that province.
Moreover, the creation in the near future of a provincial steel industry, known under the name of Sidbec, in the neighbourhood of Trois-Rivieres, will require without delay several other measures to make sure that this undertaking and all related undertakings can develop within a reasonable time and to the greatest advantage of the province and the country, because everyone knows that a basic industry, particularly a steel industry, will have favorable repercussions on the Canadian economy as a whole.
Moreover-I apologize for repeating it-the thruway the provincial government has started to build between Montreal and Quebec City, the trans-Quebec highway running from Chibougamau, through the Lake St. John region, La Tuque on to Trois-Rivieres and from there to Sherbrooke and the American border, cutting the province in two from north to south, all that will make of Trois-Rivieres an even more important junction point than it now is.
If governing is foreseeing, then it is my duty to draw the attention of the Canadian government to its responsibilities in connection with that development.

The most urgent problem in my riding, Mr. Chairman, is one which concerns the grain elevators. Up till now, through a special arrangement they have paid a lump sum of $28,000 in municipal and school taxes every year. This year this arrangement was abruptly ended and they are now faced with an increase of about $255,000. We all know that our grain elevators have to compete with those administered by the National Harbours Board and that these elevators do not pay such taxes. Moreover, we also know that the tariffs charged by the grain elevators are fixed by the grain commission and this puts our own elevators in an awkward position, indeed in a desperate situation.
Keeping in mind that since a substantial amount of grain shipped by our country to foreign countries goes through our elevators, thus helping to solve our national economic problem, namely that of our trade balance, I

February 14, 1966
Supp ly-Transport
submit that the minister should consider this problem a very urgent one.
In the last five years our own elevators have greeted 420 Great Lakes ships and 1,500 carloads of grain. Some 178 million bushels of grain have been shipped on 440 ocean liners.
Three Rivers Grain Elevators Company has spent in the last five years $7,310,000 in salaries and sundry expenditures in my home town. More than 7,161,180 tons of merchandise of all kinds have been handled by our elevators during those last years. Again I point out that due to the impact of such an industry on our national and on our local economy, this matter should be granted top priority by the minister in order to find a solution.

Here is, in my opinion, the remedial action that should be proposed:
1.	I believe a meeting should be held between the authorized representatives of the National Harbours Board, the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs or his representatives, the municipal authorities of Trois-Rivieres and those of the Three Rivers Grain Elevators Company.
2.	I have the impression that the Trois-Rivieres municipal council, with the consent of the Quebec Department of Municipal Affairs, following such a meeting, would be willing to make certain arrangements, possibly according to a progressive formula.
3.	Nevertheless, this will not be enough. The Canadian Wheat Board will probably have to agree to some increases in handling rates, while keeping them competitive with those of other countries.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
4.	The National Harbours Board should, in addition, grant some rent reductions and even go as far as to grant subsidies to counteract this unfortunate tax increase through which our grain elevators are in danger of disappearing.
Mr. Chairman, if the fact that the Trois-Rivieres harbour is one of the most profitable in Canada is taken into account, I shall be deemed justified in making such proposals. I repeat that a solution must urgently be found to this problem to benefit all interested parties.
I shall digress to emphasize another situation I find difficulty to understand.
These last few weeks a new manager from God knows where has been named to the port

of Trois-Rivieres. I am told that he has only served five years with the National Harbours Board, that he has passed no civil service examination, that there has been no call for applications for this position, and that although his name is Lauzon he is, practically speaking, painfully bilingual. Far be it from me to blame him for this deficiency and if his name were Webster or Pickersgill, I would, on the contrary, congratulate him for the little bit of French which he knows.
But I know that we already had, among the personnel of the Trois-Rivieres office, competent employees with 10, 15, 20 and 25 years of service. There was even one who had given up his turn for the position of manager and who had then been promised this promotion.
I fail to see why a person with only five years' experience was appointed, unless it is shown that he is extremely competent.
I intend, Mr. Chairman, to make a full inquiry into the standards set for promotions within the National Harbours Board.
As I was saying, in view of the tremendous industrial and business development which can be expected in my region, it is absolutely necessary to plan development of port facilities in Trois-Rivieres and Cap de la Madeleine.
I apologize if I am trespassing on the grounds of my colleague, the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), but in a few months it will all be part of my constituency, and I am making a head start.
Planning should then be considered in terms of the next ten years, for what we now have is becoming inadequate in view of what is expected in our area. I submit that it would be wise to extend port facilities towards Cap de la Madeleine in order to better serve the industries in the Trois-Rivieres area, west of St. Maurice, north of the St. Lawrence.
At one time, during the first world war, Trois-Rivieres had its own dry dock. We feel, back home, that arrangements should be made to refit this dry dock, at least for ships of low tonnage, always keeping in mind what is expected to come into the area. And we would be killing two birds with one stone, because the Trois-Rivieres municipality, with the co-operation of generous citizens, has invested several thousand of dollars to build a marina which is certainly one of the most modern and best located in Canada.
It already accommodates a great number of American crafts and an overload is expected for 1967. All that is needed is a little dredging and some secondary facilities.
February 14, 1966

Always with 1967 and the World Fair in mind, I agree with my colleague, the hon, member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), that the Sherbrooke airport should be used as ancillary to that of Montreal. But I add that the Trois-Rivieres airport, with its 6,000-foot runway-which should be immediately extended to 10,000 feet-where the city has erected an air terminal-one of the most original in the country, let it be said without bragging-will also be called upon to render great services next year.
One can see the importance of a secondary airport such as that of Trois-Rivieres by considering the following figures:
His flying school certifies an average of 35 new pilots each year. Last year, visiting airplanes only made 3,920 landing on the Trois-Rivieres landing strip, and the local pilots, including student pilots, made 7,425 landings. In the records of the flying club are entered the names of 1,080 visiting pilots. This is impressive, and I think I should thank Air Canada, on behalf of the population of Trois-Rivieres, for having realized the tremendous possibilities of the central region of Quebec and for providing us with a scheduled service twice a day to Montreal or Quebec City, to connect with long distance flights. I should only suggest that Air Canada might return to the former route which provided a better connection with the Montreal-New York, Montreal-Toronto and Montreal-Ottawa runs.
Mr. Chairman, we are modest people in Trois-Rivieres; nevertheless, we like to claim that our basic industry is the production of top men.
I should like to note that the president of the Canadian Trucking Association, Mr. George Gouin, is precisely a citizen of Trois-Rivieres and that he is experienced in every phase of trucking in Canada.
On January 12 last, speaking to the Manitoba Division of the Canadian Industrial Traffic Association, he gave a most important address from which I should like to read two or three excerpts. I quote:
We are affected by regulating policies of the federal government governing our industry and other parts of the transport industry.
We are adversely affected by the federal government's policies with regard to subsidies.
A little further, Mr. George Gouin insisted on another crucial problem of the trucking industry in Canada. He said:
At the present time, jurisdiction on trucking operations is shared by the federal and provincial 23033-771
Supply-Transport
governments. Under existing federal legislation, the extraprovincial regulations are administered by provincial boards without any co-ordination or even uniformity. That system leaves much to be desired as far as extraprovincial trucking operators are concerned.
Mr. Chairman, when you realize the importance of transport facilities for the development of the country, when you think of the huge sums of money that the federal government allocated for the development of railway lines and roads in this country, as well as the beneficial results of such measures for Western Canada, for instance, you cannot but come to the conclusion that the government; should study in a constructive way the problems of the truckers in this country.
And I borrow my conclusion from the president of the Canadian Trucking Association, saying:
The year 1966 will register a catastrophe in the Canadian trucking history, the results of which will damage for years to come the national transport services, or it will be a turning point towards a national new and more sensible transportation policy.
Our friends from out west have much to tell us about railway transport: I can only approach the subject with great hesitation. I thought it was a local problem but I realize that the problem of the Canadian Pacific exists right across the country. Almost too much has been said about this in the last three years. I shall not blame my western friends for talking about it.
On the contrary, allow me to pass a small remark. In my region and in the province, when the Canadian Pacific decided to remove trains on economic grounds and to reduce its personnel or cut service for a year or two, it gave so deficient a service that passengers became disgusted and stopped using the railroads as much as they could, thus giving a verv strong argument to those who wanted to economize to the detriment of the travelling public.
I should like to allow myself one last remark. I refer to airfields. I would ask the Minister of Transport to tell the house whether his department has a definite and consistent policy on private flying, clubs in particular. I doubt it. It is a field I have studied and in which I am interested. That is where you find aviation fanatics, who are usually found at the origin of all progressive initiatives.
I suggest that the minister should inaugurate an annual conference with the officials of bona fide private and sports associations in

