1966-02-15

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the house that four objections signed by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce and 17 other hon. members in one case; by the hon. member for Saguenay and 10 other hon. members in the second case; by the hon. member for Cochrane and 10 other members in the third case, and finally by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and 10 other members, have been filed with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act for the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Ontario and Saskatchewan respectively.
These will be printed as appendices to Votes and Proceedings for this day. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVILEGE


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minisier of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the French translation of the estimates blue book I tabled yesterday is not an accurate reflection of the English version.
Vote 30 on pages 430 and 439 should be deleted, the total to be voted on page 431 should be changed to $17,524,100 from $27,524,100 and the total for the summary on page 431 should be changed to $45,761,100 from $55,761,100. The increases in the summary on this page should be changed to $8,898,200 and $9,388,200 respectively.
The totals on the departmental summary on pages 4 and 5 and on the summary by standard objects in the back of the blue book are correct as tabled.
We have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of spending more money in one language than the other.



CANADIAN FLAG


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table a booklet on the national flag of Canada, which was officially flown for the first time a year ago today after it had been approved by parliament and proclaimed by Her Majesty the Queen.
To mark the first anniversary of this historic occasion this booklet is today also being made available to the public through the Queen's Printer, and to members of parliament in the usual way. The booklet records some of the highlights of the ceremony a year ago and sets out some general rules and principles for flying and displaying with dignity and respect our national flag. These rules and principles are an adaptation of international usage and the practice which has been followed by the federal government over many years.
There has been widespread interest shown in information about the way to fly flags and many requests for advice have been received. I hope this booklet will meet these requests.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
[Translation1


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, because a year ago today the Canadian flag was officially recognized, I should like to take this opportunity to say that it has, in the last year, greatly contributed to Canadian unity, that the flag has been accepted by all Canadian citizens, that to see it floating over Canadian buildings is a beautiful sight, and that this augurs well for the future of Canada.



NELSON RIVER-ANNOUNCEMENT OF FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT

Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that the federal government has agreed in principle to participate with the government of Manitoba in commencing the development of the vast resources of hydro power of the lower Nelson river in northern Manitoba. The initial phase
February 15, 1966

Nelson River Power Development will include the construction of a power site at Kettle rapids and the installation of 855,000 kilowatts of generating capacity; the diversion of part of the flow of the Churchill river into the Nelson river system near Thompson, Manitoba; works at the outlet of lake Winnipeg to control the level of that lake and the outflow from it, and long high voltage transmission lines from the Kettle rapids site southwest to the neighbourhood of Winnipeg. The total cost of this minimum initial development of the power in the lower Nelson will exceed $300 million.
The federal government will construct, finance and own the high voltage transmission lines required to move the Nelson river power to Winnipeg and, when markets are developed, to the international and interprovincial boundaries. The cost of the high voltage transmission lines presently planned from Kettle to Winnipeg and the ancillary equipment has been estimated at about $120 million. The line will be leased to the Manitoba Hydro at rates per year and per kilowatt hour of energy transmitted which will suffice over a period of approximately 50 years to repay with interest the investment made in the line.
The federal government's participation will insure that this power site of such great importance does not remain undeveloped only because it is located in a province in which the market for power is still too limited for the province alone to bear the full burden of financing its development. The potential benefits to Canada include a reasonable possibility of the export of power to the midwestern United States and the possible sale of low cost power to Saskatchewan and Ontario through interconnections between the utilities of the three provinces. Although the Nelson development can only be achieved in successive steps, the ultimate development will be of the magnitude of five million kilowatts.
The government of Manitoba and of Canada will proceed as soon as possible to negotiate the necessary formal agreement, following which the federal government will seek the approval of parliament for it. My colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Pepin), minister designate of the new department of energy, mines and resources, will conduct these negotiations with the province of Manitoba.
Co-operation between the Manitoba and federal authorities has enabled this great resource to be surveyed, and the possibilities of development appraised, in such a manner

as to lead to the present agreement. I should like to pay tribute to my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr Laing) for the important part played by him and his department in the earlier stages of the investigations which have led to today's announcement.
The power resources of the lower Nelson river have been surveyed at a cost of $4 million as a 50-50 joint federal-provincial undertaking over the past three years under the direction of a joint Nelson river programming board. With the consent of the house, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the interim report of that board, which is dated December, 1965.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Prime Minister have leave of the house to table the report referred to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement
made by the Prime Minister is of major importance to national development. This represents the culmination of the progressive policies of northern development instituted by the Progressive Conservative government a few years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The vision of the north which was ridiculed so often is now beginning to show real sense to the people of Canada. This is what we have been looking for for many years, and I pay tribute to the Conservative government of Manitoba for its initiative in proceeding with its plans for the development of the Nelson river.
There is an opportunity now for the present government to proceed with the plans we had underway several years ago, namely the development of a national grid. Here we have one of the great water resources of northern Manitoba available with a surplus of power for the advantage of the other provinces of Canada, and I would point out to the Minister of Industry and to other members of the cabinet that here is a fine opportunity for the promotion of industrial development in western Canada.
Obviously there will be a readily available surplus of cheap electric power which will be of advantage to industrial development. If there is power surplus to Canadian requirements there will likely be available a ready market south of the border, and I am sure
February 15, 1966	COMMONS
the energy board will be looking at this aspect with a great deal of interest.
We welcome this announcement, and we are glad the federal government has begun to show some interest in northern development.


Mr. E. R. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister's statement will be welcomed by the people of Manitoba as well as by the provincial authorities. I did not hear some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, particularly the one which caused such a flutter among those sitting on the Conservative benches. For my part I do not think this is the right time to make any sort of partisan comment. I merely say that the development of the energy potential of the Nelson river has been under constant study for the past four years. Finally we have an undertaking that substantial federal support will be forthcoming.
I think it should be borne in mind by both levels of government that in developing these sources of electric power we should try at all times to plan for the maximum utilization of this energy within Canada. I realize that in the short run most of this power will have to be exported to markets across the line. Nevertheless, I hope the government will always be mindful that in the long run the utilization of this energy should be planned with the needs of the Canadian consumer in mind.


Mr. Real Caouetle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, each time the government says it will contribute to the economic development of the country, we are very happy to hear it. To our minds, the important undertaking just announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) with regard to the province of Manitoba and the whole of Western Canada, will greatly help that section of the country.
However, other undertakings just as important are possible and needed in other regions of the country. Be that as it may I repeat that each time the government announces some economic development, we welcome the news.
As the previous speaker said, this is not the time to indulge in political partisanship, although the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) did so a little earlier, claiming that the Nelson river exists in Manitoba thanks to the Conservatives.
DEBATES	1223
Nelson River Power Development
He seems to forget that it was under a Conservative government that Canada went through its worst times-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: -when we had a million unemployed in Canada. He seems to forget, Mr. Speaker, that the economic development of the country-
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take the liberty to remind the hon. member of the dispositions of standing order 15(2)(a), which provides that members may comment briefly on the subject matter of the announcement made, and should not make any statement that might provoke debate. So I invite the hon. member for Villeneuve to limit his remarks to the substance, to the essence of the statement made by the right hon. Prime Minister.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief, but I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the same thing could have been done to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, when he had the floor.
In any event, I sincerely believe that the reason why these developments are now taking place in Manitoba or elsewhere in Canada is the fact that the Conservatives are no longer in office.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure all Canadians rejoice when announcements are made such as we heard today, which indicate further development of the tremendous resources we have in Canada. I found myself wondering, as I heard the Prime Minister's announcement, whether this is an indication of governmental policy which may help by sharing the cost of transmission lines from such hydroelectric developments as the Peace river. I am sure in that case the cost will be much more than the $120 million referred to when it comes to the construction of similar transmission lines to the lower mainland. The same could be true of Hamilton Falls as well.
We would hope the policy just announced will be reflected in the fiscal policies to be worked out with the provinces relating to similar cost sharing programs.
1224	COMMONS
Nelson River Power Development


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, we have seen a situation develop in this house which allows members who purport to be leaders of parties, but which have no party basis in the house, to rise up and make statements on motions.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Robert Carman Coates: This is very important because it affects the privileges of every member of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Carman Coates: When these members stand up and make statements on motions they are delaying the business of the house. One of them leads eight other members; the second leads four other members. We also have two independent members. If they preferred to join together in a formal party I should think one of them could stand up and also comment, and we could get into a position where another member belonging to a national party would have no opportunity to comment.
It is my belief, sir, that you should take this matter under advisement and indicate who should be permitted to reply on motions and who should not be able to reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. When this point was raised, I believe about a week ago, I indicated that if the point of order were raised again I would give hon. members the opportunity to submit representations one way or the other, and that I would then take the matter under consideration. If other hon. members wish to submit argument on this point to enlighten the Chair on how to interpret standing order 15, I would be pleased to hear them at this time.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the wording of standing order 15 (2a) under which we are operating is quite clear. It also seems to me that our practice in this matter is quite clear. The latter part of standing order 15 (2a) reads:
A spokesman for each of the parties in opposition-
It does not say "a leader"; it says "a spokesman". Those words, including the word "opposition", are all in lower case letters, and there is no reference to the official opposition. It states:
A spokesman for each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment briefly, subject to the same limitation.

DEBATES	February 15, 19S6
I suggest that in a number of ways this house has already recognized that there are four groups or parties in opposition to the government, and that it is perfectly proper that one spokesman for each of those parties in opposition to the government should speak on these motions if he wishes to do so.
I would point out to Your Honour and to the hon. member who has just spoken that this is a new rule, albeit provisional, which was adopted during the last parliament on the recommendation of a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker on which the same five parties now in the house were represented. When the rule was brought in it was understood that it was presented on behalf of the five parties then in the house, and throughout the last parliament at any time a spokesman for one of these parties wished to reply to one of these statements on motions Mr. Speaker allowed him to do so.
I should also point out that the wording of standing order 15 (2a), at least the part that I have read, was actually taken from a ruling given by Mr. Speaker Michener. Up to that point it was just a ruling or citation listed in Beauchesne. When Mr. Michener was in the chair he sought to avoid the practice of having several people from each of the different parties speak, so he narrowed it to one spokesman for each party; and that dictum given by Mr. Speaker Michener was accordingly put into the rule when we drafted standing order 15 (2a). I suggest that the practice of the last parliament is the one we should continue to follow in this parliament.
I have heard some of my friends to the right asking the question, how do we define parties? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is no such thing as an over-all definition of parties so far as the House of Commons is concerned. In the first place the names of the parties are not allowed on the ballot papers. We come here as individual members and our groupings are the result of our own arrangements. The only case where the word "party" appears, so far as the members of the House of Commons are concerned, is in the Senate and House of Commons Act where provision is made for an extra allowance to the leader of a party other than the government or the official opposition when that party has 12 or more members. But that, Mr. Speaker, and I assert it as strongly as I can, does not define a party. This is merely a definition for the purpose of that one piece of legislation, namely the Senate and House of Commons Act.
February 15, 1966	COMMONS
I submit there is no over-all definition of parties in this house, and that we have accepted the fact that we are here as five groups. Your Honour has allotted areas in this house for the seating of each of the five groups that are here. I suggest that to attempt to alter this arrangement by objecting to spokesmen for the various parties having a chance to speak on motions is certainly defying the spirit of the last parliament, defying the spirit of parliament itself and defying the wishes of the Canadian people who, of their own free will, sent members of five parties to this House of Commons.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, in support of the logical argument advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I should like to suggest to you that what you have done on a number of occasions, and what you did this afternoon in allowing one spokesman from each party to respond to the announcement made by the Prime Minister, is in keeping with the long traditions and practices of this house. Any one who now suggests that there is a new definition of a party in respect of this kind of recognition is in fact attempting to change this long established practice.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
For example, during the years 1958 to 1962, when there were eight members in the C.C.F. party and later the New Democratic party, because the name changed during that period, the leader or a spokesman from among the eight was accorded the privilege of expressing the opinion of that party with respect to an announcement such as the Prime Minister made this afternoon.
I draw to your attention also, Mr. Speaker, that on many occasions prior to that time, particularly from 1935 up to 1957, there were numbers like eight, ten, twelve and even less in groups in this House of Commons, and they too were given an opportunity to state their party's policy in response to this kind of announcement. Therefore while, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has suggested, standing order 15(2a( is a new rule, there is precedent for this procedure by virtue of long practice.
Speaking specifically about this party, Mr. Speaker, while we have only five members with seats in this House of Commons, I would draw to your attention that there were well over 300,000, in fact I think nearly 400,000, Canadians who voted for our party. Surely this group of people have the right to have
23033-78i
DEBATES	1225
Nelson River Power Development their opinions expressed when this kind of announcement is made. I also suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in so far as this party is concerned we have a direct relationship with two provincial governments, or one fifth of all the provincial governments in this country. I am sure Your Honour understands that there is a direct relationship between the policies we hold and the policies of these two provincial governments.
Surely when the Prime Minister makes an announcement that directly involves negotiations between the federal government and the provincial governments-and this was the essence of what the Prime Minister announced this afternoon-spokesmen who are in the same party as these two provincial governments ought to be able to give an expression of opinion in response to that announcement.
Therefore I do not think there is any validity whatever in the argument advanced by the hon. member for Cumberland, because if you were to seriously consider what he is suggesting this afternoon you would have to go against all the tradition and practice of this house for the past 30 years; you would have to violate what I suggest was accepted by this house when it approved standing order 15 (2a). You would also to some extent violate the right of some 400,000 people to have their opinions expressed, and you would remove the possibility for the two provincial governments of the same party as this to express their views in response to this kind of announcement.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, as you no doubt are aware I am something of a hybrid in this house. I represent the Liberal-Labour Association of Kenora-Rainy River.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Mercer Reid: I want to put myself on record as in agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Medicine Hat. I might say at this time that while I find myself in very congenial company in the Liberal party here, there may come a time with the shifting sands of politics when I would find it necessary to move away.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Hurry up before it is too late.


John Mercer Reid: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I speak in the most hypothetical manner. But I do want to put myself on record in this
1226	COMMONS
Nelson River Power Development connection, because I do not want to see the representatives of any minority group, particularly the independents, abolished by a rather unscrupulous attempt by the members across the way to cut off valid sections of the Canadian population from the opportunity of expressing their opinions in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member used a word that went beyond his thoughts when he referred to the "unscrupulous" attempt made by the opposition.
I have no doubt that the word was used in a very general sense and that no one will insist that it be amended at this time.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to put on record, or to recall for hon. members, a sentence that will always remain famous; in fact, it was once spoken here, in this house, and I believe it should be repeated on the occasion of this debate.
It was spoken in October 1963 by the present right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), when he said: "I do not agree with your ideas, but I will fight to death to assure you the right to express them."
Mr. Speaker, such an example of democratic spirit and freedom of speech should help you to arrive at a decision on the question at hand. Canada is under a democratic system where any idea may be expressed. A substantial part of the Canadian people have selected representatives from different parties to express their views in the house. That is why I believe third parties also should be entitled to express their opinions on motions introduced before the house, particularly in view of the fact that the Conservative party, while it may have the largest number of opposition members, does not speak in the name of all the opposition and in many cases, our ideas vary on different subjects. They speak on their own behalf, but not in the name of the third parties.
For these reasons, I believe that in the future as in the past, you should allow third parties to speak on motions.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear from the discussion which has taken place that the point of order raised is a difficult one. It is also quite evident, if I may comment on some of the discussion, that this debate has gone

DEBATES	February 15, 1966
beyond the point at issue, which is a narrow one as to the interpretation of the meaning of a rule. I suggest that now the point has been raised specifically, it be taken under advisement and a decision given later after there is an opportunity to prepare a carefully reasoned decision on the point.


Some hon. Members:: Do it now.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add just one word. On behalf of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Mongrain) and myself, I endorse the remarks made by the hon. members of the New Democratic party, the Ralliement creditiste and the Social Credit party about the right of members of third parties to speak. Since the beginning of this session, in spite of the good will and good faith shown by the Speaker and his assistants, the chairman and the deputy chairman of the committees of the whole house, efforts are being made to restrain the number of members from the third parties, and we are against that. I must point out also that we, the two independent members in this parliament, represent more than a hundred thousand voters and I think that, to a certain extent, we are living proof that the people wish to see some changes in the political parties.
The Speaker's role is to protect the minorities in this house. We have the right to speak, and not only after the party whips have decided to let six Liberals, six Conservatives and six members of the New Democratic party have the floor. We have been elected to the house by the people. We represent not only a riding, a province, a party, but we have been elected members of parliament for Canada and represent the whole country. We are all equal when it comes to having the right to speak.
That is why I ask you, on behalf of the hon. member for Three Rivers and the others, to reconsider this attitude and not allow the party whips to decide who is going to speak.

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South
Centre): I appreciate the difficulty in which you are, Mr. Speaker, as the result of having to come to a decision on this point. Perhaps you are going to reserve judgment. I was very much interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Medicine Hat, the great reformists of just a year ago in the committee
February 15, 1566

on rules and procedure. Now they have become great traditionalists. These are the men who are holding on to the past. They do not want to move up into the twentieth century. They are antediluvian; just because something was done a few years ago they think it should be continued forever. I believe you will have to take that into account.
I was interested in the unhappiness of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River with the Liberal party. I quite understand that unhappiness. If he wants to form a party of his own, perhaps we might give him a chance to speak on behalf of that party.
I think the crux of the matter

as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, is that the word "party" has not been defined. Nevertheless in 1963, when an arrangement was made to pay an extra amount of money to the leaders of groups who had eleven followers, that definition was incorporated or placed into the statutes of this country.
This is a guide for the Speaker as to what should be done on the matter of motions. Unless Mr. Speaker will permit independents to speak, and others who may claim that they represent several thousand people, I do not see how any control can be exercised other than by referring to the precedent established in 1963. This precedent has determined that a party, in so far as we recognize parties in this house, must be on the basis of a minimum of twelve members. If those who sit in opposition would consider themselves as the opposition to the present government, the present government would no longer be sustained.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair does not want to stop debate-does the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona want to add a word to what has been said?


Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: I did not believe I should allow the remarks of the hon. member for Medicine Hat to pass without comment. There were two matters he mentioned. One was the fact that he was a member in this house speaking for a provincial government rather than as a federal member of parliament. I feel it would be most unwise if parliament were to give any credence to any such theory. The second ridiculous theory he expounded was that because he happens to belong to the same political party as that which is in power in the province of Alberta he therefore has some special status in this house. I feel the house
Wheat Board Purchases should recognize that if a voice from a province should be heard, it should be heard according to the manner in which the people of that province sent members to speak for them here. Certainly, in so far as the province of Alberta is concerned, that would be a Conservative voice and not the ridiculous voice of Social Credit.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: I should like to add my support to what the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona has just said. He left out one point. The hon. member for Medicine Hat said that his group represented 300,000 or
400,000	people in Canada, and I believe he said that these Canadian people had a right to have their opinions expressed. I should like to remind the Chair that each of us represents 50,000 or more people who have as much right to have their opinions expressed as the 300,000 or 400,000. If you are going to recognize individuals, then I think every member in this house should be able to get up and suggest that his constituents have a right to be heard.
This is what we have been objecting to in the past, Mr. Speaker, when you have tried to speed up the business of this house and you have been restricting backbenchers from time to time-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wanted to hear arguments with regard to the application of standing order 15 (2a) only, and the hon. member is going considerably beyond that so I will not hear further argument. The Chair will take under advisement the arguments submitted and in due course render a decision.



WHEAT BOARD PURCHASES-CLARIFICATION OF ANSWER TO STARRED QUESTION

Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: On Monday, February 7, Mr. Speaker, I replied in French to starred question No. 319 asked by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. The English translation does not reflect exactly the meaning of the information received from the officials. With your permission therefore, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read the reply, as prepared in English, to clarify the record.
The answer to the first part of the question is as follows. In addition to stocks delivered to the Canadian Wheat Board by producers the only purchases of wheat by the Canadian Wheat Board since December 1, 1965 have been limited overages received from terminal

February 15, 1966
Canada Medal
elevators. These overages are purchased at the initial payment price for the grain concerned.
2.	As a sales policy the Canadian Wheat Board allows members of the grain trade who are agents of the board to enter into firm sales commitments for wheat at seaboard ports for immediate shipment or for shipment within authorized contract periods in the future. At the present time the board has not entered into any such sales commitments for shipment beyond July 31, 1966. In some cases the agents of the board may purchase this wheat for any destination of their choice. In other cases such sales are confined to destinations which cannot be changed without permission of the board. Since August 3, 1965 the board has confined sales by its agents to named destinations. The wheat recently purchased by the Canadian government from agents of the board for shipment to India was made possible by the board agreeing to change to India the destinations previously agreed.
3.	Currently most of the board's open sales commitments to its agents are for named destinations. Prior to export shipment, the board has no way of ascertaining to what extent its agents have finalized sales to the ultimate buyers in the declared destinations.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



CANADA MEDAL


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 122, an act concerning the Canada medal.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: The Canada medal was created by virtue of order in council No. 7964 of October 14, 1943, as a recognition for extraordinary and meritorious services rendered by Canadians and non-Canadians. Now, it would seem that the various governments which have successively governed our country have forgotten the order and have shelved it.
Under my bill, the Canada medal would be awarded for the first time on July 1, 1967, on the occasion of the centennial celebrations. Afterwards, it would be awarded each year, on the same date, during appropriate ceremonies.
Contrary to the order in council, this bill provides for a bilingual medal. In addition, the decoration should proudly bear the symbol-


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to remind the hon. member that he is entitled to give a brief explanation but he may now be exceeding the limits set down by standing orders.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN MANITOBA AND NEWFOUNDLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a statement today regarding the development of power in Manitoba following the undertaking entered into on February 18, 1963 to carry out a survey of the Nelson River area. I would ask the Prime Minister whether it is the government's intention to apply a similar policy to the development of Hamilton Falls in Labrador; and have any discussions been held with the premier of Newfoundland within recent days or weeks with regard to federal co-operation or assistance in the Brinco developments.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. The situation with regard to Hamilton Falls, as my right hon. friend knows, is different from that which I announced this afternoon in that two provinces are collaborating in the development of this power with a private corporation. They have not asked for the kind of assistance which we have worked out with the government of Manitoba.


John George Diefenbaker: Has there been any discussion whatever with the Premier of Newfoundland about the assumption by the federal government of any portion of the expense in connection with the development of this project?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to check back because this has been going on for two or three years and I want to make sure that no request was made in the early days of which I have no knowledge.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I will direct to the new minister of resources and energy in his new capacity. He has probably found out by now that I have been trying for three years to get a copy of the interim report on the national transmission grid which was promised to me-

February 15, 1966	COMMONS


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -in September, 1963, and which I still-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My question is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair heard the first part of the hon. member's question and it was obviously not a question. The hon. member was making a statement, which is quite out of order.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think it was quite obvious, if I may respectfully say so, that the hon. member was trying to introduce his question, which was perfectly in order.


Mr. Speaker:: I beg to disagree with the hon. member.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Then may I reword my question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the minister of resources and energy when we can be given the interim report on the study of a national transmission grid.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: May I take that question as notice and answer tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to address my question to the Prime Minister and it relates to the statement he has just made regarding the development of power in Manitoba. The Prime Minister mentioned that the ultimate would be to produce a potential five million kilowatts. Can that five million kilowatts be realized without agreement with the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta with respect to the use of waters flowing through those provinces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is a question of detail which I shall have to take as notice.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the minister who will become the new minister of energy and resources. May I ask him whether the government has yet made any formal objection to the government of the United States with respect to the intention of that government to proceed with the development of the Rampart dam project on the international Yukon river?
DEBATES	1229
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am not well acquainted with this question. I am getting acquainted with problems day by day, and I will try to get the necessary information.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question which I will direct to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister indicate whether the federal government assistance is in the form of a direct grant or a loan to be amortized at the expense of the people of Manitoba over the years?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend will read my statement he will find the answer to that question. It is not a direcl grant.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week I asked him whether he would table the aide-memoire from his department to the United States government regarding the economic guide lines as they affect Canadian subsidiaries of United States corporations. He promised to do so at the proper time. I should like to ask the minister whether the proper time has arrived, and would he be prepared to table that aide-memoire now?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: As I said, Mr. Speaker, on February 11, the aide-memoire had to do with the securities and exchange commission regulations. As soon as I have had an opportunity to consider the matter further with some of my colleagues, we will have to decide what is the appropriate time.
[Translation1



SOURCE OF FUNDS TO AID UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance?
The Canadian government has pledged to give the world bank a substantial sum of $25 million to fight poverty in the world. Could the minister tell us if that amount will come out of the consolidated revenue of the country or if the Bank of Canada will create new credit for that purpose? Can the minister tell us where he will find that money to help the underdeveloped countries of the world?
1230	COMMONS DEBATES	February IS. 1986
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: That question is very important but its scope is such that we cannot expect the minister to answer it right now.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I know how broad the question is but it seems to me that it is not so difficult to tell us where the $25 million to be paid to the bank will come from.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will put his question on the order paper, I am sure that the minister will be able to answer it.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. With the tabling of the estimates yesterday by the Minister of National Revenue and the clarification he made today regarding the two different translations, could I ask the Prime Minister whether or not it is the intention of the government to refer these estimates to the committees so that preliminary committee work can begin immediately?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General a question regarding the report of his departmental committee on the juvenile problem in Canada. Before asking my question perhaps I might be permitted, having more than a passing interest myself in the report-and I think I express the feelings of all hon. members and the people of the country in this regard-to say that we are happy indeed that these studies have come to a conclusion and this very valuable report has been made.
The question I ask the minister is this. Will the government give favourable consideration to the early reference of this report to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs in order that the House of Commons may consider the matter and make its recommendations as to the implementation of policy in light of the considerations arising out of this report?
[Mr. Caouette.l


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, permit me first to express appreciation for the hon. member's kind remarks regarding the report. I commend him for initiating the committee which brought down the report. As the hon. member is aware, this far reaching report is under study in the Department of Justice and the office of the Solicitor General. I hope to be able to make an announcement when the studies are completed.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. May I ask the hon. lady if she intends to permit permanent employees of the Queen's Printer to be directors of or directly interested in a private printing syndicate outside the functions of the Queen's Printer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would care to place that question on the order paper.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege just before the question period ends. Because of the fact that I may have directed my earlier question to the wrong minister-I should have addressed myself to the Minister of Industry-because of the fact that I was not permitted to receive a reply, and in view of the graveness of the charges against employees of the Queen's Printer, I should like to discuss the matter at ten o'clock this evening.



EXCLUSION OF CANADIAN CITIES IN HOCKEY LEAGUE EXPANSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government looked into the anti-trust aspect of the exclusion of Vancouver from a National Hockey League franchise? Would he point out to the directors of the N.H.L. that the league was started as a Canadian league and that Canadians object strongly to it being turned into an organization which discriminates against first class Canadian teams for the benefit of owners in the United States?
February 15, 1966	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's representations are very interesting and I am sure they will be noted by the minister.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a puck to direct to the Minister of Finance. May I ask the minister whether, in view of the report in the morning newspapers that the United States deficit in its balance of payments in 1965 was the lowest that country has known since 1958, he will consider making further representations to the authorities in Washington to rescind the troublesome guide lines which threaten to interfere with Canada's economic and political sovereignty?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I will be visiting with the respective secretaries of the United States cabinet on March 4 and I can assure the hon. gentleman that the matter he has raised will be a subject of discussion.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of Washington's direct investment guide lines which have been extended to Canada and which are designed to improve the United States balance of payments position at the expense of Canada, will the minister take action requesting United States subsidiaries in Canada to file quarterly returns at Ottawa indicating the extent of their compliance with the United States guide lines?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my first comment on that question is that it is really quite impossible for the United States to improve its position at the expense of Canada, and that is the reason we have suggested to the United States authorities that these guide lines on direct investment should not apply to us.
With regard to the second question, I will have to take the hon. gentleman's suggestion under consideration.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The other day the Minister of Finance stated that in the event the United States guide lines were affecting 23033-79
DEBATES	1231
Inquiries of the Ministry Canada he would take action for the benefit of the Canadian economy. May I ask the minister just what action he could contemplate taking unless he ascertains the amount of compliance by United States companies in Canada as a result of these guide fines?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now submitting an argument to the Minister of Finance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if we can have his assurance that when he meets with the United States authorities on March 4 he will not tell them what he told the Canadian people last December, that these guide lines are an economic windfall for Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is he able to report to the house the findings resulting from the special investigation into the prison break by three prisoners from Collins Bay penitentiary last Wednesday who were later captured near St. Catharines?


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously this is a matter of great general interest but I suggest to the hon. member that it should really be placed on the order paper.



MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has he met the provincial ministers regarding the municipal development loan fund and what is his position?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am meeting the ministers of the provinces on this subject this afternoon.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. When will the house be informed of the decision of the government?


Mitchell William Sharp: As soon as it is made, Mr. Speaker.