February 14, 1966
Supply-Transport
order to hold discussions with them, having in mind the best interests in this area of our Canadian way of life. Private runways should be multiplied and minimum services assured.
Mr. Chairman, I shall conclude my observations by summarizing what, in my view, constitutes the main things to achieve for the progress of our region.
I say once more that the most urgent problem facing the National Harbours Board is to help us solve the grain elevator problem and, then, the other problems in the same order as I have listed them.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to participate in this debate, as more atmosphere most likely should be absorbed by any new member before making a maiden speech. However, as the estimates of the Minister of Transport are under review, and as transportation, or the lack of it, is one of the vital problems in my constituency, 1 wanted to make a few general remarks on transportation as it affects Digby-Annapolis-Kings on land, sea and in the air. I know the amiable minister is well acquainted with some of the difficulties. In fact, in a way I feel he is a telegraphic pen pal of mine and now, in a different forum, we could perhaps complete our correspondence.
Seriously, sir, transportation is one of the most urgent problems affecting the maritimes in general, Nova Scotia in particular and Digby-Annapolis-Kings specifically.
I do not intend at this time to refer to the contradiction of transcontinental routes by train and air, which always end in Montreal -and then with transshipment and delay the journey is completed to the east. For the time being 1 shall' stay silent on that problem in scheduling, which is as sterile as the policy which allows it. What does give us concern are services of a more local character which adversely affect regions which can ill afford it. It seems a strange paradox in this day of science and communication, when we reach for the moon, that as far as local transportation is concerned we are worse off than in the days of sail.
I wish mainly to discuss the sea

the only service in western Nova Scotia which provides a link with the rest of Canada. But before I do, rail and air deserve some comment. We in the east join in the chorus of protest over the rail line abandonment and cut back in service of the C.P.R. We look

with apprehension at what that corporate body has already done. We fear what it may still do. We await with anticipation some guide lines of direction from the government to strike, not a balance in the books from red to black, but a balance of responsibility between the community on the one hand and the corporation on the other. Surely a company which helped to build this nation, and received a sizeable portion of it, cannot now cut the umbilical cord which was and is transportation, with the scissors of a profit and loss statement.
In the valley there has already been one attempt at the Dominion Atlantic Railway, the only rail route between Halifax and Digby. There is no double track here. But at the moment there is, and has been for over 50 years, a morning and evening train service between Kentville and Halifax. And regardless of the doubling of fares and cut-back in service and co-ordination with the Canadian National Railway out of Halifax, it is still, for many, the only way to travel between the valley points and the financial and business centre of the province. Regardless of tourists in our centennial year, the provincial takeover of the Digby Pines, and students at our schools and universities, there are scores of people who go to Halifax by rail for medical and hospital care because they cannot travel by road. If the "Dominion" can be cut, what about the Dominion Atlantic Railway. Here is another area where the people long for federal direction-and, if necessary, intervention.
I come now to a service which has already been ehminated. I refer to the status of R.C.A.F. Greenwood as an alternate stop for Air Canada planes when Halifax international airport is fogged in. For many years the fog in the east, which persists long after elections, closed down Halifax and the huge air base at Greenwood was a natural alternate stop. Usually when the ceiling is zero over the maritimes, Greenwood is open. This is a far cry from the present when passengers from Montreal often land in Stephenville, Newfoundland, or are returned to their place of origin when Air Canada cannot land in Halifax. It seems such a relatively simple procedure, as in the past, to have the airline limousine, with personnel, come out from Halifax to service the altered course of the aircraft. There have been many millions spent at Greenwood and many taxpayers who while away their hours in Stephenville start to wonder about life in general and the government in particular when they phone
February 14, 1966

home to the valley to tell their expectant wives and children of the unfortunate change in plans. And their wives, in any kind of condition say, as they usually do, that in the valley the ceiling is high and the weather clear.
I now come, sir, to the sea-and I know the minister from the maritimes has a special fondness for it. But I challenge him, with all his nautical ability and experience before the wind, be it political or otherwise, to dock the schooner he once possessed at Digby wharf in any type of gale.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have lost her, so it would be impossible.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Well, it is difficult even if you have a ferry, like the one we had, which plies to Saint John. I know the minister has heard the many representations which have been made about the inadequate wharf at Digby, and the archaic ferry service to Saint John. In the days of sail and early steam Nova Scotia had, for those days, sufficient transportation service to the New England and upper Canadian markets. But while there has been progress in every other field the present and only ferry connection for all western Nova Scotia to the rest of Canada and the market of Montreal, via Saint John, has continually slipped behind.
Can members of this committee believe in this day and age of tractor-trailer transport that the C.P.R. ferry between Saint John and Digby cannot take any vehicle larger than a half-ton truck. And this is supposed to be the eastern terminus of a national company discharging its responsibility to the people of the maritimes.
Mr. Chairman, the lack of modern transportation facilities to the markets of New England, Montreal and Toronto, is crippling the growth of all western Nova Scotia. Not only does this gap in transportation prohibit any growth in industry, but it is stifling what we already have. Not only are we handicapped in getting our goods to market, but because of the complicated and lengthy transshipment process we have hurdles to overcome in getting machinery and parts to service our plants.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I believe the minister has already acknowledged that this ferry service is an essential link in our national transportation network. If it is essential, it is certainly not now effective. I appreciate a commission is now studying maritime transportation problems,
Supply-Transport
but we do not know when it will report. There is some rumour that it will not be for 18 months, and we all know that can be two years or more. Why is it necessary to wait that long before any move is made to improve an essential service which even the minister himself admits is essential, and which all people in the east recognize is ineffective? Surely negotiations should be under way with the C.P.R. to define the areas of responsibility and start action on improving a service which is worse than in the horse and buggy days.
There is a precedent for action, the type of action which a dynamic government could take. For several years I lived and worked in British Columbia. I think that experience was a broadening one. While Premier Bennett and I did not see eye to eye on several subjects, he does get things done. For years in B.C. the C.P.R. was providing an ineffectual service to Vancouver Island. People complained. The economy suffered. Finally, Mr. Bennett took action: He took over the ferries and his service is now the showcase for the entire Pacific northwest.
The responsibility for the maintenance and improvement of this service rests primarily with the federal government. If the C.P.R. will not live up to its obligations, then the government has to act. The cloaking of the issue in a commission does not solve the present problem. A half-ton truck may provide transportation, Mr. Chairman, but it does not provide service. The people look for action. We hope the minister will act, and activate the present inactive situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, if I may be pardoned a personal reference, during the course of this debate I have found myself recalling one of the first speeches that I had occasion to make in the House of Commons shortly after I first came here nearly 24 years ago. That speech was an attack on the C.P.R. On that occasion, however, I was as popular in this house as a skunk at a garden party.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That has not changed.


Mr. Churchill:: What makes you think there has been a change?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was about to say that the situation has changed but I think there were one or two interjections which would spoil that follow-up on my part. However, Mr. Chairman, because the case against the C.P.R. has been made so fully and has been documented so well, it is not necessary for me to

February 14, 1966
Supply-Transport
spend much time elaborating on that case. I do think, however, that at some point this discussion about the C.P.R. should result in a clear statement to the government as to what ought to be done.
We have to face the fact that transportation is one of those services that the public must have, and when you are concerned with a public service, in the long run it just is not realistic to expect that that service will be provided by an organization whose main interest is in the making of private profit. So long as there was huge profit to be made out of transporting people by rail, so long as there was huge profit to be made out of transporting heavy produce such as wheat, by rail, the C.P.R. as a private organization was pleased to engage in that kind of business. Mind you, it was given the tremendous start that has been documented several times during the course of this debate. I have in mind the huge grants of money and of land that were made to it back in 1880, together with the additional grants of land and money, and other benefits given to it at the expense of the public over the years.
My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North, pointed out this afternoon that these grants run to the order of $100 million in money and over $400 million in land. I suppose there is no way of estimating what has been given in terms of oil and mineral rights, and all the other ways in which the C.P.R. has been allowed to make huge profits. I suppose there is no way of calculating what this company has received in terms of taxes it has not had to pay, at all levels of government.
One of my first experiences in public life was to be a member of the council of the city of Winnipeg. I remember our concern back in those days with the fact that the city fathers of the last century, in attempting to persuade the C.P.R. to come to Winnipeg, had guaranteed that its property in the city would be free of municipal taxes forever. Forever is a long while, and after a time it becomes very costly.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, all kinds of benefits were given to the C.P.R. in return for which it contracted to run a railroad, to run it efficiently, to provide rail service for Canada; and again the word "forever" was in that contract. But now that there is no longer profit to be made out of passenger rail service it has become quite clear that the C.P.R. is doing everything that it can to get

out of that operation. Members in all parties on both sides of the chamber have recounted again and again the way in which trains like the "Dominion" have been discontinued, the way in which service has been made unattractive, the way in which the C.P.R. is literally saying to its customers, "We don't want your business any more."
The hon. member for Red Deer made it pretty clear earlier this evening that the C.P.R. is getting itself into a position to unload at least its passenger service, and perhaps even some of its heavy freight service, onto the government of this country.
Instead of our just repeating these charges, instead of our just recounting this indictment against the C.P.R. over and over again, we should lay down a basic principle, and I think the basic principle which the government should accept and should use is this: It should say to the C.P.R. that either it must provide the railway services that the country needs, the services that it is under contract to provide, and charge any losses on those railway services against the profits of its other operations, or it should turn the whole of its operations over to the government of this country to be run as a public enterprise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I heard a grunt or two to my right. I am not surprised at that kind of grunting coming from some of the members who have been saying the government should tell the C.P.R. what to do. What some hon. members would be satisfied with would be for the government to get into an altercation with the C.P.R., with the result that the government would just take over its passenger rail operation. But we insist, Mr. Chairman, that this company which has been able to make such huge profits out of a public service over the years should not now be left with the profitable operations, while it turns over the uneconomic and unprofitable operations to public ownership.
In this same vein, Mr. Chairman, I want to assert very vigorously that in our view the government will be false to the people of Canada if, instead of acting firmly on this matter, of instead of saying to the C.P.R., "Either you provide this service and charge it to your other profits or we take over the whole operation," it rewards the C.P.R. for its failure in its rail service by giving it more air routes. I say that would be a case of the government failing the people of this country.
February 14, 1966

[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
There is no secret about it. I suppose the proper way of putting it is that it is an open secret that the Canadian Pacific has its eyes on additional main line air routes across Canada. It has its eyes on some of the new routes that have been opened up under the recent bilateral agreement, such as the route between Vancouver and San Francisco and the route between Toronto and Los Angeles. But I say to you, Mr. Chairman, if as a result of all these negotiations and importunities on the part of the Canadian Pacific the government lets this company off without providing railway passenger service, and in return rewards it for that policy of neglect by giving it another transcontinental air route, and either the route to San Francisco or the route to Los Angeles, this will be a matter of disgrace as far as the government of this country is concerned. These routes must not be given to the Canadian Pacific. This would be a case of betraying the best interests of our people. I urge very strongly that the government make its position clear on this whole matter with respect to the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Like my colleagues who have spoken, and like my hon. friends in other parties, I should like to take a bit of time to go into the indictment that can be made against the Canadian Pacific Railway for its failure to provide services. But that case has been made. What matters now is what this government is going to do; and I call upon the Minister of Transport in this debate to make a clear statement as to what the position of the government is with respect to the whole Canadian Pacific organization-its railway, its hotel operations, its investments, its mining and other operations and its air services, in respect of which this company is now anxious to make huge profits. I can see the same thing happening again if the Canadian Pacific is given further rights in the air, and if in the course of time some other means of transportation develops, the Canadian Pacific will then try to unload its air services as well.
Transportation is a public service which comes awfully close to being a natural monopoly. This is something that should be run, not for the benefit of making profits for a private organization but for the benefit of the people of Canada as a whole.
I was disturbed last summer when I read a press release concerning the appointment of Mr. Stephen Wheatcroft to make certain investigations for the Minister of Transport. I have asked a couple of times whether the
Supp ly-Transport
Wheatcroft report has been received, and I gather that it has not; but what disturbed me was that part of the press release which set out the terms of reference given to Mr. Wheatcroft. Apparently he was literally asked to ascertain whether it would be possible to have more competition in air services along the main lines across Canada without hurting the position of Air Canada. To me that is like going to a lawyer before you commit a crime and asking him if he can get you off if you do commit it.
The government surely should have its own mind made up as to what is good air policy for this country. The fact of the matter is that it has not shown that it has a policy. Surely it should have its mind made up and should not have to initiate an inquiry such as that being made by Mr. Wheatcroft.
All of these things I suggest add up to there being no policy at all on the part of this government, or to its having a policy simply condoning whatever the Canadian Pacific is doing and handing over to the Canadian Pacific anything that organization wants. This is an organization which, over the years, has exploited the Canadian people. It has made millions out of the services that it has provided, without concern for the people of this country. Not only does it show a disregard for the needs of other people generally, but its attitude toward its employees is one that is a black page in Canadian history.
I said that one of the first issues I raised when I came to this house nearly 24 years ago related to the way in which the Canadian Pacific Railway had treated its employees who were involved in the 1919 strike with respect to their pension rights. I am happy to say that after a few years of raising that issue, time and time again, and after making a direct appeal to the prime minister of that day, Mr. Mackenzie King, I was able to persuade the government in 1948 to accept legislation making it illegal from then on to interfere with pension rights because of the loss of time due to a strike or lockout. But Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Pacific Railway, which found ways in which to exploit its employees in days gone by, is still up to the same sort of trick. Today, for example, we have the Canadian Pacific Railway quarreling with its employees over every little detail in the Canada Labour (Standard) Code. This is a piece of legislation put through parliament for the benefit of the workers of this country. We went through all its various

February 14, 1966
Supply-Transport
details at great length. Now along comes the C.P.R. with its legal brains trying to find ways in which to deprive its employees of the benefits of that code, simply because it does not want to accept legislation that makes things better for the workers.
The story of what the Canadian Pacific Railway is doing with the Canada Pension Plan and with respect to its own C.P.R. pension plan is likewise a very serious one in the annals of the history of this country. Here we have an organization which exists by virtue of what was given to it in terms of land grants, of moneys, rights and so on. Even in this day it acts completely unilaterally with regard to its own pension plan, telling employees what changes are going to be made, and telling them just how it is going to-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a moment. I know the minister is going to raise a point of order to the effect that matters relating to C.P.R. pensions have nothing to do with his estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, sir, that the hon. gentleman anticipated that I was going to raise a point of order. I am raising a point of order, and it is precisely the same point of order I raised with the hon. member for Winnipeg North and the hon. member for Red Deer, but with a little more sharpness because this hon. member has been 24 years in this house, very much longer than I have, and he knows the rules so well. By no stretch of the rules could a relationship of the C.P.R. with its pensioners be brought within the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Transport. I am quite sure that the hon. member knows that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, may I tell the Minister of Transport something that he ought to know, and it is this. When I appealed to the government of Mr. Mackenzie King, and he was connected with that government in a certain capacity, for action regarding the pension rights of railway workers, what minister did regard this as his responsibility, and what minister did bring in an appropriate amendment to make the change? It was the then minister of transport who recognized in that day-and he was told by Mr. Mackenzie King to recognize it-that it was his responsibility and that this was a matter of concern to the minister who
is responsible to parliament for the transportation industry of this country.
I submit that if any of the policies of the railways are of concern to the Minister of Transport, surely the way in which the C.P.R. or the C.N.R. treats its employees in terms of their pensions is part of his responsibility, and this is just as much in order during the consideration of his estimates as it was in the days of Mackenzie King.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
However, Mr. Chairman, I was only using this as an example. I will come back to this subject at another point but at this time I just put this forward as an example of what this company is doing vis-a-vis its employees. It ignores their rights in the same way as it ignores the rights of the people of Canada to the kind of service a railway ought to be providing. There are other matters in respect of which employees have a grievance against the Canadian Pacific Railway-one of which is the way in which it is making its passes of no value at all. But we can get at that, I hope, when we have the Canadian Pacific Railway people before the standing committee, perhaps in a few days.
I want to say a word about one or two other subjects that come under the responsibility of the Minister of Transport. But I wanted to deal with the Canadian Pacific Railway first because I think it is one of the most important issues facing parliament; the number of speeches that have been made on it make that very clear. I hope the minister does not regard these just as speeches he has to endure; I hope he realizes that this is an issue about which he is going to have to take action.
I wish to say a word or two about air policy, or the lack of air policy, on the part of this government. Here, too, I am joining with my colleagues from Winnipeg-I was going to say my colleagues of all parties, but the Liberals do not have any members from Winnipeg, and I suppose there is good reason for that.
I wish to deal with what the government has done to Winnipeg as an air centre. Maybe we people in Winnipeg have an exalted opinion of the importance of our location, but we do not think so. Amongst the things that concern us is the failure of the government in the recent negotiations with the United States for a bilateral agreement to get any additional route out of Winnipeg into the United States. In fact I just cannot believe, indeed I