February 15, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



SEALS-REQUEST FOR DELAY IN AMENDMENT OF REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Up to the present time has the order in council concerning proposed changes in the seal hunting regulations been passed and, if not, will he delay the passing of this order in council to enable the shore fishermen from Cape Ray to Cape North to supplement their income in this manner and to make further representations to himself and to his officials outlining their objections?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, in replying to a question addressed to me on Friday last, I think, I stated that the submission for the order in council had already been signed, and it is expected to be passed within the next 24 hours. At this late date so close to the opening of the season I do not wish to delay the passing of amendments to the seal hunting regulations.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his reply, but may I ask him if he would not consult with his colleagues who are also involved in this matter and consider if this matter cannot be delayed for a few days longer to see if something cannot be done about the situation?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, on different occasions in the house it was stated that the department was open for ideas with respect to amendments that could be made to the regulations. Public meetings were announced which were held in Moncton and the fishermen concerned had the right to make representations. As I said just now, it is too late at this time to consider delaying the passing of these amendments.



HARMFUL RESULTS OF FEEDING LAKE ERIE FISH TO MINK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the really alarming reports that mink fed on fish caught in lake Erie have become sterile, what investigations are now being conducted by the department to find the harmful substance in the fish?


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



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. What was the purpose of the visit by the Prime Minister and the house leader to the offices occupied by the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition whip?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that is not a proper question.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It has to do with the Canada Pension Plan, and it stems from several representations and complaints I have received from employers. Is the minister considering making provision for employers who have paid more than the maximum, similar to that in the case of employees?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this aspect of the Canada Pension Plan is the responsibility of the Minister of National Revenue.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr Speaker, may I address my question to the Minister of National Revenue?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Revenue is responsible for the collection of funds under the Canada Pension Plan. The problem just raised is one to which we have given a good deal of consideration. Indeed, it was considered by the committee of the house when it examined the Canada Pension Plan. To date my department has not come up with a method of calculating the amount of refunds that should go to each employer, or a method that would facilitate making such refunds. I might also point out that in the United States, where the social security system has been operating for some 40 years, they have not yet been able to work out a system whereby they can refund amounts to employers.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue. I recollect that
February 15, 1966	COMMONS
in the committee studies with respect to the Canada Pension Plan we were told that these overages paid by the employer were part of the actuarial picture.


Edgar John Benson: All contributions coming in under the Canada Pension Plan were taken into consideration in developing the amount involved. The amount of employers' contributions which would be refundable, if a method to do so could be worked out, would amount to around $5 million a year.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If this were done and, for example, a method were worked out to refund the employers' share, would this affect the calculation of the whole plan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is becoming a debate between the minister and the hon. member who asked the question. I suggest we go on to another subject.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. It is of the utmost importance to the operations of the St. Lawrence seaway as well as to the city of Welland that we should know as soon as possible whether the proposed Welland canal bypass is going to be built. Can the minister tell us what progress has been made in this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order This question is obviously important and perhaps it is urgent but I still feel it should go on the order paper.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister whether the government has made any decision yet respecting the setting up of a commission to investigate the Spencer matter. The right hon. gentleman said he expected a decision would be made in a few days. That was, I think, some ten days ago.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as I said the other day, it was hoped that the estimates of the Department of Justice would be before the house early this week or during this week.
DEBATES	1233
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is what I said in the house the other day and I repeat it now. I said that when the estimates were introduced I would make a statement on this subject which could then be debated by hon. members.


John George Diefenbaker: My question was a simple one. Has a decision been made on this matter? A discussion of the subject can, of course, be undertaken when the estimates of the Minister of Justice are before us. But a question involving a person who is being followed day and night under continual surveillance should not be brushed aside.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the importance of setting up the commission of inquiry into the Spencer case without delay, would the Prime Minister not consider bringing on the estimates of the Department of Justice this afternoon just for a few moments, during which he would have the opportunity to make his statement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the best way of reaching the estimates of the Department of Justice is by finishing as quickly as possible the estimates of the department now before the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he realizes that the estimates of the Department of Justice will be the twelfth department to come before the committee of supply, which probably means that the Spencer case will not be dealt with until the end of next week? In view of that fact, will the Prime Minister consider having the estimates of the Department of Justice come up for consideration earlier, perhaps right after the estimates of the Department of Transport?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to look into that suggestion, Mr. Speaker.



EXPO '67 MONTREAL-POSSIBLE STRIKE OF CONSTRUCTION WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes asked me a

February 15, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry question. I was able to hear only three or four words of it and I agreed to take it as notice and reply later.
The hon. member inquired what steps were being taken with regard to threats of a widespread strike in the Montreal area and its possible effect on Expo '67. I think the hon. gentleman and the house generally will be interested to know that an agreement has been entered into with the trade unions, among them being the Building and Construction Trades Council of Montreal and vicinity Q.F.L-C.L.C., and the Council of Syndicats of the Construction Trades of Montreal, C.N.T.U., which provides that there shall be no strike or work stoppage or picketing which would be an obstacle to the organization, management or liquidation of the exhibition. In case of strike action or picketing the unions agree to proclaim such actions as illegal and in violation of the agreement and they undertake to urge their members to resume work.
As may be seen from this agreement, Expo and the unions have agreed to deal with strikes or picketing which could hinder the exhibition. I would therefore hope that the hon. member can accept the assurance given by my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and by the Expo authorities that everything possible has been, and is being done to deal with labour problems which might adversely affect the progress of the exhibition.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Kootenay West asked me a question which contained three parts. I am not sure whether I am clear as to the intent of the question. The first part dealt with amendments to the Pension Act. So far as pension rates are concerned, I have dealt with these in answer to a previous question. We are awaiting the outcome of talks with the veterans organizations. As to amendments to any other parts of the Pension Act we will of course await the report of the committee of inquiry under Mr. Justice Wood. There is no intention at the moment of dealing with amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. I believe I answered the question dealing with the report on the Hong Kong veterans yesterday as well.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister concerning an important matter about which 1 asked him a question approximately a week ago. He then said he would look into it. Can the right hon. gentleman advise us now whether the interdepartmental inquiry into the economic and social forces affecting the unity of Canada has been completed and, if so, whether this report will be made available to members of the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me this question the other day. On inquiry I find that the report itself was tabled in this house during May, 1965, and thereby made available to members. At that time it was stated that this study would be continued by the tax structure committee. It is now being carried on by them.



REPORT ON MEETING OF COMMITTEE ON TIDAL POWER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, may I answer a question which was put to the Prime Minister last Friday by the hon. member for Colchester-Hants. It had to do with tidal power in the Bay of Fundy. A meeting of officials on this subject took place in Ottawa last Thursday, February 10. On the federal side the meeting was attended by officials responsible to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and the Minister of Transport. They met with officials representing the governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I am advised that the meeting, which was largely exploratory in nature, was highly successful. The results of the meeting have, of course, to be reported to the responsible ministers. Following that, we hope a mutually satisfactory understanding can be reached between the parties.



FORESTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry in connection with the
February 15, 1966	COMMONS
national forestry conference to be held next week and to be attended by representatives of provincial governments, industry and business. May I ask whether the labour unions will be represented?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: No, Mr. Speaker.


David Orlikow: I should like to ask the
minister if he would give consideration to having representatives of the unions there in view of the fact that the work force in this industry will be sharply reduced in the next few years as a result of technological changes.


Maurice Sauvé: I will, Mr. Speaker.



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice if his recollection has improved with respect to the terms of reference to the three-man committee on bankruptcy, and if those terms of reference are in written form is the hon. gentleman prepared to table them?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minisler of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The members of the committee were given very general terms of reference in relation to the whole question of bankruptcy reform. These terms are set out in correspondence between myself and the members of the committee and I have no objection to tabling the correspondence. I will do so as soon as possible.
While I am on my feet perhaps I might answer a question which was asked by the Leader of the Opposition as well as by the hon. member for Yukon. I was asked whether the studies now being undertaken with a view to the revision of the Bankruptcy Act might not enable persons guilty of irregularities under existing legislation to escape the consequences of their acts if some action were not taken to suspend the operation of the legislative processes within which certain bankruptcy proceedings can be taken, at least while this committee is carrying on its study.
Mr. Speaker, I do not see any relationship between the limitation periods within which proceedings under the Bankruptcy Act must be taken and the studies now in progress. Any offences under the Bankruptcy Act that are discovered would be dealt with by the appropriate authorities under the present act. Such irregularities would not be discovered as a result of the work of the committee.
DEBATES	1235
Inquiries of the Ministry Also, such prosecutions as have been taking place in Quebec, and which have been described as involving fraudulent bankruptcies, are offences under the Criminal Code for such crimes as arson and fraud. These are indictable offences in respect of which there is no limitation period for the laying of charges.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question. First, may I ask the minister if he will table the terms of reference contained in the correspondence to the three members of the committee before his estimates come up so as to allow an intelligent and efficient discussion of them? Second, may I point out to the minister with respect to his reply to the questions yesterday-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: -that nowhere-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot point out anything in connection with the minister's reply. He can ask a further question if he wishes to do that.


Erik Nielsen: On a question of privilege or point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Favreau:: Which one?


Erik Nielsen: -the minister has purported to place words in my mouth and alter the record of Hansard with respect to the questions I asked him yesterday. If he will refer to them he will find I made no allegations of offences or irregular practice but rather with regard to procedures under the act.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows he can ask questions and if he is not satisfied with the reply he gets from the minister he can ask a supplementary question but he cannot comment on a reply he receives from the minister.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the minister wishes to make such statements he should do so on motions.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Villeneuve.
[Translation1


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
1236	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of the fact that the government of the Philippines has decided to send troops to Viet Nam and in view of the fact that American bombings have been resumed, has the Canadian government been asked to send Canadian troops to Viet Nam to help the United States?


Some hon. Members:: A hundred thousand.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have received a letter from a Mr. Echlin, which has not yet been answered, but we have asked for the advice of the Department of Justice.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not understand my question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might be able to ask his question again if he is not happy with the answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. For the time being, the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Huron.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think that I did understand your question but that you did not understand my answer.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-sioke):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of an article in last month's issue of the magazine Tablet and I should like to direct it to the minister in charge of immigration. Has there been an unusual increase so far this year in applications from Rumania of people wishing to emigrate from the province of Transylvania to Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe this question should be placed on the order paper.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Does the minister know why the C.N.R. is refusing to pick up express from the Huron county area for delivery to the Montreal area?

DEBATES	February 15, 1966


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps that is an urgent question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If hon. members feel this is an urgent question that should be replied to by the minister at this time-the Chair has grave doubts-then I would be quite satisfied to hear the Minister of Transport. Are hon. members in agreement with this?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, sir, it is an urgent question because an embargo on shipping at any time is something that is put on suddenly and, one hopes, is taken off just as quickly as possible. That is the situation with regard to the embargo which the railways have had to put on in some parts of Ontario because of the regrettable strike of the truckers and the fact that in the circumstances they have not sufficient capacity to carry all the goods that are offered to the railways.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Could the minister say whether this situation will improve before the strike is over?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I could not say that but I fervently hope the strike will soon be over.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. In view of what the Minister of Transport has just said, that this action is spreading all over Ontario and causing economic hardship, will the minister reconsider his position, bring these parties together and try to bring about a settlement?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: Order, please. My understanding is that the question of the hon. member was directed to the Minister of Transport.


Michael Starr: To the Minister of Labour.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the parties are together this afternoon. I have been telling hon. members off and on for two weeks that the parties have been having meetings.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, we get the same answer from the Minister of Labour each time we ask this question. In view of the fact
February 15, 19G6	COMMONS
that the parties have not been able to arrive at a settlement on their own, will the minister not use his good offices, take a personal interest in bringing these parties together, sit down with them and help them to bring about a conclusion to this strike?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the minister is following the matter very closely.


Michael Starr: So are we.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: These negotiations are going on between management and labour. I understand that they are making progress in these negotiations and I do not think the minister should intervene when the parties are working together in this atmosphere.


Michael Starr: They are not getting anywhere. That is the job of the Minister of Labour.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. It is a question of some urgent moment to the members and stafE of the house. Is it true that at least one of the elevators in the west block has been officially condemned, and what steps does the minister plan to take to restore effective elevator service in that building?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a particularly urgent question to members of parliament, but I suggest it might be discussed between hon. members and the Minister of Public Works.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that this is the first anniversary of the new flag and in view of the fact that there are no national holidays between New Year's and spring, would the Prime Minister consider declaring February 15 national flag day and a national holiday?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: It is an interesting suggestion and the hon. member may wish to place it on the order paper.
DEBATES	1237
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



PESTICIDES-RESIDUE IN TISSUES OF MARINE ANIMALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kent (Onl.)):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. It is based on the fact that there has been some very adverse publicity about the matter in the last few days. Are any research efforts directed by his department into an examination of residue properties in agricultural chemicals to determine whether or not they may be directly responsible for problems connected with the use of fresh water fish as food for humans, animals and birds, both wild and domestic?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) would place this question on the order paper.
[Translation1



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Would the Minister tell the house if there have been conversations recently with the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Laporte, with regard to the inspection of the books of Quebec municipalities by his departmental inspectors?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I got in touch with the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the point raised in the house, but as regards an investigation, or rather an inspection of the books of municipalities, steps have not yet been taken.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question? Could the minister tell the house if the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs has any objection to an inspection of the books of Quebec municipalities?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, no objection has been made to that inspection. As we know, auditing is done through the provincial governments and it is done regularly. In some cases, huge amounts of money were recovered by provincial auditors. The question is whether, in some cases, more thorough examinations should be made. If this is considered necessary, I shall then get in touch with the government authorities.
1238	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that every time inspectors go to Quebec municipalities to check, officers of Mr. Laporte's department inform the municipalities concerned that some federal inspectors are going over there to collect funds?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries based upon a press release from his department yesterday regarding a joint federal-provincial fisheries development project in the province of Quebec involving, among other things, the use of helicopters and the like. Will such facilities and services as have been available to eastern Canada and Quebec for the past few months be made available to British Columbia in the near future?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure all members of the house that there will be no discrimination whatsoever in so far as British Columbia is concerned.


Frank Howard: When are you going to look westward?



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Complon-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Would he advise the house about the stage of negotiations between France and Canada concerning the sale of uranium?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. I have had nothing at all to do with contracts dealing with uranium.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs but he has left the house without authority.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He is in the house.