February 14, 1966

just do not believe, that the government put into those negotiations the vim and vigour that it should have, particularly with respect to the run from Winnipeg to Chicago. Prior to the adoption of this last bilateral agreement, Air Canada on behalf of Canada had an exclusive run between Toronto and Chicago, but after these negotiations were over that run was no longer exclusive; I believe two American carriers are to be allowed to fly between Chicago and Toronto. If we lost something in that area between Toronto and Chicago, then surely there should have been a quid pro quo; we should have obtained the route between Chicago and Winnipeg.
I suggest that it would make sense for Air Canada, which has a transcontinental route that flies from Vancouver to Toronto, sometimes stopping at Winnipeg, sometimes coming through Edmonton and Saskatoon, sometimes coming through Regina and Calgary, to have a route from Vancouver to Toronto which sometimes would go via Winnipeg and Chicago. The one leg is there, Chicago to Toronto. It would have made sense not just for Winnipeg but for Canada and for Air Canada to have had the connecting leg from Winnipeg to Chicago.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, I find it impossible to believe that any real effort was put into those negotiations to get that sensible, additional leg, particularly when at the same time that we did not get the Winnipeg to Chicago route we lost the exclusive character of the route that we had between Chicago and Toronto. I know what we are up against. These are negotiations that cannot be reopened for three years. But it looks as though if this government is going to last we will have to keep arguing throughout those three years to obtain a better deal when the next negotiations come around.
I know the minister gets pretty impatient about grievances from Winnipeg regarding the way we have been treated in terms of transportation, but these grievances are very real and, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North said this afternoon, the people of Winnipeg and Manitoba are united on them. Other aspects of the problem have been spelled out by other members. I emphasize in particular the disservice the government did to Winnipeg, the disservice it did to Canada and the disservice I feel it did to Air Canada when it failed to get as part of that bilateral agreement the Winnipeg to Chicago run.
A local matter that I would like to mention with regard to Winnipeg is the promise we
Supply-Transport
have had from this minister and the minister before him that something was going to be done about the situation at the Winnipeg International Airport with respect to the stairs that people have to go up and down when coming into that airport off the planes that land there. When you are leaving the airport it is not so bad, there are escalators to get up, and then you walk down; but when you are landing at Winnipeg you land on the ground level and have to go up a flight of stairs, and then down a flight of stairs, apparently for no reason whatsoever.
Apparently something went wrong with the design or the government ran out of money at the time. But two or three times the minister has assured me that investigations are under way as to putting in some kind of movable ramp to avoid this necessity. I regret very much that time seems to go by without anything being done about this problem. I urge the minister to give active consideration to this matter, which is important to the efficient functioning of the airport terminal at Winnipeg, and which is important to the large number of older people, people with children and so on, who use the facilities of that otherwise very attractive and very efficient airport terminal.
There is just one other matter I wish to mention before I sit down. It is one I have raised countless times and I hope I do not have to go on raising it countless times. I refer to the position of retired employees of Canadian National Railways. I know the minister's attitude and I am as sick of that attitude as he is of hearing me raise it. His attitude is that the government cannot do something special for retired civil servants or for retired Canadian National employees. This is an attitude that seems utterly unwilling to recognize the fact that the government has a responsibility to these groups of people akin not only to its responsibility to citizens generally, but it has a responsibility to them as an employer.
I know that the Canadian National is the employer and not the Canadian government, but I also know that when the Canadian government wants something done in this area, something gets done. I know that during the Conservative regime from 1957 to 1962 something was done; it was not enough, but something was done for retired civil servants and for Canadian National employees already retired. I also know that the Liberals who were on the opposition side of

February 14, 1966
Supp ly-Transport
the house during those years called for something more to be done for these groups of people.
1 say it is not good enough for Canadian National Railways to go on leaving on low pensions its retired employees, particularly those retired a number of years ago, whose pensions were based on wages and salaries of the depression years, or even of later years when wages were not such as they are now. This is not good enough in these days of affluence, these days of better pensions and the concept of retirement which we have at the present time.
These people are terribly in need; they are terribly concerned. They are hopeful. They keep writing letters to the minister, to the Prime Minister and to members in all parties. My flies of correspondence from these people are voluminous. They become disappointed by the statements made by the present Minister of Transport. I simply say to him that he should not think this issue is going to die just by his referring it to Donald Gordon and saying the government does not have a direct responsibility. This problem is there as a moral responsibility of the government and this parliament, and I call upon the government to face up to this important issue.
So, Mr. Chairman, I leave these thoughts with the minister this evening. I suggest to him that the time has come to face up to questions affecting the C P.R. and not just to listen to speeches. He must take the necessary steps. The time has come for a clear policy with respect to air navigation in this country. The time has come to pay a little more attention to the needs and rights of the people in the city of Winnipeg. The time has come for a better deal for retired employees of the Canadian National Railways. We want action now.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the minister has come to the conclusion that this house is far from happy with the transportation policy of the government, or the lack of transportation policy of the government, as it exists at the present time. This point has been brought home repeatedly by various spokesmen in the house and therefore, as was the case with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, it is not necessary to belabour it at this time.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Not only has there been dissatisfaction expressed from within the house, but I am sure the minister is aware that responsible

leaders outside the house have also expressed some concern. The premier of Alberta, the premier of Manitoba, the mayor of the city of Winnipeg, the mayor of that important city of Brandon, have all been in communication with the government outlining in detail the problems of transportatin in western Canada as they see them. This is in respect of all phases of transportation-rail, air, the seaway and even the trucking industry in Canada.
Just before I mention the few points 1 have in mind, I should like particularly to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg South who, in his maiden speech, has spoken most eloquently for the province of Manitoba and our peculiar problems in relation to transportation.
I should like to make a few suggestions to the minister as he deals, from day to day, with the problems that have come about as a result of the present attitude of the Canadian Pacific in respect of its transportation responsibilities in this country. It seems to me that during the past few years hon. members of the house have been fighting a rearguard action. I know the difficulty arises because the government has failed to act on the MacPherson report with proper expedition. As a result, the Canadian Pacific has been taking advantage of the delay and, by a slow process of attrition, has been eliminating transportation facilities in western Canada. This is the part of the country with which I am familiar. By the time we get around to discussing the MacPherson report, there will not be anything left to discuss.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman one question. How does he think that the implementation of the MacPherson report would have altered the situation with regard to passenger service?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am not dealing with passenger service at the moment. I was merely pointing out the fact that we in this house are fighting a rearguard action because of the delay in bringing before the house the recommendations of the MacPherson report, which would make possible a comprehensive discussion of transportation generally in the country. We have come at it by bits and pieces. We have to make use of the opportunities provided by the consideration of the minister's estimates, for example.
Now that the question has been raised by the minister with reference to passenger service, perhaps I can be specific in this regard. I have come to the conclusion, as a result of
February 14, 1966

correspondence with officials of the Canadian Pacific over the past several years during which this process of attrition has been taking place, that not only does the company want to go out of the passenger business but it wants to go out of the transportation business completely in favour of the other ancillary activities that have developed around its numerous land holdings to which reference has been made from time to time.
I reiterate the same points that have been mentioned by other members. The service has become so restricted that it discourages the use of passenger facilities. For example, the *"Dominion" was whittled down last fall to the point where it resembled a comic situation, like the Toonerville Trolley, with one diesel, one baggage car and two passenger cars. If you were going to make use of that transportation facility, you had to have the pioneering qualities of the early explorers of Canada.
Then, too, the Canadian Pacific has been closely the privately owned restaurants along the main line within recent years. They have been closing stations; they have been removing agents and they have been removing caretakers. As I say to the minister, if we do not get busy with the MacPherson report and its implications to this basic industry of transportation in Canada, we will not have anything left to discuss.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I can ask the hon. gentleman, who has been talking about the closing of these station restaurants, if he can tell me what has happened to those historic ham sandwiches that used to be in there?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: So far as I know, from my experience, the only thing that has happened to the famous Canadian Pacific ham sandwich is that the price has gone up so rapidly it is now prohibitive. I suppose it is part of the general inflationary trend under the present administration.
There is a point that I am sure the minister has not presented to the officials of the Canadian Pacific in his discussions with them on these matters. I should like to refer to a speech made by the president of the Canadian Pacific, Mr. Emerson, to the Canadian Club in Montreal a year ago. It is a very good speech and I hope the minister has read it. He points out that notwithstanding the attrition of Canadian Pacific transportation facilities, the largest earnings of that
Supply-Transport
corporation come from their rail operation. I thought money was being lost on their transportation operation and this was the reason for the process of attrition.
Here is what Mr. Emerson himself said in his speech just a year ago:
Curiously it is often a source of surprise-
As it was a surprise to me.
-even amongst well informed people, to discover that the railway does not operate at a loss and, indeed, that it is the largest single source of net income to the company. In only one year in the history of Canadian Pacific was a loss on railway operations sustained.
Then, there is further information in that paragraph and he goes on, at the beginning of the next paragraph, to say:
Indeed, for the year just ended-
That was 1964.
-Canadian Pacific will report the highest level of railway revenues for any year in its history.
Notwithstanding that statement by the president, we are faced with this problem where at a time when the economy of western Canada is moving forward by leaps and bounds, when potash has become as important as wheat in sustaining our economy, when oil has produced a buoyant economic condition, we find we do not have the transportation facilities that were operating in the west even during the dark days of the depression. I feel perhaps that is an argument the minister could use with the officials of Canadian Pacific when he is carrying on the current negotiations. I hope that some sort of pause can be made in the process of eliminating one station after another. I know that during the past few years in my constituency periodically we have to get together with the local officials of the Chambers of Commerce and the local councils to meet with officials of the Canadian Pacific in an effort to try to stem the tide of this gradual deterioration in our transportation facilities.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I hope the minister will consider these suggestions, at this critical juncture and feel that there should be some pause. I know it is impossible for local councillors to meet the statistical onslaught of the officials of the railway who come with well prepared briefs, statisticians and economists, and present a series of selected statistics to demonstrate that the railway is operating at a loss. The only way we can arrive at a refutation of an argument of that kind is to recognize that they never include revenues from anything

February 14, 1966
Supply*-Transport
other than less than carload shipments derived from that particular point.
I would also point out that in the city of Brandon, as at other major points, there are tax exempt lands owned by the C.P.R. with assessments of up to $1 million which would realize an additional tax income of $67,000 per year were they not subject to special concessions among the many privileges given to the C.P.R. for the operation of an efficient transportation facility in Canada.
There is one other point, and this is where trucking comes into the operation. Where stations and trains have been removed it is pointed out that these areas, particularly in southern Manitoba, are now being served by the Canadian Pacific highway transport system. But as soon as the railway goes, as soon as the station goes and as soon as the agent goes, that service is reduced from a daily service to a twice weekly service. It is a gradual process of attrition right across the line, and this because there is no national policy enunciated by the government which deals with the basic industry of transportation.
There are two other matters to which I should like to refer briefly and draw the minister's attention. They concern the port of Churchill and the Churchill railway. I hope that as the minister wrestles from day to day with the transportation problems which are created, as he indicates, by the tremendous upsurge in the economy, with the railways being called upon to bear burdens which were never anticipated, he will remember that the Churchill railway and the port of Churchill stand ready to serve the government, the minister, and the people of Canada at any time. Its facilities are far from being taxed to the limit, as he well knows.
I hope he will send a representative to the annual meeting of the Churchill supporters and promoters which will take place at Melville on March 21, I believe. Year after year the Hudson Bay Railway Association members come together and pass resolutions which seem to fall on the deaf ears of the responsible authorities in this parliament. I would just remind the minister, for example, that with reference to the cost of wheat-I am sure he is familiar with these figures- shipping through Port Churchill means a saving of 10 cents a bushel over Lakehead direct sales, 12 cents per bushel over Montreal and, with apologies to my maritime friends, 21 cents per bushel over the maritime price.
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
Such costs are all-important in transportation. I do not believe for a moment that the role and the responsibilities of the railways in Canada have diminished one iota. People talk of highways taking over, or trucks taking over, or buses taking over, or planes taking over. But with a booming economy, with congestion on our highways and with burgeoning and booming cities we are going to have to fall back on our railway transportation system if Canada is to continue to progress in the future.
Let me just quote on example in this regard which I bring to the attention of the minister because I know he is not an enthusiastic supporter of the Pine Point railway development. He, along with his colleagues of the day, discouraged the construction of the Pine Point railway into the Northwest Territories as being an unnecessary transportation development. I refer the Minister of Transport to my very good friend the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who is in the house at the moment, because whenever I have heard the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources discourse on the Pine Point railway he becomes ecstatic, almost as enthusiastic as were the members of the former Conservative administration when they started the construction of the Pine Point railway.
He can give the minister statistics about this development as well as I. It has opened up the Peace River country and has resulted in townsite development which will have an impact on the whole Great Slave lake area. I have figures which show that for the first six months operation of 1965 $9.5 million were realized. I was in Japan in 1963 discussing northern minerals with the government there, and it is interesting to note that already they are taking 50,000 tons of ore directly from the Pine Point mine, which ore is being shipped over the Pine Point railway. This is one concrete example of what a forward looking government has accomplished in meeting the challenge of transportation as Canada moves forward to the future. It takes a government with vision, Mr. Chairman, to achieve such accomplishments, and I hope that the minister will be inspired by this also.
There is one direct matter I should like to deal with; others have dealt with air policy but the matter I wish to raise is urgent and I bring it very briefly to his attention. It is with respect to the policy for regional air carriers.
February 14, 1966

It is an urgent matter because the arrangements that have been made with TransAir to take care of the route that was abandoned by Air Canada when it decided to go out of regional operation and move into a trans-Canada and international role are to expire in mid-April. This matter is giving grave *concern to the officials of TransAir as well as the communities served.
I hope the minister will initiate negotiations with this regional air carrier and provide the company with some concrete program or arrangement to make it possible for them to carry on this important service. What they need, of course, is an arrangement similar to that operated by the government of the United States, where direct subsidies are paid to regional carriers in order for them to continue their service on an economic basis.
While Air Canada indicated at the time it withdrew from this service that it was no longer interested in competing in this traffic, it should be brought to their attention that they are playing an unnecessarily competitive role. For instance, just one year ago TransAir reorganized the route from Winnipeg to Prince Albert via Brandon, Regina and Saskatoon. As soon as they improved the *efficiency of the service and reorganized it, Air Canada immediately commenced a parallel service. Of course a small regional carrier such as TransAir just cannot compete with a big government sponsored organization like Air Canada.
This is an urgent matter. It is important to general air transportation in the west, and I trust that the minister will give it his immediate attention.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
ITranslation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, since the beginning of the debate on item 1 of the Department of Transport, it has been easy to see that this item is the worst wasps' nest of the Canadian government as far as strengthening Canadian unity or destroying it are concerned. We have heard speakers who, one after the other, have talked about the branch lines in their constituencies stating that they were insufficient and also mentioning that they lived in Canada and that there should be a railway in their area, in short in all parts of the country. Each of them also spoke of his local problems and this proves that today there is much to be done in the field of transport to connect all parts of the country and satisfy every constituency.
Supply-Transport
Well, in turn, I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) to a few local problems.
First, I would like to speak about the airport at Bagotville which serves the Saguenay, Lake St John, Chicoutimi, Lapointe, Roberval areas. We have, in Bagotville, a very small airport that dates back a great many years and is far from adequate. A few days ago, perhaps five or six, perhaps three or four, a snowstorm swept down on the Quebec, Saguenay, Lake St. John area. At that time, some airplanes had to land at Bagotville, while others could not get off the ground, so that, at a certain time, in the midst of the storm, there were more than 175 people trying to get into the terminal which is not much larger than the Minister of Transport's office. If all the ministers were trying to get in the Minister of Transport's office at the same time, the minister would not have any space for himself. On this occasion, three Viscount aircrafts, with about 60 passengers each, were held up at the Bagotville airport; as a matter of fact, the terminal was so full that there was not enough room and people had to stay outside in the snowstorm.
I must say it is a disgrace for the Canadian government to have such an air terminal in an area that is developing like the Sague-nay-Lake St. John area. As I said a while ago, the waiting-room is not larger than the minister's office; there is no restaurant for the people who have to stay there during long hours before boarding another aircraft, whenever the planes cannot take off on account of a snowstorm. There is no restaurant nor any of the facilities that are usually found in air terminals. Therefore, I believe the Minister of Transport should do something, all the more because such an improvement has been requested for at least four years now, in fact since I came to this house. For at least four years, we have been told that something would be done about that terminal.
This airport was promised to us by the former government, and again it is being promised to us by the present one. Six or seven months ago, we were told that an appropriation had been made, that the plans were ready; nevertheless, during the last election the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Langlois) promised this terminal to us again. I ask the Minister of Transport whether he could give us tonight a clearcut statement indicating when work on this terminal will begin and when we can hope to have it. I

February 14, 1966
Supply-Transport
believe the Minister of Transport is in a position to make such a statement right now, tonight, since the matter is urgent, with all the inconvenience we have experienced lately at the Bagotville air terminal. I urge the minister to make a statement on this, in order that the whole population of Saguenay and Lake St. John may know where it stands.
A second problem of local interest relates to the railway connecting Montreal and Quebec City to the Saguenay area and serving the cities of Chicoutimi, Jonquiere and Bagotville. Two or three years ago and on several occasions, I asked in the railway committee and in the house, as well as to the Chairman of the C.N.R., Mr. Donald Gordon, that this railway be improved, because it is obsolete today. It is true that at times the train makes 60 miles an hour, but at 20 miles an hour sideways, 20 miles an hour up and down and 20 miles an hour forwards; this means that passengers are thrown sideways, up and down and forward, for a total speed of 60 miles an hour. The speed is greater sideways than forward. The C.N.R. chairman promised to investigate the condition on this railway line. He had even undertaken to make the trip-and some hon. members will remember that in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, the chairman of the C.N.R. had promised to make the trip from Montreal to Jonquiere and Chicoutimi, with myself and other members of the area, in order to find out for himself about the standards of the railway between Montreal and the Saguenay-Lake St. John area.
Seven or eight months after the chairman gave this undertaking, about a year ago, I wrote Mr. Gordon again to ask when it would be convenient for him to make the trip in order that the improvements be made. I was told that improvements had been made, that the timetable had been changed to the satisfaction of all concerned. What changes? Stops along the way were eliminated so that, without stops, the train can run more slowly. The bumps are not so noticeable. That was the improvement. Since that time, those who live along the line, who operate hunting or fishing clubs where the train used to stop, every little village where the train no longer stops are complaining. And do you know what the C.N.R. tells them? Do you know what the C.N.R. employees say when people from the ridings of Chicoutimi, Lapointe, Roberval, Lake St. John write to complain about the discontinuance of the stops of the C.N.R. train along this line? They say: The member for Lapointe asked for it.