DEBATES	February 15. 1966



ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER COSTS

George James McIlraith: That a special committee be appointed to continue the inquiry into and to report upon costs of drugs, begun by special committees during the twenty-sixth parliament;
That the committee consist of 24 members to be designated later by the house; and be empowered to sit while the house is sitting;
That the committee be empowered to consider and recommend, as it may deem expedient, respecting a comprehensive and effective program to reduce the price of drugs;
That the committee be empowered to send for persons, papers, and records, and to report from time to time, to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable, and to engage the services of counsel, accountants, and such other technical and clerical personnel as may be deemed necessary;
That the minutes of proceedings of and evidence given before the special committees at the 26th Parliament be referred to the said committee and be made part of the records thereof;
That the provisions of Standing Orders 66 and 67(1) be suspended in relation to such committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $4,862,900.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the departmental estimates have recently had some considerable attention and we in this party now wish to conclude the examination thereof provided we receive answers to one or two questions. A moment ago I mentioned to the Prime Minister that I intended to refer to some remarks he made last evening. I am not going to hold him up but I want him to know that I am going to make some reference to those remarks because they revealed a rather unusual viewpoint about the operation of parliament. Indeed, they would appear to indicate that his attitude is that the United States system is in some particulars to be preferred to ours and that a rather difficult situation has been created under our system of government whereby the Prime Minister and ministers of the Crown are subject to daily questioning in the house.
I know the Prime Minister has an appointment, as he informed me a moment ago, but I simply want to refer to the words indicative of an attitude that whatever the government says is good and that the opposition should not question the government as to what it
February 15, 1966



does. I refer to the Prime Minister's appearance on a television show last evening when he said, among other things:
-I used to think before I had this responsibility that there was no comparison between the parliamentary and the congressional system; that it was so much better to have the executive right there on the floor of the legislature exposing itself to parliamentary criticism every day; so that if it didn't retain the confidence of the House of Commons, we had an election. I thought that was the good old British way of doing things and it was the right way of doing things. I used to be a little scornful of the Congressional system, where the executive were separated from the legislative side of government.


An hon. Member:: He has changed his mind.


John George Diefenbaker: He then said:
They had four years and during that four years -I was going to say they could get away with anything. Now I think there is something to be said for a little more independence-I mean by that, the executive not being subjected every hour to parliamentary appearances.
That is a most unusual doctrine. Then he goes on to set out changes that should be made or should be considered in the cabinet system to increase the number of cabinet ministers but with a reduction in the number of ministers who would exercise an effective role in the processes of government.
What the Prime Minister said last night reveals a state of mind shown over and over again by his government in refusing to give to the house and the country full and complete answers. I would refer to the following question and the Prime Minister's answer:
You mean by that that you really haven't got time to sit back and think ahead of next week unless you really-


Lester Bowles Pearson: We haven't got time to think, or as much time as we should have, and we haven't got time-because of the important, but time consuming, processes of parliamentary and democratic discussion-time to get before parliament, and to get parliamentary decisions on, all the matters that require action. This does not mean that we should scrap parliamentary processes, because in a democratic society there is no better way than discussion to arrive at decision.
Then he goes on to state that the United States system has advantages in that for four years or whatever the period is the executive can, to use the Prime Minister's words, "get away with anything". That is a doctrine that needs guide lines. I will suggest to the Prime Minister, that his thinking as evidenced by his remarks last night does not have that regard for parliament which those occupying the position of Prime Minister should have. I hope that is one of those loose statements made without having had time to think. It is
Supply-Transport
indicative of a trend on the part of this government made up of so many civil servants who think we in the opposition ought to be seen and not heard; that we ought to listen and not question.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The interpretation of what he said is that we should fix a regular period for parliament, that ministers should not be subject to examination and that examination is a wasteful proceeding. I say to the Minister of Transport that I feel sure, with his dedication to parliamentary traditions and procedure, there will be no agreement on his part with the views expressed by the Prime Minister to this nation last night.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the right hon. gentleman has in this discussion of the estimates of the Department of Transport put on record certain sentences that I undoubtedly said last night, perhaps he would let me put on record one sentence which he carefully omitted. That was, "It is going to be difficult to reconcile the two things"-by the "two things" I meant executive decision and parliamentary discussion -"because parliamentary discussion is still, rightly, a very important part of our political lives".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes, Mr. Chairman, a very important part. But the Prime Minister says it is such an important part that he feels we ought to give consideration to the adoption of the American system.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He never said that.


John George Diefenbaker: I have read every line of the Prime Minister's remarks. If the Prime Minister wants to table the whole thing I would be very glad if he would do so. However, I read every word of his explanation on page 2, every word from the beginning to the end. The Prime Minister has added, "It is going to be difficult to reconcile the two things because parliamentary discussion is still, rightly, a very important part of our political lives". It is not only a very important part but it is essential to the preservation of democracy and the maintenance of the parliamentary tradition. That is how important it is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall make reference to that on another occasion. I know the Prime Minister has an appointment today, and I am

February 15, 1966
Supply-Transport
not going to say any more except that this doctrine is the doctrine of those who would control parliament, who would permit themselves to be considered as being set apart, and it is a denial indeed of the whole principle of parliamentary discussion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the right hon. gentleman a question? He said a moment ago that I had indicated that we should adopt a congressional system. Where did the right hon. gentleman find that in the text of what I said.?


John George Diefenbaker: If it was not to be adopted, Mr. Chairman, why was it talked about?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister can laugh. This is the way all these things have started on the part of this government. The Prime Minister has asked me what is wrong with talking about it. I know the progress that has been made on this first anniversary of the flag. First the Young Liberals said we should have a new flag without the Union Jack thereon.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one applauder, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. Member:: It is your flag too.


John George Diefenbaker: Then the next step was a recommendation by the Young Liberals as to what should be done. On Friday and Saturday last the discussion culminated around the step that has been spoken about often by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. There was discussion whether the time has not come to abolish the Queen in her capacity as Queen of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the way these things start.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So we must not talk about it.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, Mr. Chairman, I am sure the Prime Minister was pleased with that resolution.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition but at this time we are discussing the estimates of the Department of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


The Deputy Chairman:: We have heard different expressions of opinion on the work of parliament and I think we should return to the discussion of the estimates of the Department of Transport.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I am always one of those who want to conform.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: It was only under the provocation of questioning that I raised this matter. If it had not been for the Prime Minister stepping in and saying what he did say I would not have raised this subject. Of course, I did not mean to do so; all I wanted to do was to point to the interpretation apparently to be placed on such remarks.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the right hon. gentleman has begun discussing this subject perhaps you would give him a little leeway in order that he may say a word or two about the recognition of our national flag on this first anniversary of its acceptance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: If I did, Mr. Chairman, my remarks would certainly not qualify under a discussion of the estimates of the Department of Transport, although they might carry me a long way. However, I was dealing with the interesting way in which these things are brought about, first by laying a foundation such as the Prime Minister did last night and then ultimately these things that are simply loose, idle and fragmentary words become basic principles. What was said last night reveals that the Prime Minister's attitude is that we are too prone to examine, that we should not have government required to answer but should follow the American system whereby the executive branch is removed from the legislative and is able, as the Prime Minister said, to carry on for four years regardless of what it does.
I think you will agree, Mr. Chairman, that the examination of these estimates has been very careful. The scrutiny of the estimates of the Department of Transport has been of a general nature but very helpful. Many suggestions have been made. We want now to go to another department but there is one thing I emphasize, namely, that we have not forgotten channel 3. I shall return to that matter in order to secure answers from the Minister of Transport who is usually able to give full, complete, even though unsatisfactory, answers to questions that are put.
I start with something with which I think the minister will agree. I am not certain that the matter comes entirely within his jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, it is both federal and provincial. I refer to the need of a national effort, led by federal and provincial
February 15, 1966

representatives, to reduce the massive highway homicide in our country. We read from day to day of the losses of the American forces in South Viet Nam.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might raise a point of order. The right hon. gentleman wants us to uphold parliamentary traditions and one of our parliamentary traditions is that in committee of supply observations should be related to the administrative responsibility of the minister. I have absolutely no administrative responsibilities whatsoever with regard to the subject to which the right hon. gentleman is now referring.


Michael Starr: No wonder you have taken five days for your estimates.


John George Diefenbaker: I am going to ask for
some leadership on the part of the hon. gentleman in his capacity as Minister of Transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman says he is going to ask for some leadership. I am going to try to give it right away. The first bit of leadership I would give is to suggest to the right hon. gentleman that ministers of the Crown who are answerable to the house should not usurp the functions of others and should carry out the responsibilities entrusted to them. I would point out that neither in the statutes nor in the conventions of this parliament has the Minister of Transport been entrusted with any responsibility for any aspect of highway traffic except for the licensing of interprovincial trucking.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
As the right hon. gentleman knows, because he was in parliament at the time and I do not believe I was, this matter was entrusted by parliament to certain provincial agencies by statute. Therefore there is no part of my administrative responsibility that touches on this subject at all. It may be that there are some aspects of it for which some other ministers have responsibility. However, after listening to the eloquent defence by the right hon. gentleman of the rights of parliament, I believe it would be a good idea to respect the rules of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: I understand the susceptibilities of the hon. gentleman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not susceptible at all.


John George Diefenbaker: He is very susceptible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just to the charms of the right hon. gentleman.
Supply-Transport


John George Diefenbaker: I am trying to be cooperative and bring a matter before parliament that affects this nation. I am not going to be dissuaded by the petty arguments that are being advanced.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I rose on a point of order. If the right hon. gentleman, who after all was once prime minister of this country and had the main responsibility for the preservation of order in the house, thinks that order in the house and the application of the rules are a petty matter, and if the house wants to agree with him, I will desist. The right hon. gentleman has always considered that he makes the rules for himself and the rest of the house should abide by whatever rules he makes for himself.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to answer in that spirit. I believe in the rules and I have always followed them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not tried to do that which this government has tried to do by graduated means, to shut the mouths and lips of the opposition. This has been characteristic of the hon. gentleman and all those with civil service experience sitting opposite.
In the best of good spirits, I want to advance something on behalf of this nation and ask for leadership by the Minister of Transport. It is apparent, however, that I am going to sow seeds on rocky soil. I was pointing out that I should like to see the minister give a lead so far as interprovincial transportation is concerned. This matter was declared to be within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament and by agreement it was sublet to the provinces. I want to bring out the need for action no matter where it comes from but I say it must come from here. This government convenes meetings regularly with the provinces on other matters that are primarily within provincial jurisdiction. They have not been above doing that. This government has convened conference after conference on matters primarily of provincial concern.
The point I want to bring before the committee is not one which you would expect to have the provocative effect that has been apparent. I suggest the convening of a conference by the federal Department of Transport-because there is no other department with the same facilities-to bring together the provinces to do something to meet what is taking place in this nation in ever-increasing

February IS, 1966
Supp ly-Transport
measure. In ten years 35,031 persons have been killed and 949,000 have been injured in automobile accidents. The number of traffic deaths is increasing year by year. By 1964, the latest year for which figures are available, traffic injuries had increased from 2,586 to 4,655 persons per hundred thousand over a ten year period and traffic accidents increased to the extent that there has been an economic loss of $3,200,000.
To translate these terrible statistics into understandable form, they mean that there is one traffic accident in Canada every 90 seconds, one person injured every four minutes and one person killed every two hours. The toll is mounting. I see that this matter was discussed in the British House of Commons last year. It was pointed out that unless action was taken 1 per cent of the population would suffer death or injury every year in consequence of automobile accidents.
We have the Canadian Highway Safety Council. We have seen the commendable efforts of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi who has conducted a one-man crusade. The Canadian Highway Safety Council has done much. There is also a contribution made by all governments. The hon. gentleman says he is not concerned. Well, there is a federal contribution about which he apparently knew nothing. The Canadian Highway Safety Council receives contributions for 62 per cent of its budget from industry and 38 per cent from governments. He says this is no concern of the federal government. The federal government provides an equal share of the 38 per cent in order to bring about in this nation the reduction or elimination of the traffic accidents.
I ask for action on a national basis to bring about a national conference on highway safety. I should like to see a high level national meeting convened by the Department of Transport with representatives of federal and provincial governments, industry and national organizations, with a view to setting up a national action council to cope with this most serious toll on our highways. The minister says the federal parliament has no responsibility.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I know the right hon. gentleman-


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman will allow me


John Whitney Pickersgill: I just wanted to make a factual correction. I do not think the right hon. gentleman wants to misrepresent what I

said. I said it was not part of my administrative responsibility. I think it is of the utmost concern to every Canadian.


John George Diefenbaker: It is often said, Mr. Chairman, that a speech in parliament has no influence but the sudden conversion of the minister shows that the contrary is true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I just like to keep the record straight.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to belabour the subject. I ask him to do something to meet a problem that is mounting in seriousness, a problem that merits the consideration of all Canadians. It is stated in the London Times of February 12 that in the United States in 1964 the number killed totalled 49,000 and 2,000,000 were injured. Yet in the Viet Nam war last year the total number of United States dead was 1,100. This is something that I impress on the minister. I ask him to do something and do it immediately to bring together the provinces so that a decision may be made on a course that will be helpful and beneficial.
The first thing which could be done before a conference is called is to provide for greater assistance to the Canadian Highways Safety Council, composed of men who devote themselves to public service and who are kept from doing everything they might be able to do because of the lack of finances. When we find ourselves this year spending extra billions of dollars we should be able to provide an amount to the Highway Safety Council which would give them new opportunities, through research and otherwise, to help reduce these terrible losses.
Now I come to another matter, which has to do with transportation. I am not going to repeat the arguments that have been advanced and strongly advanced against closures of railway facilities and the reduction of available facilities. A problem faced by every nation today in the western world is that of trying to maintain a transportation system while meeting the changes that research requires and demands. I suggest the setting up in the federal Department of Transport of a division of research and development. I believe this is necessary if we are to have an efficient high speed ground transportation system, which is most vitally needed for our national economy. I think provision should be made for research by private firms as well. Such a research and development division would discover in what way,
February 15, 1966

by new technology, forms and concepts, ground transportation might be made economic and attractive.
The research and development authority which I suggest should have the right to enter into contracts with private firms relating to demonstration of high speed ground transportation and to contribute to the development of more efficient and economic systems. These demonstrations should be designed to measure and evaluate such factors as public response to new equipment, high speed improvement in convenience, improvement in shipments of less than carload lots, freight handling, and more frequent services for both passengers and freight. Somewhat similar legislation has been introduced in the United States. That legislation provides for $90 million to be made available for research. The legislation in the United States has the support of all railway brotherhoods in the transportation field.
I feel that something similar should be done within our own country. What course are we going to follow? When we were in office we were criticized for supporting the building of the Pine Point railroad. Indeed, it was described almost by the words that were used in 1878 regarding the C.P.R., that all you would have after construction was completed would be two rails of rust on a roadbed of uncertainty. It has turned out wonderfully well. Yet we were condemned by those who sit opposite when we provided the guarantees in this connection. I am putting this forward as a suggestion. I think I could even quote the hon. gentleman, if he insisted on my doing so-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the Pine Point railway?