If the President of the C.N.R., who eliminated those stops to improve traffic, tries to justify his action by saying that the member for Lapointe asked for it, I say to him that never in my life did I ask that those stops be eliminated.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I wonder whether the minister asked for that. I certainly did not.
Why are some people defending themselves by putting the responsibility on the member for Lapointe as far as the decisions taken by the officials are concerned, when he said decisions are far from adequate?
Who ever heard of improving a line by eliminating stops in order to have the train go slower, so that passengers will not feel the bumps?
Mr. Chairman, I ask the Minister of Transport whether this is progress under the present government? This means: Slow down and you will not feel the bumps in the middle of the road so much. If there are complaints, blame the opposition members. What we are asking for is the improvement of the track and not the elimination of stops.
I take this opportunity to ask the Minister of Transport to insist that the improvement to be done does not consist only in having the trains go slower. This is not an improvement. You must start perhaps by making the wheels round and repairing the tracks so as to allow the train to go at high speed. At this time, the trip between Montreal and Chicoutimi is nonsensical and I believe it should be improved.
Another point of local interest: I think it would be time in 1966 to ask the Minister of Transport to put an icebreaker on the Saguenay to allow winter navigation on that river. That would be to the greatest advantage of industry and trade in the Saguenay-Lake St. John region. There are, for instance, great industries such as the aluminum company, 85 to 90 per cent of its production is exported, mostly by sea, that is by the Saguenay river. In winter, that shipping route is blocked and it is necessary to use storage facilities or other routes. This increases costs and our aluminum industry is no longer able to meet the prices asked by industries in other countries.
Winter shipping on the Saguenay would not cost that much. It would benefit designated areas such as the Saguenay-Lake St. John area. An icebreaker would be needed in the winter to keep the channel open the year round on the Saguenay river. That would
February 14, 1966

greatly help the development of industry in our region, not only that of aluminum but of newsprint also. The Saguenay-Lake St. John region can claim that it supplies a great part of the newsprint going to New York and other eastern U.S. cities. The Saguenay-Lake St. John area supplies the newsprint for the New York and the eastern U.S. newspapers. We are proud of it but if we had shipping, even during the winter, on the Saguenay, we could produce even more newsprint and supply a larger quantity to the eastern United States.
It would be beneficial not only to the area but to the whole country. Our trade balance shows a deficit. If we increased our exports of aluminum and paper, then our trade balance would be reduced, the deficit would be cut and this would benefit the whole country.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot insist too much on the necessity and the possibility of having year round shipping on the Saguenay. It is one of the most beautiful rivers in Canada. If you want to see for yourself, I urge all members of the house to take a cruise on the Saguenay-


Mr. Langlois (Chicoutimi):: There are no more cruises.


Mr.   Gr@: You will see that this is one of the most beautiful waterways. The member for Chicoutimi says that this service has been discontinued. It is true and again it is nonsense that Canada Steamship Lines should discontinue it. However, the member for Chicoutimi was the first, with a delegation of citizens of his riding, and of the Charlevoix riding, to go and meet the Minister of Transport in order to exert pressures for a continuation of this service, at least until after 1967, the year of the World Fair.
Come and see the Saguenay. Arriving at Chicoutimi, you will see one of the best yacht clubs in the world, which, last year I believe, was awarded first prize in Canada.
The river should be open the year round. It is possible. All you need is an ice-breaker. The Minister of Transport could provide one extra icebreaker. It could be built at Lauzon shipyards. This would provide employment for the working class in the area of Lauzon, it would mean jobs for longshoremen of the Bagotville-Port Alfred area, jobs for forest workers in the Saguenay-Lake St. John area, cutting lumber so as to make paper to be shipped to New York over the winter. It would boost the economy of the whole region.
Supply-Transport
In the economic system, every link is important: one ice-breaker would help improve the economy of our region.
I shall further ask the Minister of Transport to make a statement in the course of the present debate on item No. 1 of his estimates. I should like him to promise us that, beginning next year, the Saguenay river will be open to navigation all year round, winter and summer alike.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the minister's attention to another problem, for I see that the members who represent the city of Quebec today do not seem to be particularly concerned with it. There are three in this house, including the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport; they sit on the government side, but not one of them has spoken. As Quebec city is so poorly represented in parliament since the last election and there is no one to take care of its interests, it is my duty to do so in the name of the city of Quebec.
On entering the city, you notice railroad tracks right through it, namely in lower town, across main streets such as Dorchester, De la Couronne, Marie de l'lncarnation, Marguerite Bourgeoys. There are no overpasses. At rush hours, whether in the morning or in the evening, the trains, whether passenger, express or freight, run slowly through Quebec City, and for five or ten minutes they delay the traffic in both directions. This means that hundreds and even thousands of automobiles can be delayed for fifteen minutes every morning and every evening.
How is it that, in 1966, in times of progress such as we know, in the heart of Quebec City, the first city founded in Canada, one can see in business areas, on business streets, at the rush hour, railroad crossings slowing down traffic beyond anything imaginable?
It would be high time, Mr. Chairman, for the board of transport commissioners, which has a special budget for the construction of overpasses, to plan the removal of level crossings in Quebec City, since this is unjustifiable in 1966.
Three years ago I quoted figures which I do not have on hand but which can easily be checked in Hansard. Scarcely 5 per cent of the amount allotted for the construction of overpasses by the board of transport commissioners had then been spent in Quebec, while Ontario received almost 70 per cent of the total budget.

February 14, 1966
Supply-Transport
The board of transport commissioners should undertake to give a share to Quebec City to provide it with overpasses where trains cross the busiest streets.
I know that the subject has been under *consideration for a long time. I know that the Minister of Transport is aware of this problem. I know that some officials of his department have been investigating for many years in this field. Such an investigation has been requested for 25 or 30 years. But is it not the opinion of the Minister of Transport that the time has come to end all these investigations and to build the necessary overpass in the city of Quebec?
Then, I shall ask the Minister of Transport-I know that he is aware of this problem-to make a statement in this connection, so that the citizens of Quebec may know where they stand with regard to level crossings in the city of Quebec.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Another thing, Mr. Chairman. The St. Lawrence should be open to winter navigation up to Montreal. I know this is becoming a ticklish matter for the people of the Mari-times. Far be it from me to favour the economy of port cities along the St. Lawrence at the expense of the Maritime provinces. But progress requires that navigation be open to Montreal the year round. It is possible and easily feasible.
Should needs arise in the Maritime provinces, we will then be the first to cooperate and urge the government to take whatever steps are necessary to develop the economy of the Maritime provinces as much and as quickly as the economy of the other provinces of Canada. On condition, however, that it does not prove detrimental to the *other areas, but helps the other areas while helping the Maritimes also.
There is one last point I should like to raise tonight, Mr. Chairman. It is not so much a local or a regional problem as a national problem.
The question of bilingualism within the two most important transport companies in Canada, both crown companies, namely the Canadian National and Air Canada has been very much discussed and still is.
Mr. Chairman, I have often talked about that matter in this house. I have had the opportunity to discuss it sometimes rather firmly with the president of the Canadian National Railways and the president of Air Canada.
[Mr. Gr^goire.l
I must say that tremendous improvements have been made in the last three or four years, since we started to fight for bilingualism with the Crown corporations. I believe these two Crown corporations ought to be commended up to a point for such an improvement.
But, Mr. Chairman, I must say to the Minister of Transport that this improvement in only superficial yet and that it has not reached as yet any depth. It is only what appears in the open that has been favoured with bilingualism. Of course we have now bilingual picture posters, bilingual air hostesses, and on the trains, in the majority of cases, not on all trains, but in the majority of cases, the train conductors or inspectors have become bilingual. On the other hand, bilingualism has not reached any depth, yet, far from it.
People who wish to communicate with the offices of those companies have to write in English, otherwise their answers come only five or six weeks later on account of the delay resulting from the translation of such letters. The translation officers are not efficient enough to permit people communicating with them to receive answers within a normal period of time.
Whenever people are asking for forms to fill in, everything comes in English. I can give you an example, Mr. Chairman, which is quite recent and which I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport. Yesterday, or rather this morning, while arriving at the Ottawa airport, I found that I had lost my suitcase. No more luggage on arrival at Ottawa airport, no razor, no pyjamas, nothing at all, my bag having gone to Toronto; it was still travelling, it had remained on the plane while I was stepping off.
I went and asked that my bag be retrieved because I needed my luggage. I was asked to fill out a form, written in English only. In the Ottawa Airport, the clerk behind the counter did not understand a single word in French.
At one time there was a telephone call during which not a single word was said in French. I mean that the same clerk behind the counter was advised by phone that a plane had been diverted from its regular course and would land in Ottawa. The first thing he asks is: I hope that everyone understands English, because I do not speak or understand French.
He asked me to fill out the card in English. If the minister so wishes I can give him my copy now because I received my
February 14, 1966

luggage this afternoon; and I thank Air Canada for its dispatch in this case. As for the form, the minister will understand that it was in English only-this could have happened to someone who might not have been as lucky.
But how often does one receive such forms written in English only, on trains on the Saguenay-Lake St. John line, up to Montreal or Quebec, in the Lower St. Lawrence region or elsewhere.
I agree, Mr. Chairman, that during the last three years, considerable effort has been made by those two large companies and I am disposed to give them the credit they deserve, but we must keep on asking so that the situation improve even more and that at least the crown corporations advocate integral and true bilingualism as it must exist in a country like Canada, which is officially bilingual.
If all civil servants within the Department of Transport and crown corporations, like Air Canada and the C.N.R., were as good in the two official languages as the Minister of Transport, then I would say, Mr. Chairman, that the Department of Transport and the Crown corporations have reached an acceptable degree of bilingualism.
I know that the Minister of Transport is one of the good bilingual members we have in this house. To prove this, I had the opportunity not very long ago to introduce to him two of my constituents. After their visit to the office of the Minister of Transport, they could not help mentioning that they had found him most pleasant and nice and that they had admired his fluent French.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: It is precisely this quality in the Minister of Transport that we should like to find at every level of the Department of Transport and the crown corporations coming under that department. It is this bilingualism which exists in the office of the minister and which he practices himself that we should like to find in every branch of the department.
I hope that the minister who understands the problem thoroughly will see to it that everything in his department, and especially in the Crown corporations, Air Canada and the C.N.R. is bilingual, not only on the surface but in depth and particularly within these two corporations because these are two transport companies stretching from coast to coast, where English and French speaking
Supply-Transport
Canadians meet. Citizens use transport companies from one end of the country to the other.
Well, Mr. Chairman, if we want Canadians to feel at home everywhere, these two companies must illustrate Aristotle's definition of "country". Aristotle said: Your country is where you feel at home.
If Canada is to be a country from coast to coast, you must feel at home from coast to coast from one ocean to another. That is why at least the transport companies which come directly under the Crown should be bilingual not only on the surface but also at all administrative levels.
Mr. Chairman, those are the few remarks which I wanted to make about the Department of Transport. I hope that the minister can assure us that the construction of the Bagotville air station will begin as soon as possible. I am making this request on behalf of the four ridings of the Saguenay-Lake St. John area.


Mr. Langlois (Chicoulimi):: Thank you.


Gilles Grégoire: I think the hon. member for Chicoutimi will support the request I am now making on behalf of the four constituencies of the area I have mentioned.
I would also ask the Minister of Transport to make a statement on winter navigation on the Saguenay, on the improvements to the C.N.R. track between Montreal and the Saguenay-Lake St. John area and Chicoutimi. I know that the Minister of Transport is aware of these problems and that he will tell us shortly, or, better still, tonight what action he intends to take and when he intends to take it.

[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I trust members of the committee will extend to me the usual indulgence that they do to new members as they rise to lose their maidenhood. First of all, Mr. Chairman, through you I wish to extend my congratulations to Mr. Speaker on his appointment, and to express the deep respect I have come to have for that office and for the manner in which he has discharged his responsibilities. I also wish to extend to you similar congratulations and expressions of respect for the manner in which you have fulfilled that office during his absence from the chair.

February 14, 1966
Supply-Transport
Before going on to make one or two brief remarks on transportation matters I think I would be remiss, particularly as a young man, if I rose in this chamber as the last new member who will ever rise to speak for the dual constituency of Halifax, and did not pay some tribute to the great men who have come out of the city of Halifax and its environs to serve in the House of Commons.
I think of men such as Sir John Thompson, Sir Robert Borden, Sir Charles Tupper and a long list of others including Mr. Jones, Mr. Powers, Mr. Almon, Mr. Daly, Mr. Richey, Mr. Black and, in later years, Senator Isnor. I will not mention the more recent members who have come to this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Don't forget Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Regan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You should mention Mr. Lloyd; he has gone to his reward.


J. Michael Forrestall: They have all received their rewards, generally speaking.
The remarks I wish to make tonight are chiefly directed toward the generality of the position that has been adopted by the Minister of Transport, in answer to certain remarks that have been made in this house in the very brief time I have been here in respect of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river. I am sure there is nothing I can say to impress upon the minister the urgency with which this matter is viewed in the city of Halifax and the port of Saint John and elsewhere in the maritimes. Perhaps he might remind some of the members of this house, in light of their remarks that, contrary to what they suggest the instruments of subsidy-and I think the Maritime Freight Rates Act,-were not designed to impede any industrial progress anywhere in Canada. Quite to the contrary, they were designed to implement, foster and encourage the development of eastern Canada. But like everything else there is a habit on the part of some to stop in a consideration of Canada when you get to the province of Quebec. Canada does go a little further, just as it did some 250 years ago when transportation was a real problem in Canada.
When the hon. member for Lapointe speaks of keeping the St. Lawrence river open, perhaps the minister will remind him that for over 250 years great numbers of people, industries and dollars, as well as great quantities of sweat and tears went into maintaining a year round deep water port to service

this nation. Although we are generally quiet people, not looking about to pick fights with anyone, people who have made a great contribution to the development of Canada in all its fields, when there is an impairment or the possibility of an impairment of the future development and use of the ports of Halifax and Saint John we do not intend to take this lying down. I suggest very strongly that there will be vigorous opposition.
If at some point in the future it is in the best interest of Canada to have year round navigation, that will not be accomplished except by adequate incentives for the development of the Atlantic provinces, to bring about and sustain not only the present level of activity, but to help vastly to increase that level of activity We have never stood in the way of national development and we do not intend to do so now.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member will allow me to speak I should like to say that I think he has misunderstood me. What I said is exactly the same as what the hon. member has just now said. If winter navigation is opened on a year round basis there must be some incentives given to the port authorities in Halifax so that this area will not be disturbed. That is exactly what I said, and I want it clearly understood that I am not engaging in any quarrel with my hon. friend. I think both our areas can be developed to a greater extent than they are being developed today.


J. Michael Forrestall: I did not misunderstand the hon. member when he spoke. He did make some reference earlier in this debate on the estimates of the Department of Transport to the effect that rail subsidies were detrimental to another industry in Canada. I can only read into that suggestion an area of danger and concern to the life and livelihood of some
17,000	people who are vitally and intimately connected with the port of Halifax. Surely my hon. friend and I will not get into a fight in this regard The fight will only begin if the government pays too much attention to what is said by too many people at the so called river ports.
Before Nova Scotia, particularly Halifax, and the rest of the maritimes can begin to approach a level of parity with the rest of Canada, we must consider the rate of development there. The port of Halifax has a good future, but in the long range picture we are not concerned with the ultimate opening of the river. Unless the government does something in the very near future, and I speak in
February 14, 1966	COMMONS
terms of the next few years, to encourage the industrial growth and development in the Atlantic provinces there will always be people like myself to rise in opposition to anything that will impair year round traffic in and out of the port of Halifax.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before you leave the chair I wonder whether there is any hope of having a kind of self-denying ordinance tomorrow, just considering those matters that affect the estimates for the year to March 31, and saving the more general things for my next run, which is getting closer every day? If this is possible it could commence following the completion of the remarks of the hon. member for Halifax.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister whether he will set the example of a self-denying ordinance?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have done my best.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
William Warren Allmand: It was reported last Thursday that labour negotiations between the construction trades and contractors for the district of Montreal had broken down and that a strike was possible by April 10. It was also reported that this strike could extend to the workers on the site of Expo '67. In answer to a question it is reported that Mr. Pedette, a union representative stated:
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)