John George Diefenbaker: -as to some of his criticism in that regard. Has the time not come when the national government should build railway lines or provide the necessary finances to build lines into inaccessible areas for development purposes and lease them back to the railways? In that way the government of Canada would eventually recover the capital outlay and the railway companies would not be immediately saddled with additional heavy capital expenditures. Such transportation so provided and the shortening of travel time between major points, particularly in the more heavily populated areas of Ontario and Quebec, would be beneficial to all Canadians. Should we nationally provide the capital for the building of high speed lines
Supply-Transport
between populous areas? These are matters that will have to be considered.
However, I would ask the minister directly whether or not the government will give consideration to the setting up of a research and development branch along the lines I have indicated, the purpose of which would be the making of recommendations concerning high speed railway transportation and other transportation problems.
A committee should be set up to give to this new division or sector of the department the views of those directly or indirectly affected.
I should like to see on that committee a representative from each of the railway transportation unions as well as representatives from other interested bodies. I think we are living in a period when the transportation system which has been in existence for the last 75 or 80 years will have to be materially changed to meet the conditions of today. I therefore advance as a suggestion the forming of a committee along the lines indicated and the setting up of a research and development section in the department to this end.
I now come to the third and last matter I want to deal with today and I raise it because I think it is necessary to come back to it. It revolves around channel 3. When you review everything that the minister has said, verbose as he is, I can find no answer to the misgivings of various members in connection therewith. What is apparently contemplated by Mr. Snelgrove and his associates is of such a barefaced nature that it ought not be condoned, much less accepted, by parliament or the cabinet.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I want to find out from him what he intends to do. He says there is going to be an inquiry or investigation by the Board of Broadcast Governors and that it will be an open one. However, at the present time the B.B.G. is an emasculated caricature of the body we set up. There is a chairman but so far as the other senior appointments are concerned they have not yet been made. Why is this, Mr. Chairman? I was surprised when the minister, once having lived and indeed having had his beginning in the province of Manitoba, saw fit not to renew the term of office of Mr. Carlyle Allison. I find that difficult to understand because here was a man who devoted himself to public service. I would emphasize that when the Conservative government was in office we renewed the

February 15, 1966
Supply-Transport
appointments of the Canadian National directors. We did not regard political faith as being the paramount qualification for appointment or continuance in office. I was very-surprised that a man such as Carlyle Allison should have been given such cavalier treatment. He was a man who understood the business. He had been in it for quite a number of years. Now he has gone. Today there is a vacancy.
Since this government came into office the recommendations of the B.B.G. have not always been followed. We in the previous Conservative government followed their recommendations whatever they were. Therefore I say to the minister: What are his views on this application? The minister endeavoured to evade the whole matter by saying that he, in his shining armour of Canadianism, was doing his part to preserve channel 3 for Canada. Channel 3, Mr. Chairman, cannot go to the United States. The statement by the minister was simply a red herring designed to cover up-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The right hon. gentleman will find nowhere in anything I said any statement that channel 3 could go to the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: I see.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said that it could be lost to Canada. I did not say it could be lost to the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not my exact recollection.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the right hon. gentleman would let me finish.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I have got the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. I apologize to the right hon. gentleman.


The Chairman:: Order, please.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I apologize to the right hon. gentleman. I know how allergic he is to facts.


John George Diefenbaker: I certainly am allergic to the subterfuges posing as facts that come from the hon. gentleman. I am allergic to that. I know his capacity with words and I say to him that if he did not use the actual words I attributed to him he left the impression that channel 3 might be lost to the United States. I, for one, want to see that what is Canada's remains Canada's. The United States should not get channel 3.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I never said that.

Mr Diefenbaker: I see. That excuse goes by the board. In 1952 an international agreement was reached between Canada and the United States covering the allotment of television channels. I ask the minister this: Has the minister already secured from the Federal Communications Commission in Washington its consent to channel 3 being disposed of to Snelgrove and associates? Has the minister been in communication with the F.C.C.? I should like some information on that. I have a file on the matter but I want to find out what the minister is going to do in this regard. Has he not in the course of this debate come to the conclusion that all is not well in this field? Surely he has, if he is not allergic to facts.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is nothing but an endeavour on the part of Snelgrove and his associates to secure their reward for the contributions that they made from September on in particular. I ask: What is the view of the minister as to the award of this channel to Mr. Snelgrove and his associates? The minister has shown every sign of not being affected at all by it. Is he, after all, allergic to facts? Is that his position? Why does he not come before the house and make clear, after listening to all the arguments, what his views are?
Sir, it is all very well to go before the B.B.G but suppose the B.B.G. decides that it is in favour of this application. Is the government going to approve the recommendation? They did not in other cases. I ask the minister: Why is there any difference in the applications of Snelgrove and his associates?
The hon. member for Cumberland referred to a letter he had received from the Secretary of State. I make no apology for placing it on Hansard again. That letter dated January 25, 1966, from the Secretary of State to the hon. member for Cumberland reads in part:
As you are aware, the Board of Broadcast Governors has not proceeded with such applications at the request of the government while the question of providing alternative television service was under policy study.
The reference to applications is to applications for licences. The letter continues:
While, as you have noted, the government has now received the recommendations of the Fowler committee on this and other matters, it has not as yet had time to reach a decision.
That was on January 25, 1966. The letter then goes on:
Until such a policy statement has been worked out and announced, the B.B.G. presumably will continue to maintain its current attitude toward applications for the creation or extension of alternate T.V. service.
February 15, 1966

Mr. Chairman, why did not the principles enunciated by the Secretary of State on January 25 apply in the Snelgrove case? I should like very much for the minister to give us some information in that connection. The minister's only explanation, which has been interpreted over and over again, was that he said he meant that channel 3 might be taken over by the United States.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not by me.


John George Diefenbaker: If channel 3 was not to be filled by a Canadian company, was that not a desperate attempt on his part to cover up the situation where there is no such danger? The minister said that "the United States regulates the use of adjoining channels in the same telecast area", referring to United States stations in the Lake Ontario area using channels 2 and 4.
I ask the minister, why did he place that explanation before the committee entirely without any justification in fact? May I suggest a review of what has taken place in this connection. I am not going back over the fine Italian hand that was revealed here or refer to the manner in which Mr. Snelgrove came to Ottawa, the fact that in Barrie on the day he departed he allegedly made the statement that he was going down to Ottawa to look over things down there and to see that the C.B.C. kept within proper limits in connection with political broadcasts. He came down here and he saw how things were. I want to know why such a departure from the course followed in the past was permitted in this case.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I want to know why there should be such a concentration in the hands of one group. This amounts to one of the most serious situations facing broadcasting today. I see a couple of hon. gentlemen who have just come into parliament for the first time. I have their remarks in this regard. Why should there be such a concentration in the hands of Geoff Stirling, Don Jamieson, Snelgrove and the Waters interests? So far as the Stirling and Jamieson interests are concerned, they have CJON-TV in St. John's, Newfoundland, plus five TV satellites. They have an AM radio station, CJON, in St. John's plus two radio satellites. They have CKWW in Windsor, CKPM in Ottawa and CKGM in Montreal. Where are we heading in this country? I was under the impression that the general course being followed sought to ensure that there should not be such a concentration in the
Supply-Transport
hands of a few in a field so important as telecommunications.
But I continue. Mr. Stirling, Mr. Snelgrove and Mr. Waters have CKVR-TV Barrie, plus three satellites. The Snelgrove interests have CKBB in Barrie and CKCB in Collingwood, the latter today operating as a satellite but to become a full station. The Snelgrove and Waters interests have CKPT in Peterborough, and Waters owns station CHUM, Toronto, CHUM-FM Toronto, CKLC, Kingston, and CKLC-FM, Kingston. Then there are further interests in which they are joined.
Section 118 of the Radio Act states:
Except with the permission of the Minister (of Transport) given upon the recommendation of the Board of Broadcast Governors, no person shall be licensed to operate more than one station and no license shall be issued to or held by a company owned or controlled by a company holding a license-*
What is going to happen here? With this group of Liberal partisans, what chance is there of completely objective reporting and discussion of the news and the problems of Canada? Yet this list is to be added to. I say to the minister that I would expect him to take a strong stand against this sort of thing. Political friends are political friends but this situation cannot be justified by any argument. The hon. gentleman tried by an argument which was specious to pretend that the government of Canada was standing up fearlessly for Canadian rights. But the guide lines would indicate that political considerations were far more important and, indeed, that they are entirely the explanation for what is taking place. After all the arguments which have been advanced, I ask the minister, a man who never hides his views under a bushel: What will his attitude be regarding the award of this plum in the circumstances which have been set out so clearly by those who have preceded me?
During the course of this discussion we have covered many of the problems of the Department of Transport. It is a large, difficult and trying department. Indeed, I sometimes wonder whether what the Prime Minister said yesterday might not also be applied to the Minister of Transport-"I am so busy that I have not got time to think". Now that he has heard the views of members of the committee on this problem and read what has appeared in newspapers not unfavourable to the Liberal government, as he must have done, what is his attitude? Is he not beginning to wonder whether this thing should be

February 15, 1966
Supply-Transport
permitted to go further? I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion there can be no other honest conclusion but that the Snel-grove interests should not be permitted to bring about, in the manner in which they have endeavoured to do so, this agglomeration of power over the thinking of Canadians.
The day this application is granted to these people, if it is granted, the value of the franchise in Barrie for the Snelgrove station will increase, I am told, by at least $3 million. That is a very large political melon to hand to anyone, whatever his political contribution may have been.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think it would probably suit all hon. members if I were to reply briefly to what the right hon. gentleman has said about channel 3. I propose to leave the other matters, if I may, until any other members who wish to speak have spoken. I can then reply on all the other subjects seriatim. But on each occasion when this matter has been brought up I have spoken on it and I think I ought to do so again.
I should like first of all to clear up the point about my "tremendous Canadianism". What I said was-I believe anyone who takes the trouble to look at Hansard will find that this is so; I may have said it clumsily, not having the right hon. gentleman's skill with words-that I had been advised that if one of the Buffalo stations on channel 2 or channel 4 had its transmitter tower moved about 25 miles it would then be impossible for channel 3 to serve metropolitan Toronto because it would create too much interference with that Buffalo station.
I believe this. I cannot prove it because I am not an engineer. If, before Canada had indicated that we were considering the possibility of using this channel in metropolitan Toronto, the transmitter of one of these Buffalo stations had been moved, it would then not have been possible to secure this channel and make it available to metropolitan Toronto. It was my opinion that if this was the factual situation it was advisable to do whatever reasonably could be done to see that this channel, no matter who might use it, would be available for Canada provided we could ensure this.
That is all I said. I did not get very excited about it. It seems to me this is a reasonable position to take. It does appear to me that any minister of transport who failed to try to preserve for Canada the maximum number of
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
these channels, particularly for the second largest aggregation of population in Canada and the largest using the English language, would have been derelict in his duty.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
For that reason we did take the procedure-I am afraid without prompting I cannot give it the technical name-with the Federal Communications Commission of indicating that this channel might become available for metropolitan Toronto. I believe by doing that we made it difficult at any rate for one of the Buffalo stations to move its transmitter.


John George Diefenbaker: When was that communication?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was some time last autumn. I could easily get the precise date. I am not making any secret of this. It was after the matter was brought to my attention by the Snelgrove interests. I do not deny that for one minute.
The second fact is that channel 3 had a licensee. He is Mr. Snelgrove and he had a licence which he got under the previous government. I am not basing anything on that. He did get it though and if he had just sat on this channel in Barrie and made no application to have it transferred nobody could have applied for it in metropolitan Toronto. If he had kept it where it was in Barrie then it could not be applied for in Toronto. That seems to me the most elementary arithmetic.
With regard to the time he did apply I gave the whole timetable or the whole chronology the other day. He submitted two technical briefs to my department, as everyone does before making an application. Then in January he and his associates, in other words, the firm, made their application and that application is still being studied from a technical standpoint in my department. I inquired a couple of days ago and I am told that the technical study will not be completed for at least a week and maybe longer. If it is not technically satisfactory that is the end of it. It will go nowhere. Further, if the applicants choose to withdraw their application then nobody can have channel 3 as long as they have the licence in Barrie. These are the facts. I am trying to make them as simple as possible because there is really nothing mysterious about this at all.
But if this application is sent forward to the B.B.G. then the B.B.G. will have to decide several questions. They will have to
February 15, 1966

decide, first, whether or not another television channel should be permitted in metropolitan Toronto at the present time. They will have to decide that question before they decide who is going to get it.
The second question they will have to decide, if another channel is to be made available in Toronto, is whether they will agree to a transfer to the same licensee from Barrie. They could easily say: No, we will not; all we will do-if they agree to make the channel available in metropolitan Toronto-is to open it for applications.
We know that one of the most powerful stations and one of the earliest pioneers in broadcasting in this country, CFRB in Toronto, has indicated that it is interested. It has not made a formal application but I told the committee the other day that it had brought the matter before my department and had indicated that, if channel 3 was to be open, it would want to apply. I do not think there is the slightest doubt that if there is a hearing it will intervene.
So far as I can recall it has been invariable with the B.B.G. that once a serious intervener appears at a hearing and indicates he wants to make another application, then the date of the hearing has been postponed in order to permit that other application to be made. So it does not seem to me there is any possibility of this matter being decided except after not only a public hearing but almost certainly interventions at that hearing.
I do not know whether to take seriously the exchange of telegrams I had with Mr. Joel Aldred because I really do not know whether or not one takes him seriously. He did get a licence, the first licence in Toronto. It was in his name. Mr. Bassett was associated with him but they seem to have had a falling out and Mr. Aldred is out of the business. Whether he seriously wants to get back into it I do not know.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask one
question just for information. The minister says that channel 3 is the exclusive right of the Snelgrove interests?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, no.


John George Diefenbaker: Do I misunderstand? I understood the minister to say that only Mr. Snelgrove could get channel 3 and has a right to the use of channel 3. I want to be clear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very grateful to the right hon. gentleman for putting that question so clearly, because if I said that it certainly is not correct. They are the licensee
S upp ly-Transport
of channel 3 at the present time and their licence has not expired. During the period that that licence runs I do not think it could be taken away from them except for cause, and only once in the whole history of broadcasting in this country, and never in the case of television, has a licence been revoked.