We shall do everything to prevent the strike from spreading at Expo, replied Mr. Pedette, but nothing stops us from believing that union workers at Expo will not decide by themselves to follow suit.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Canadian government has already invested millions of dollars in Expo, and in view of the fact that more than 70 countries have
DEBATES	1217
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion already committed themselves to participation, would the minister responsible for Expo or his parliamentary secretary kindly inform us of the following:
1.	Is there in fact a special strike truce agreement for Expo?
2.	If so, what are the provisions to guarantee this strike truce?
3.	If the agreement is broken, are there any sanctions which could be applied to the offending parties?
Due to the fact that Expo is scheduled to open in little more than one year, I consider this situation to be extremely urgent and critical. If a strike was to delay Expo in any way, Canada would be left with a serious black mark against her in the world community.
tTranslation1


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, perusal of Le Devoir will reveal another instance of a heading inconsistent with the small print under it. The title is gainsaid by the article.
Expo is the business of every Canadian, of all classes of society. With the Expo officials, we have every reason to believe that Montreal workers will live up to the agreement entered into by the inter-union committee to ensure the success of Expo '67, because such agreements exist and we have no reason to believe it will be otherwise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the orders of the day this afternoon I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) a question with reference to the federal government's proposed legislation which would regulate private pension plans that come under federal jurisdiction. Specifically I reminded the Minister of Finance of a statement made in the Ontario legislature by Mr. Wishart, which I suggested could be the source of some confusion, and I expressed the hope that in view of this confusion the federal government would reconsider the whole matter with a view to bringing in its legislation at the earliest possible date.
May I take just a moment to indicate what I mean when I say that Mr. Wishart's statement may have created some confusion. In this house on January 25 the Minister of Finance, answering questions of earlier days,
February 14, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion made a short statement which concluded with this sentence:
I am advised, Mr. Speaker, that provincial legislation will not apply to these companies.
The reference was to Canadian Pacific and Canadian National pension plans. The very next day, January 26, in the Ontario legislature Mr. Wishart, the Attorney General of the Province of Ontario, answering a question put to him by Mr. Donald MacDonald in that house gave a legal opinion to the effect that in part at least the provincial legislation would apply to Canadian National and Canadian Pacific employees residing in the province of Ontario. Mr. Speaker, there is confusion right there; the federal Minister of Finance saying that the provincial legislation does not apply and the provincial Attorney General saying that the provincial legislation does apply at least in part, and they were talking about the same companies.
What we are talking about in the over-all picture is the need for legislation regulating private pension plans. When we talk about regulating them we have in mind the necessity to guarantee portability and we also have in mind regulations respecting both the vesting and the investing of funds and the conditions that pension plans operated by private employers should observe.
Now, a number of provinces have such legislation governing pension plans coming under provincial jurisdiction. As yet, there is no such legislation in the federal field. In other words, companies like the Canadian Pacific Railway, Canadian National Railways, banks and others that are under federal labour jurisdiction are a law unto themselves so far as their pension plans are concerned.
There was a day when there were certain rules and regulations under the Income Tax Act which had some controlling effect. However, some of our constitutional people decided that this was ultra vires of the power of the federal parliament, and even those provisions were wiped out. At the moment, therefore, there are no regulations governing private pension plans that come under federal jurisdiction. This is obviously unfair to the persons who are members of those plans.
The most glaring example of this unfairness is, of course, what has happened in recent weeks or recent months with respect to the Canadian Pacific pension plan. Here is a plan which is operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway. True, there is a seven man board on which there are three representatives of the employees. Of course one can see

that these employee representatives are outnumbered. In actual practice, when the Canadian Pacific wants to alter its pension plan, it does so unilaterally. It has done so in the last few weeks. It has put out a document called "Plain Talk" which the company has distributed to its employees, simply telling the employees that as of January 1, 1966, the: plan is changed.
Now, some of the details of these changes,, we think, are regressive, very reactionary. For example, the compulsory nature of the plan has been eliminated. It is no longer a condition of employment and employees from here on are given the right to opt out of their company's pension plan. They are even encouraged to opt out, no matter what it may do to their future security.
Of course, in doing so they are called upon to sign a statement which would surrender many of the rights that normally go with pension plans. It is also a condition that if an employee who is now in the Canadian Pacific plan opts out or any new employee joining the plan does not opt in, he can never get back in or get in, as the case may be. In the light of today's thinking, we believe that this sort of thing is wholly irregular. I am not going into the whole question of the conciliation that is being sought by employees with regard to the matter. The point is that this unilateral action is possible in Canada because there are no laws, no regulations governing private pension plans that come under federal jurisdiction.
My colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) followed my question this afternoon with a supplementary question. I see he is also on the late show, so there will be a detail or two that he will raise later. My whole point, and I press this on the government, is that this matter is urgent. Every Canadian Pacific employee in the country knows it, the employees of other companies under federal jurisdiction also know it, and I think it is not good enough for the government to keep putting it off. I have a list of dates on a page of foolscap indicating the number of times that this legislation has been promised by the government. It was the former Minister of Finance who first offered it in December, 1964. I see you are on your feet, Mr. Speaker, so I cannot give my list. However, it has been offered and promised so often that time must not be allowed to slip by any further before action is taken on this important issue.
February 14, 1966	COMMONS


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I asked a question of the Minister of Finance which was supplementary to a question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The point which I raised was the conflict which appeared between the legal opinion expressed by the Minister of Finance hereon an earlier occasion and the legal opinion expressed by the Attorney General of Ontario.
As members know I am sure, the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec have passed legislation establishing standards for private pension plans which are put into effect by companies operating in those provinces on behalf of their employees. The Attorney General of Ontario, Mr. Wishart, in answer to a question in the Ontario Legislature made a statement, part of which I shall quote. This is his statement, Mr. Speaker, on January 26, 1966:
If the Parliament of Canada legislates upon the subject of pensions for employees of chartered banks, railways, and works for the general advantage of Canada, such legislation would be a valid exercise of the powers of Parliament; and if in fact the legislation covered the same area as the provincial statutes, the last mentioned statute would not apply-
DEBATES	1219
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
A little later in the debate in the legislature he said:
It was our opinion that the provincial legislation applied, and we are still of that opinion.
He followed that with this statement:
Now it is quite clear that if the government of Canada moves into the pension field, that legislation would supersede and make invalid any provincial legislation bearing on the same area.
What is the provincial legislation, Mr. Speaker? The provincial legislation sets out that an employee working for an employer in Ontario-the same provisions apply in Quebec-and having worked for an employer for ten years and reached the age of, I think, 50 or 45 has his pension rights vested. The C.P.R. pension plan, to take one example, provides that an employee must have worked 25 years and must be 50 years old before he has any pension rights. What this means, therefore is that an employee working for the C.P.R. in Ontario will have rights which a worker working for the C.P.R. in other provinces will not have. Surely this is a ridiculous situation. There is another important and very disturbing aspect, Mr. Speaker, and it is this. I presume that the C.P.R. pension plan as it is now constituted has been worked out on the basis of actuarial estimates. If a person in the province of Ontario or in the Province of Quebec has his pension rights vested as a result of provincial legislation, as that vesting takes place the whole actuarial basis of the C.P.R. pension plan will be thus affected and will become completely meaningless. Workers of the C.P.R. in other provinces could find themselves at some future date not able to get their pension because the plan does not have the money to pay them.
This is an extremely important matter, Mr. Speaker. I am not at all impressed by the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary that we just have not had the time to deal with it. After all, who called the election? Who took months off to conduct an election campaign? The government. It seems to me that the government ought to proceed immediately to protect the rights of employees in banks, in insurance companies, in railways and air lines, who come under federal jurisdiction. They ought not to have their rights to pensions interfered with by the fact that this government has failed to act in this very important matter.
There is another matter, Mr. Speaker, which needs to be covered by federal legislation. Employees need legislation which will
1220	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion protect them from rapacious employers in the matter of their pension rights. The Canadian Pacific pension fund has been used in a disgraceful manner by officials of that company. Funds in the Canadian Pacific pension plan, or shares which the pension plan had invested in, were sold by officers of the pension plan, who are officers of the company, to Canadian Pacific investors at a rate much lower than they could have been sold to other interests. It has been established in press articles that the pension fund suffered a loss of $400,000. That is money which was taken illegally, I suggest, by the officials of the Canadian Pacific.
We need legislation, Mr. Speaker, which would establish arms length decisions. We need legislation which would establish that there should be no conflict of interest, and we call on the federal government not just to delay this matter and not, just to say that they know it is important, and that they will get around to it. Mr. Speaker, the length of
DEBATES	February 14, 196&
things which this government at some time hopes to get around to, if put end to end, would circle the world. We want action now, and not next year or in ten years from now.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his clearcut statement on this problem. This interesting observations have been noted, of course, and will be passed on to the minister.
However, I want to point out to him that we are also interested in protecting the rights of the workers faced with this problem, but in view of the jurisdictional problems involved, we must be very careful. I can assure him, as I said earlier, that steps will be taken as soon as possible to solve this problem.

Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Tuesday, February 15, 1966