John George Diefenbaker: There was one in Alberta, I think.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In British Columbia. I know, for it provided me with many headaches, but the record of the Snelgrove station in Barrie is such that I have never heard of any ground for revoking their licence.
It is quite clear that channel 3 cannot be used both at Barrie and at some other place near Toronto, because it has to be used in one place or the other. If I am not making myself clear-


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot follow it. It is at that point that there seems to be some divergence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If channel 3 continues to be used in Barrie it cannot be used on the edge of metropolitan Toronto because there would be the most hopeless kind of interference. I think this is where there is a great deal of misunderstanding of how this whole matter has come about. As long as the licensees of channel 3 in Barrie just sit on their licence at Barrie and as long as their licence lasts-I do not say they have a right to it indefeasibly or indefinitely, it being a piece of public property-as long as they comply with the law they will have their licence there.
Therefore the only way a process could be started by which this channel could be moved to Toronto would be for those licensees to give up their licence entirely, which I would not expect them or any other licence holder to do, and ask to have it transferred.


John George Diefenbaker: And no one else could get it then.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is where the right hon. gentleman keeps going wrong all the time.


John George Diefenbaker: Why?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Because they have no right to have it transferred. They have a right to exercise it in Barrie but no right to transfer it anywhere else.


John George Diefenbaker: If they have the right to this channel 3, how can any other body secure the right in Toronto for that portion of the area encompassed by channel 3?

February 15, 1966
Supply-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will try to explain that. You cannot split up channel 3. It is either going to be in Barrie or it is not going to be in Barrie and if it stays in Barrie nobody else can have it. I think we all agree on that. Let us move on to the next step. How then are you going to get channel 3 in Toronto at all? There are two possible ways. One is for them to apply for a transfer. The other would be for them to say: We will take some other channel; we will hand this back to the Crown and let everybody compete for it. That kind of disinterestedness I would hardly expect of them or any other broadcaster, and I do not think the right hon. gentleman would either.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
So channel 3 could not be open at this time for anybody unless they applied for a transfer, and the B.B.G. has to make a decision regarding that transfer. The B.B.G. cannot make such a decision unless the Snelgove interests apply for a transfer. Further, the B.B.G. can say: "If this is to be transferred we insist that other applicants should also have the right to apply." If they say that, either the applicant will have to withdraw its application or submit to competition. That is precisely the situation, and it is perfectly open to the board to say either of these things. The board might also say it does not believe the channel should be moved there at all. That is a possibility.
If I have left any doubt in any hon. member's mind I should like very much to clear it up. I am very pleased to submit to questioning on that point before I move to the next point.


Michael Starr: I should like to ask the minister whether there have been any requests from groups of people or individuals not directly interested in a channel 3 licence at this moment to have the channel transferred to Toronto? What is the purpose of moving channel 3 to Toronto?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite frankly I do not know the answer to that question, but no group of citizens has come to me and stated that they wanted channel 3 moved to Toronto.


John George Diefenbaker: They could not obtain that even if they wanted it. No wonder they have not applied.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the hon. member was talking about an application; he was talking about disinterested citizens making a demand. I do not know of any such

demand. All I know is that these applicants have done something that has been done a great many times before. They have applied for permission to move their channel. At almost every hearing of the B.B.G. there are applications heard for the transfer of channels. There is nothing unprecedented about this. When they made their application it became the duty of the Department of Transport to evaluate it and that is what we are doing


Mr. Smith:: I think I can speak for the people of Simcoe county when I say that they want channel 3 left where it is. If their interests are considered that is where the channel will remain. The minister spoke a moment ago about the application respecting channel 3 which I believe is related to a counter-application for a broadcasting station on channel 5 located somewhere in Simcoe county. We think that is second best so far as Simcoe county is concerned.
The minister spoke about the distance between two channels. Is it not a fact that in respect of adjoining channels there has to be a 60 mile separation such as between channel 6 in Toronto and the transmitter for channel 5? Is that not a technical requirement? If we in Simcoe county are given channel 5 will the transmitter not have to be moved considerably north, much closer to Muskoka and Parry Sound than it now is? May we have an answer to that question? Does the present application for channel 5 call for the transmitter to be situated somewhere near the hamlet of Warminster near Orillia, which is 20 to 25 miles farther north than the present location of the transmitter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid the hon. member, as is perhaps understandable, has a more detailed geographical knowledge of Simcoe county than I have but the information I gave the other day is all the information I have in my hand. I have no doubt I can get this other information. I am quite sure that if this application does come before the Board of Broadcast Governors there will be plenty of people from Barrie and Simcoe county who will make very strong representations about the matter. I have no doubt about that whatsoever.


Sydney John Smith: I am mainly interested in the technical points concerned in this application.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps before the consideration of my estimates is concluded I will obtain that technical information for the hon. gentleman. However, again this is something
February 15, 1966

in respect of which I have no competence or right to make a decision. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will realize that, if we come to the conclusion that the application for channel 5 is not technically feasible in that it would not give good service or would interfere with some other channel, it could not be sent forward.


John George Diefenbaker: Who do you mean when you say "we"?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I refer to the Department of Transport.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is the royal "we", is it not?


Sydney John Smith: Channel 6 is not a United States station.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am only a minister of the Crown.


Sydney John Smith: As you are aware, channel 6 is a C.B.C. outlet. We in Simcoe county are not anti-American but what we are interested in is preserving the C.B.C. programs.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand the hon. gentleman perfectly. I am sure I would feel exactly the same way as he does. If there was any question whatsoever about the service to Barrie and Simcoe county not going to be as good then I would fight like a tiger to make sure the change was not allowed. I do not see why any sensible person would not do that, especially someone representing that area. I do not think for a moment that the Board of Broadcast Governors would permit this channel to be moved if it felt this was going to reduce or make worse the service at Barrie. Certainly if I was a member of the board I would not allow such a move under those circumstances.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Do I understand the minister to say that if there was an application by the proprietors of channel 3-


John Whitney Pickersgill: You mean the licensees?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes. If there was an application by the licensees of channel 3 for a transfer to Toronto or any place else, would channel 3 automatically be thrown open to other interested parties?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. What I said was that the Board of Broadcast Governors could say: We will not allow you to take it anywhere; we gave you a licence for an operation in Barrie and we will not give you a licence for Toronto.
Supply-Transport


John George Diefenbaker: That would not give anyone else an opportunity.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the joker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I beg your pardon?


John George Diefenbaker: That is the tiger in the tank.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All the Board of Broadcast Governors has to say in that case is no if they do not feel that it is proper and in the national interest to allow the move. They might also suggest that they think it would be a good idea to have channel 3 in Toronto but that no one has a vested right to it. The Board of Broadcast Governors might say that they would allow the transfer but also allow competition for it at the same time. In that case it would be up to the applicants either to withdraw their application or submit to competition.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is channel 5 in use now? How does it happen to become available?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it can be said with certainty, as the hon. member for Simcoe North indicated, that it is available but there is an application to use it in Simcoe county.


Philip Bernard Rynard: By whom?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By the same interests. This information was all put on record the other day. This application is being evaluated at the same time as the channel 3 application. The two applications are interlocked because the applicants state that they do not want their application for the transfer of channel 3 to go forward unless the other application is considered to be technically satisfactory. That application has not been evaluated so I cannot say that the channel is available. However, when the applicants made their application they must have had some engineering advice which would indicate that the channel might be available and they would not be wasting their money in making the application.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask the minister a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Is it possible for the same interests to end up with both channels 3 and 5?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, that would be possible, but whether it would be desirable or not is another matter.

February 15, 19B6
Supp ly-Transport


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Am I mistaken in the belief that two adjacent channels should not be owned by the same interests? I always thought that this was a factor taken into consideration by the B.B.G. in its decisions and that it would not give television licences in respect of adjoining areas to the same individual.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman has just asked a question I intended to answer without its being asked. I have always felt, and as the right hon. gentleman has said I do not hide my views, that in any kind of business it is better to have a number of businesses than just one. I have always felt that a concentration, particularly of the ownership of newspapers, radio stations and television stations, is not in itself desirable. However, the whole history of television in Canada and of radio broadcasting before it has shown that, notwithstanding the pious observations made in a number of speeches and notwithstanding the rather loosely worded regulation which the hon. gentleman quoted in the 25 or 30 years I have watched these things, there has always been multiple ownership in Canada, which has been steadily on the increase.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The Southam interests, for example, own several stations and so do other large newspaper chains. Thomson owns I do not know how many. I think it would be preferable not to have any more multiple ownership than is necessary but I am informed that this is a very difficult and technical business and there are not too many totally independent operators who have been able to go into it and be successful. The Board of Broadcast Governors has always taken the view, I think, that they would never recommend the ownership of two stations in the same place by the same person.


Sydney John Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that these will be two stations in the same broadcasting area with the same ownership.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If that view was taken by the Board of Broadcast Governors that would be the end of it. But we are now seeking to try to anticipate a decision about an application that may never even get before the board. That is the actual, factual situation. The application is still in the Department of Transport. It is still being studied by the experts and if they say this thing will not

work, it cannot be done, it is going to create problems of a technical nature, that will be the end of it.
If the Board of Broadcast Governors says, Notwithstanding the fact-this is the other point I wanted to make-that it may be technically feasible we do not think there should be a third channel in Toronto at this time, that will also be the end of it. I will now deal with the point raised by the right hon. gentleman regarding the point made by the hon. member for Cumberland the other day, which I dealt with as clearly as I could at the time. By "alternate service" I have always understood is meant the provision of a second station, either a C.B.C. station or a private station, where there is a first station. I had never understood "alternate service" to mean the extension of the area covered by the use of satellites and, in fact, it certainly has not been interpreted that way because a good many satellites have been established since the freeze was put on alternate service.
Taking the ordinary meaning of the words, I would not regard as alternate service the provision of a third service somewhere when there was already alternate service. The Board of Broadcast Governors may take an opposite view. However, Mr. Chairman, that has been my understanding of the matter. I do not know whether this covers all the points raised by the right hon. gentleman but I have tried to deal with them as coolly and as factually as I can.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Chairman, would the minister answer one question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, certainly.


Robert Carman Coates: Could he give the committee some indication when the new appointments to the Board of Broadcast Governors will be made and whether these will be made prior to the consideration of this application, if it is put before the Board of Broadcast Governors, or later?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am really quite embarrassed by this question, Mr. Chairman, because that matter does not fall within my responsibility as Minister of Transport. The Board of Broadcast Governors answers to this house through the Secretary of State. I know some consideration has been given to making these appointments but I think it would be wrong of me to try to forecast what one of my colleagues is going to do in a matter that has not yet been determined.
February 15, 1966


Robert Carman Coates: Does the minister not consider that this is a very important matter and something that the house should be informed of as quickly as possible? Certainly the people should know whether the Board of Broadcast Governors as it is now set up under the law will be considering this application.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can say this. I feel that having regard to our parliamentary timetable there is not much prospect of having any fundamental amendments to the Broadcasting Act at a very early date. Therefore we should carry on in the best possible way under the broadcasting legislation we now have, and we certainly are not carrying on in the best possible way unless the permanent positions on the Board of Broadcast Governors are filled.
I hope there will be no undue delay in filling them because I must say I agree-I want to be careful here-with the spirit of the hon. gentleman's inquiry. I do think that in view of the great importance that is attached to this matter-and I understand why people have attached a great deal of importance to this matter-I would not be very happy to have it come before a board that had only one permanent member. I should like to make that point very clear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: We have a list of names for you, Jack.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister whether an engineering survey accompanied the application for channel 5.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not like to answer questions to which I do not personally know the answers. I do not think these applications are accepted without such a survey but I would have to find out.


Robert Muir: Such modesty.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the minister would answer one more short question? I am sure we appreciate the fullness of his answers and his intention to protect the people of Toronto and Barrie, but I should like to know what the minister has to say about this matter. On the assumption that the final decision is to be made by the cabinet, to which the minister will give some direction, how does the minister feel about the two recommendations in the Fowler report, first that restraint should be used with regard to issuing licences for a period of at least five years and, second that the decision
Supply-Transport
with regard to issuing licences should rest in a new authority rather than in cabinet?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman, who spoke in a quite engaging way the other day in the house, has asked me a question that I think, having regard to our parliamentary traditions, it would be very wrong for me to answer. The government of Canada, of which I happen temporarily to be a member-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -under our system of responsible government is considering this matter and for me to express an opinion now would either be a piece of arrogance, because I would be assuming that all my colleagues were puppets and I was deciding the matter, or it would be a piece of foolishness because the decision might very well be the opposite of the one which I would now give off the top of my head. There is a provision in our rules that hypothetical questions should not be asked or answered. This is a hypothetical question so I will plead the rules.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few brief observations and I shall try to remain in order and talk about transportation. The first thing I shall do is make a few observations with respect to the transportation of the minister's present Parliamentary Secretary from the Department of Labour to his present department. I must say I am very pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary is in the house because I have been asked to raise this question by persons who have read a very interesting article which appeared in the press and by others, and I think in fairness to him it is only right that he should be present. We look forward later to his rising and replying to this question. Mr. Gerald Waring in his "Ottawa Report" of recent date had this to say:
The P.M. also tried to fire Jim Byrne, parliamentary secretary for labour, to make room for another British Columbia M.P., Ron Basford. But Byrne, rock-hard hardrock miner from Trail, refused to be bumped. Either he kept his job, or Pearson needn't count on Jim Byrne's vote in the house. So Byrne has become (parliamentary secretary) to Pickersgill, and Basford still waits in the wings.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
This has caused a good deal of interest in the part of the country from which I come and I was asked to raise the point, you see.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the hon. gentleman to which of the items in my estimates he relates this extraordinary piece of gossip?

February 15, 1966
Supply-Transport


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am speaking of the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary who has a certain responsibility for the administration of the department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman is quite wrong. There is a statute providing for Parliamentary Secretaries and the Parliamentary Secretary is not paid from the estimates of the Department of Transport. The Parliamentary Secretaries are selected and recommended by the Prime Minister, so it would be impudence on my part to express any views on the Prime Minister's decision.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the minister for his explanation. I knew that already. I am raising the matter because it will give the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity to reply. He is partly responsible for the administration of the department.
From conversations I have had with some of his colleagues on the Liberal side I judge there is a certain amount of substance in this report. I understand he informed some of them of his indignation, of his explosion in front of the Prime Minister and his later elevation. I just want to say, in fairness to the Parliamentary Secretary, that my first question is whether he was angry that he was not on the first published list of Parliamentary Secretaries? I know he will answer this. I was very surprised to hear this, Mr. Chairman, because I have always known the Parliamentary Secretary as a most meek and mild man. In fact, I have a distinct recollection of him turning the other cheek when faced with unprovoked aggression in the hallowed halls of this house last session.
My second question is, did he inform the Prime Minister that he either got the job as Parliamentary Secretary or the Prime Minister could not count on him in the house, that he would sit as an independent and vote accordingly? In fairness to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the house I think we are entitled to know the facts. There are such a lot of rumours about this matter. The members of the press are waiting eagerly to report the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. We are entitled to information about his appointment to a position which might be called near to greatness. I cannot for a moment visualize the Prime Minister surrendering so easily to such a meek and mild gentleman as the hon. member for Kootenay East. I trust he will take the opportunity to explain to the house exactly what happened.

I should like to say that in listening to this debate I have noticed that the minister is a very different person from the person he was about this time last year. He has become very subdued, very apologetic and full of explanations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This time last year parliament had not yet met.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am speaking in approximate terms. Last year I addressed a question to the minister which is found at page 11632 of Hansard for February 23, 1965. The question reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It is a question in which a good many Canadians are interested. My question is based on some remarks made last evening by the minister when he was referring to the criticisms made by the hon. member for Halifax with respect to the proposed reduction of passenger service on the Canadian Pacific Railway.
In order that members of the house will not be required to rely entirely on the prognostications of that esteemed member of the press gallery, Mr. Victor Mackie-
A delightful fellow.
-would the minister inquire of the President of the C.P.R. what its policy is at present with respect to the reduction of passenger services in Canada and report to the house?
The minister's reply was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, since under the rules of the house ministers are only expected to answer for those bodies which are under their jurisdiction, and since the hon. member is a more eminent member of the house than I, I suggest that he make the inquiry of the C.P.R.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest to the hon. gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that we have now had provision made by parliament whereby the hon. gentleman can confront the President of the C.P.R. and ask the question direct.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Quite right, and why did you make that provision. It was made because of the fight put up by members of the opposition parties. I mention this in order to compare the attitude of the minister on his estimates this session with his attitude last session when in his reply he practically indicated that the Canadian Pacific was a private concern, and what could we do about it?


Jay Waldo Monteith: It may be the influence of the Minister of Agriculture.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, I willingly pay tribute to the attitude taken by the Minister of Agriculture. I wish him every success. I can tell him even now, before his estimates come before this committee, that a good many members of the opposition are going to get
February 15, 1966

right behind the Minister of Agriculture with regard to his criticisms of the Canadian Pacific.
I am not going to speak at any length or repeat the excellent arguments advanced by various members of the opposition parties on this important question. I wish to support wholeheartedly the remarks of those members who have opposed the present policy of the Canadian Pacific in respect of the discontinuance of passenger service, including the "Dominion" and other services. I wish to compliment the hon. member for Kamloops-he is not present now but somebody will tell him about it-upon his effective analysis of the transportation system in Canada today and his support for the arguments which have been put forward by members of this group throughout the years.
The hon. member for Kamloops did not suggest any radical remedy except that which lay within the purview of the Canadian Pacific, a private corporation. Other members of his party suggested more drastic measures. We were very pleased to hear his analysis of the situation. I think he made an excellent speech, and I can see that so far as the member for Kamloops is concerned one could almost quote the hymn, "Almost Persuaded".
We can expect to hear something from the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke on this matter. He is not in the house now. I suppose he got bored with the previous argument. I wish to emphasize the opposition of a great many residents of British Columbia to the withdrawal of the Kettle Valley passenger service. I expect a great deal of support from the Parliamentary Secretary on this question because of his elevation to his present office. Before this service was withdrawn the Chambers of Commerce, labour organizations, farmers organizations, women's organizations and organizations representing all the people in the interior of British Columbia were opposed to the withdrawal of this service. However, it was withdrawn.
I cannot understand why the company is permitted to divide the revenues it receives from freight service from those it receives from passenger service and set up fictitious costs. We know that Kettle Valley is one of the most profitable lines in the Canadian Pacific system. I do not understand why the company is allowed, with regard to the discontinuance of passenger service, to present fictitious costs for the maintenance of track, snow removal and other matters which bear
Supply-Transport
no relationship to the actual service being withdrawn. I trust that the withdrawal of the Kettle Valley passenger service will receive the attention of the committee that is going to examine the officials of the Canadian Pacific. I expect allies from all sides of the house on this question and I am looking forward to a victory in this respect.
I want to deal briefly with the application of the Canadian Pacific for an order to abandon part of its Rossland subdivision between Warfield and Rossland, which I think is about 7.5 miles. Representations were made by various groups, including the Chamber of Commerce of the City of Rossland, the Chairman of the Transportation Committee of the Rossland Chamber of Commerce, and others.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The judgment of the Board of Transport Commissioners granted the C.P.R. the right to discontinue the operation of this 7.5 miles of track and to close its station in Rossland. Here is a city with four to five thousand people situated in my constituency which is not served by the railroad and has no depot within its confines. In any event, the decision has been made.
The Rossland Chamber of Commerce made some excellent suggestions, I think, to the officials of the Board of Transport Commissioners as a result of their experience in presenting evidence to the board, and I am going to read their proposals because I think they should be seriously considered by the minister and by the board. This is a letter which the Rossland Chamber of Commerce wrote to the Mr. H. H. Griffin, Assistant Chief Commissioner of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, Ottawa, dated February 3, 1966 Dear Mr. Griffin:
It is with regret that we received your order No. 119677, authorizing the Canadian Pacific Railway to abandon their trackage from Warfield to Rossland.
However, this letter is written with the thought in mind of assisting future hearings, so that all parties concerned will view the results with understanding, if not with satisfaction.
(1)	All exhibits filed re the application should have a glossary, so that anyone reading the documents will understand the terms of reference.
(2)	It should definitely be established that the railway company offering a service to a district, should be the organization to document fully the possibilities for business within the districts concerned. The hearing should have a full background knowledge of:
(A)	Why the railway line was established.
(B)	What the line carried over its history.
(C)	Revenue expense picture over the last 10 years.

February 15, 1966
Supply-Transport
(D)	What steps were taken by the railway to overcome losses to traffic developing on a line.
(E)	What studies were made of the area as to future possibilities for rail traffic.
In this case (reference page 5, Mr. Chapman) we now find that incoming chemicals will run about 3 to 1 for outbound shipments, for the treatment of Red Mountain Ore; thus showing Canadian Pacific did not do a study of future traffic for this area. If such a study were done and the results not given to the board, one would assume we did not have a true hearing.
(3)	A letter be sent te the districts concerned, before a hearing, outlining terms of reference of the board and what type or types of evidence would be pertinent to the hearing.
I think that is very necessary.
(4)	Warehousing being presently served by the railway, who absorbs the costs of moving or dismantling such warehousing? In the case of a business which must close, what compensations can be planned on?
We trust the above suggestions will meet with your boards approval; in regard to No. 4 we would be most interested in hearing your present plans.
I have quoted this letter, which is of some length, because this committee met and reviewed the experience gained from attending hearings before the Board of Transport Commissioners. They wondered what they could do in order to make suggestions which would assist other persons who had to attend hearings and present evidence on behalf of a community, an organization and so on.
I also want briefly to support all of the proposals advanced by various members on all sides of the house to promote labour peace in our transportation industry and to urge that the recommendations of the Freedman report receive very serious consideration by the government. I have read through the report and I think the recommendations are based on very solid ground. I am sure that the Commissioner had in mind the spirit behind the Bill of Rights when he drafted his report. What we urgently need in my opinion is a transportation policy in Canada which will meet the growing demands of the public for efficient and satisfactory service in all fields of transportation. There is no question that the government has not presented any transportation policy to this house to date.
Before concluding I must say I was very interested in the remarks of the Progressive Conservative member for Battle River-Camrose. He quoted Mr. Arnold Platt as follows, as found on page 1163 of Hansard:
"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".

The hon. member went on to say:
I am 100 per cent convinced that that is the C.P.R.'s motive. I am a long way from being a socialist-*
That is almost like Premier Bennett; he socializes public enterprise in the name of free enterprise.

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 was very interested in this shift in policy on the part of the Progressive Conservatives. Actually the hon. member is endorsing the remarks made later by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre urging that not only do we take over the C.P.R. but that we also take over all of the enterprises of the C.P.R. if they fail to recognize their responsibility to the Canadian people.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are all socialists now.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Obviously we are all socialists of one sort or another.
As against that, Mr. Chairman, I wish to quote the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. As reported at page 1204 of Hansard he said:
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.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then I notice that there were some cries of "hear, hear" from members in various seats in the house, including some members of the Progressive Conservative party. I was very pleased to see this and to realize what an influence this small group is having on the Progressive Conservative party which sits to our right.


Robert Muir: We were carried away.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Doubtless due to the changing circumstances in Canada and their realization of the mood of the public at this time, some of those members are willing to socialize all the enterprises of the C.P.R. and to join hands with the New Democratic Party in
February 15, 1986

basing our transportation system on a sound policy. I congratulate them.
I do not know whether I am out of order but very briefly I wish to support the employees of the C.P.R. in their representations in connection with their pension plan and their protest against the unilateral action on the part of the C.P.R. in implementing changes in the pension plan. I have before me a letter from the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Division 1579, Nelson, British Columbia. I am not going to speak at any length on this matter except to say that we wholeheartedly support the attitude of these railroad employees and trust that the government will listen to the appeals being made on the Opposition side of the house.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I trust that this lengthy debate on the minister's estimates, lengthy because very important matters are involved and because there are many members who want to bring certain local problems to his attention, will move the minister to take effective action as the result of the protests and constructive proposals made by members on both sides of the house. I trust and hope he realizes that in making these protests and proposals they are speaking for the people of Canada. I resume my seat, Mr. Chairman, looking forward to the reply of the hon. member for Kootenay East to my comments on his appointment to near greatness.


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kootenay West indulged this afternoon in tactics which he used in my riding throughout the election campaign-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Oh, no. Not I.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -tactics by which he attempted to smear. Those tactics were not successful.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It was a pretty close run.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: They were very unsuccessful, I might add. The hon. member referred to an article written by what I term a fiction writer from the press gallery. He is a writer perhaps in the same category as a former member of the New Democratic Party. I classify them both as fiction writers and not as reporters. I am not aware where, Mr. Waring obtained the so-called facts-I should say fiction-that he wrote respecting my appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. This I do know, that from the outset the Prime Minister suggested any one of three important departments, including the
Supply-Transport
Department of Transport. I felt I should accept the Department of Transport appointment as the one in which I could be of most help. The hon. member for Kootenay West, I think-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Are we looking for help in the Kettle Valley?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -wishes to see that his airport is retained.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That has been completed.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I am sure that he is concerned with transportation in every way.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Quite so. That has all been
done.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I am sure that what the hon. member is concerned about is the fact that I was the subject of a very laudatory editorial in a newspaper in his riding. I refer to the Castlegar News of Wednesday, January 26, 1966.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is this news?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I am sure the hon. member will bear with me for a few moments and let me reply to some of the critical remarks he has made about myself. The Castlegar News had this to say about my appointment:
Residents of the West Kootenay federal riding will join with their neighbours in the East Kootenay federal riding this week to offer congratulations to Jim Byrne, Member of Parliament for Kootenay East who has been appointed parliamentary secretary to Transport Minister Jack Pickersgill.
Residents in the Castlegar-Kinnaird-Nelson area of the West Kootenay riding have particular reason to be pleased with Mr. Byrne's appointment for he has proved himself a strong friend of the Castlegar airport and is known to favour retention of the present Castlegar and Cranbrook airports and to be opposed to the consolidation of these facilities at Creston.
It goes on in a rather laudatory manner throughout.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of order. What purpose is being served by this selflaudatory explanation by the hon. member so far as the passing of the estimates of the Department of Transport is concerned? Earlier today the minister suggested that we should deal directly with the estimates of the department and I support the minister in this. I think we should do that right now.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I might say that the Chair has been somewhat concerned not only about the answer but also about the question. Since the question came from one end of the Kootenays perhaps we will allow

February 15, 1966
Supply-Transport
the hon. member from the other end to answer.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Absolutely.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I find it very difficult to understand the attitude of the hon. member for Winnipeg South at this moment in view of the fact that he allowed the Leader of the Opposition to be out of order in this regard for about 15 to 20 minutes this afternoon. The Leader of the Opposition was speaking on matters which had no connection with the Department of Transport. I think I have said sufficient to answer the hon. member for Kootenay West. If there are other questions which he wishes to raise on the items of the estimates, I will be pleased to be of assistance to him.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport for his magnificent defence of an impossible position. I can judge from his remarks that anything we have been told from the Liberal side of the house is completely untrue.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. This might be a good time for the committee to return to the estimates of the Department of Transport. Shall item 1 carry?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, since it is six o'clock and we must now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, may I call it six o'clock?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee care to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: In order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15 it is my duty to leave the chair.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, in conformity with standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the following questions will be discussed on the adjournment motion tonight: The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), the Constitution-request to set up constitutional court; the hon. member for
[The Chairman.]
Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), Housing- Toronto-community centre facilities for downtown developments; the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler), Public Service-printing bureau employees engaged in private printing.
The house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Eric Siefanson (Selkirk) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-7, to incorporate Evangelistic Tabernacle Incorporated. He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill had received second reading when the house adjourned last summer for the recess and when parliament was dissolved it died on the order paper. This is a bill in standard form and is similar to many others which have been passed incorporating other religious bodies. The petitioners are residents of the city of Winnipeg. This religious organization has congregations in Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia as well as Manitoba. It also maintains a missionary in the Philippines. It carries on certain charitable and educational work. The Evangelistic Tabernacle was established first in Canada in 1956. It has affiliations with a similar religious organization in the United States. The scope of its activities has now developed to the point where it must become incorporated if it is to continue to be effective in the spreading of the Christian gospel.
I understand that this bill will be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills. The representatives of the organization will, of course, appear before the committee if the bill is referred there and will be in a position to provide detailed information to hon. members.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson) this is one of those bills which met its demise on the calling of the election. It thus falls into a category shared by a variety of other measures which were before the house at that time. I do not intend to go into that subject at any length because it has been well dealt with on a number of occasions. But I should like to stress, first of all, a thought I have with regard to the general subject matter of private bills of this nature.
February 15, 1966

Private Bills
These societies or corporations are incorporated by the private bill process because of an inheritance from the British parliamentary system. In the early years almost everything which was done by way of legislation was done by means of private acts or bills. Gradually over the years public bills came to the fore until today they predominate among the items of legislation which parliament has to consider. Nevertheless we still have a few pieces of legislation which are dealt with as private bills, and we have an example before us now.
I am wondering whether we might not be able to work out a different procedure. Without intending any disrespect to the organization now seeking to be incorporated I seriously doubt whether, despite the historical background, it should properly be the business of the parliament of Canada to consume its time and energy considering bills of this kind, in the present instance the incorporation of Evangelistic Tabernacle Incorporated. I say this, as I have mentioned, with no disrespect to the organization itself but in a general way since this is one of a number of similar bills which undoubtedly we shall be considering in the future.
I note that other organizations and groups wishing to become incorporated for the purpose of advancing their philosophy, religion or ideology as well as for the purpose of dealing in real property and the like, as this body also seeks to do, can accomplish their purpose by incorporation under various provincial acts.
Some years ago the International Woodworkers of America, a union to which I belong, found that because it was not considered a legal entity as such it could not hold real property. We found we had to incorporate a holding society under the Societies Act of British Columbia in order to possess certain property, in that instance a boat which we owned. Other unions encountered the same difficulty in connection with halls, buildings and real estate generally. Perhaps we should be considering another method of incorporating groups and societies such as the one whose application is now before us. Eventually I should like to see the point reached when parliament would not have to consume its time dealing with private measures such as these. Certainly companies formed to conduct business operations of the greatest magnitude can be incorporated under the general law the Companies Act, or its 23033-soj
counterpart in the various provinces. Parliament concerns itself in this field only with the general applicability of the law, setting certain standards and general requirements which each company must meet before it can go into business. A similar procedure is followed with regard to special types of companies, for example, trust companies, mortgage and loan companies and the like.
I advance this as a general thought. I know it is not possible to do anything along these lines at the present moment. We have this bill before us and we have to take action with respect to it. I am sure the action the house will take will be precisely the same as was taken last session. The bill will be given second reading and go to the appropriate committee for examination in circumstances where its sponsors and others may appear as witnesses. Then the bill will be presented to us again in the normal course. However, if Your Honour is reconstituting the committee on procedure I suggest that this matter might be taken into consideration and that a study of the rules might be made with respect to private bills so as to permit such measures to be dealt with in another way.
Evangelistic Tabernacle Incorporated asserts that its objects are seven in number. The first is to promote and advance the Christian faith and doctrine and to extend the Christian faith in all lawful ways. It seeks to establish and conduct missions and to operate missions, seminaries, schools, colleges, hospitals, dispensaries and orphanages, together with homes for the aged and other institutions for religious and educational purposes. In short, it seeks to interest itself in the field of social welfare-I use the phrase loosely-because this is what we are concerned about when we talk in terms of homes for the aged, orphanages and the like. We are concerned with social justice and our responsibility for society.
The Evangelistic Tabernacle seeks to advance these ideals and aims. It also wishes to promote the erection and purchase of houses of worship and, naturally, to administer the property and business of the corporation. It seeks also to engage in the publishing business for the purpose of printing and distributing literature, gospel literature it is called, designed to promote and advance the ideology and doctrines of the corporation. Finally, it seeks to promote generally the spiritual welfare of all its members.
Private Bills

February 15, 1966
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
I assume that these objectives are similar to, if not identical with, the objectives of related types of organizations whose applications for incorporation have been before parliament in the past. I think it might be well at this juncture to go back to my first point and ask ourselves whether we should not have some general statute setting out the requirements to be met by organizations such as Evangelistic Tabernacle when bringing forward applications for incorporation in the same way as we now have general laws such as the Companies Act which set out certain basic requirements in the fields which they cover. If we set out general standards for any group that seeks to be incorporated, we will establish the objects and purposes for which they may become incorporated and parliament will be dealing with one single statute establishing the criteria to be met by groups seeking to be incorporated similar to the one currently before us.
I do not know whether there is any great departure from comparable provisions in bills of like nature but it is interesting to note that there is extensive reference, ranging through six clauses of the bill before us, to the question of real property in all its aspects, dealing with holding, receiving, possessing, selling, buying, mortgaging, and the doing of all sorts of other things with respect to real property. It seems to me, therefore, that the preponderance of wording in the bill is taken up with the question of the activities of this corporation so far as real estate is concerned.
This may be standard practice. It may be necessary to set out, in all the details contained here the authority of the corporation so far as real property is concerned, but I do say there is an undue amount of consideration given to that particular question.
There is one part of the bill, clause 15, which deals with the related question of borrowing money, accepting promissory notes, issuing debentures, mortgages, pledges and so on on real and personal property of the company as well as the selling of bonds and generally giving authority to deal in the field of money so far as borrowings are concerned. That too may be a standard provision in bills of a similar nature, but I submit again that if it is standard it is something that could be set out in a general public law permitting groups of this sort simply to go through the process of incorporating as companies do under the Companies Act or as trust companies do

under specific legislation. Parliament then would not thereafter have to take its time in concerning itself with matters of this sort, important as they might be.
I think it is a fact that this bill will engage the attention of just a few members of parliament. We found in the past that the only people generally interested and concerned, about such matters were the sponsor and the members of the standing committee who happened to be in attendance at the time a particular bill was considered. The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) says that would be the full committee. Possibly he goes to different committees than I attend for I have never yet been at a committee meeting which had a full attendance of members.
Generally speaking only a few members of parliament concern themselves with matters of this sort. I venture to say that only two or three members of the house, possibly a few more, would be interested in the subject matter of the bill before us. All other members would be sort of vaguely detached from it, having but a general understanding that something had gone on in the house today between the hours of six and seven o'clock that had something to do with the Tabernacle Society. That would be the extent of the knowledge of most members.
I think it is asking too much of parliament to take a great deal of time to deal with a subject matter relating to private individuals which of course is why this is a private bill. Second, the subject matter is one which engages the attention of so few members of parliament. I would much rather see some sort of general statute developed. Undoubtedly it would have to be done after consultation and discussion with the various religious orders in the nation to ensure that such a general law met the desires and purposes of the individual groups. Once we had developed a general law, parliament would not have to concern itself and consume its time in dealing with matters such as are before us at the moment.
Because these things can be so easily misunderstood I reiterate again that I am in no way saying anything against the organization that seeks to be incorporated, its objectives or anything else. I am simply saying that parliament should not concern itself and consume its time with matters like this when with far more efficiency and much more dispatch they could be dealt with in a different fashion.
February 15, 1966


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise only for a moment to express a great deal of interest in the remarks that have been made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). There is a great deal of merit in what the hon. member has proposed in connection with this type of bill. The time has come when parliament needs to be relieved of some of the traditional chores in which we find ourselves involved. In fact, I would go a little further in that connection and say that I think we must again review the situation that has arisen in the House of Commons with respect to public bills. We find a tremendous number of these bills on the order paper. They are being reintroduced-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interfere or intervene at this moment, particularly in view of the fact that the hon. member for Skeena was allowed to make rather lengthy remarks about questions which do not relate specifically to the principle of the bill before us, but this is really what we should be considering. This is what should be the subject matter of our debate. As I say, I did allow the hon. member for Skeena to make these remarks thinking they were introductory and that he would finally come to consider the principle of the bill itself. The hon. member for Cariboo now seems to wish to continue in the same vein and convert this debate into one dealing with procedure rather than one dealing with the principle of the incorporation of this particular association. I do not want to cut off the debate entirely, but I would invite the hon. member for Cariboo and other hon. members who will take part in the debate afterwards to try to limit their contributions to the debate to what they should be, that is, to a discussion of the principle of the bill before the house.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those remarks and I agree wholeheartedly that the position you have taken is quite correct. I only say at this moment that we would like to see this bill receive second reading and be referred to the standing committee.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to say a few words about this bill. I want to have regard for your ruling, but even though I agree with it I think that the house is going to have to give some consideration to the remarks made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I say so because if one looks around the house it will be found from the number of members present that the discussion of this bill does
Private Bills
not seem to be generating a great deal of interest, and I think it should. The title and format of the bill-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Rosthern on a point of order.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that as I look about the house I see that there are just as many people here now as there usually are during deliberations in the House of Commons.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is credit to the members of parliament and no credit to the house. We have been discussing estimates of a very serious nature running into millions, yes, billions of dollars. I do not really consider this bill to be in that category. If the hon. member is correct, the degree of disgrace is greater than I had intended. I could go on being out of order by mentioning that I do not like our hours of sitting, which deprive us of an opportunity to have supper. The hon. member was willing to vote for this, but I will not do that.
I feel that we are being asked today to accept a bill about which general remarks should be applicable. This bill appears to have been designed in archaic legalistic terms and does not really mean anything. Perhaps the sponsor is not aware of its legal background, but it seems to have been designed with the sole purpose of putting money into the pockets of lawyers. We do not know whether the Evangelistic Tabernacle Incorporated is a small or large organization, whether it is actually a religious body or a group of individuals associated for other than religious purposes.
On the face of it the bill appears to be the child of some lawyer's mind, particularly in view of the legal hocus-pocus in its format. I am sure that members have not had an opportunity to look at the legalistic rigmaroles contained in this and other similar bills. It is unfortunate that the sponsors did not indicate just what the Evangelistic Tabernacle Incorporated is, or is going to be. It may well be an association to make millions of dollars as a holding organization. It may well be a religious organization having churches in different communities and certain other properties deeded to them. However, in looking at the bill as a member of parliament, because of the way in which it has been drafted I am not aware whether or not it will meet the needs of the corporation. For

February 15, 1966
Private Bills
these reasons this bill warrants a great deal oi consideration by the house.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) are both experienced members of this house and have dealt with many bills of this kind, for the incorporation of religious bodies. I endorse the remarks of those two hon. gentlemen. It does not appear that we are incorporating a religious body by this bill but rather that we are giving authority to a group of individuals to go into the banking business. The bill would allow this group to purchase, take, have, hold, receive, possess, retain and enjoy properties real or personal. Everything is included in the bill except the interest rate to be allowed, and I suppose if somebody had thought of that it would be included also. The bill does not really say what this church group wishes to do. It seems to be filled with a lot of archaic gobbledegook designed to make lawyers rich rather than to serve the needs of these people.
I realize that the bill will go to the miscellaneous private bills committee. I have been a member of that committee on a number of occasions and I can assure you that the attendance at its meetings, including my own, has not been good. I do not believe we are interested in putting the people named in this bill through a third degree when they appear before us at that committee's meetings. I am sure they do not know what this bill means, or whether it covers their requirements.
The bill itself asks that we incorporate Mr. Bradley, a clergyman, Mr. Wiebe, an optician, Olga Bradley, a housewife, Harvey Schmidt, a clergyman and Mr. Bergen, a machinist, all of the city of Winnipeg, together with other persons and congregations under the name of Evangelistic Tabernacle Incorporated. I am sure these people are as confused about the contents of this bill as members of parliament are who are here in attendance rather than out having their dinner. I am sure I do not have the faintest idea what this bill is about. I have no knowledge of the people involved and can therefore have no opposition or support for them. I cannot help wondering, however, if they are being taken advantage of by others who might have a great interest in this corporation. There are two clergymen petitioning, and the language of this bill must have caused them a great deal of confusion. I am sure that because of its design this bill has cost these individuals four, five or even ten times as much as it should have to bring

it before parliament. It has included everything but the kitchen sink.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: That is in
clause 7.


William Arnold Peters: I am sure that by the terms of this bill these people could set up a finance company, a railroad, or any other kind of operation. Surely the C.B.C was not set up with more safeguards than are provided by this bill for this religious group. The circumstances surrounding the bill should certainly be examined carefully by hon. members who are at all interested. Our parliamentary procedures do not allow us to send the bill back to the other place without destroying it, and I am not prepared to do that, but we could move some amendments necessitating a reconsideration.
Let me assure the sponsor of the bill that we are all in accord with the desires of persons who wish to incorporate bona fide religious organizations to carry out the many laudatory purposes set forth in this bill, such as the establishment and maintenance of missions, seminaries, schools, hospitals and so forth. I am sure we would all agree with the principles of this bill if they were in fact to allow these people to own church property and carry out certain religious activities. Surely if this were a bona fide organization it should be allowed to carry on these activities outside provincial boundaries.
There is another quaint expression contained in the bill to the effect that this corporation will support the doctrine of faith in the organization. I imagine that some of our financial institutions would like this type of clause in their letters of incorporation, and would be wholeheartedly in support of the suggestion that an organization should promote the general welfare of its members.
I am not in a position to read the sections of the bill in the debate on second reading, but I believe that if members take the time to consider it they will find that a great many things have been written in that are not necessary to the operation of such a corporation. In view of this fact we must consider the responsibilities of these individuals to this organization, and we must attempt to find some solutions to the dilemma in which they will find themselves as a result of the passage of the bill. We in this house must give consideration to this application for incorporation because it falls within the category of bills that fall into the category of private legislation, but are public in their application.
February 15, 1966

An hon. member has been asked to sponsor this bill as a private members' bill. Ironically sometimes when we say a bill is a private bill we mean it is a public bill, while at other times when we say a bill is a public bill we really mean it is designed for private purposes.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
So that a member is being asked to sponsor this bill whether or not he is connected with the Evangelistic Tabernacle. Someone has to sponsor it, and we have to go through the preliminary rigamarole that is necessary, and the different procedures, without their really serving the purposes of the Evangelistic Tabernacle community or of members of parliament.
1 can think of four or five recent bills which fall into this category. I should like to refer to them, not as being involved in this context but to illustrate my point. There was the bill with regard to the Boy Scouts of Canada. Another time it was the Girl Guides; then the organization which brought together all the doctors in Canada; and there was one in connection with the nursing profession. These were all private members bills and were subject to the same gobbledegook that these bills receive in the Senate because of the archaic procedure we follow.
I endorse the view expressed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) that we should do something about our procedures in connection with these bills. If it were possible under our rules, I would be prepared to refer this bill back to where it came from, and have some of these clauses removed. When people are asked to make application, the documents sent to them to file with the application are broad enough to cover almost anything from soup to nuts. In this case it may be more broad than that because it covers the spiritual field as well.
I think that to fit into this broad category all kinds of corporations for almost every organization that wishes to be national in scope is completely unreasonable and too expensive, and leads to great difficulty in justifying many of the powers they are given, which they do not want, do not need and will probably never be able to use.
Therefore I suggest there should be some way in which the sponsor could in committee ask for the removal of some of these clauses which will not be useful and in many cases under certain circumstances will turn out to
Private Bills
be a liability to the company. I know that my learned colleague from Danforth (Mr. Scott) will not, because he is a lawyer, agree that changes should be made. However, he must be aware of the fact that many people who operate solely in this legislative, linguistic, legalistic field find it very difficult to agree to very simple English being used that would be plainly understood in our modern society by those who come in contact with these bills, but are not of his training.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, in the legislative field when the Evangelistic Tabernacle Corporation has to come to Ottawa for national incorporation they should be able to do so in terms of their desire and their need, and when they make their presentation to members of parliament and ask for legislation allowing the incorporation of their company, they should do this only to the extent and degree that the members of their organization wish. For this reason I hope the sponsor of the bill will consider some of the suggestions made and that the house in general, those 30 members who are here at the present time, will take into consideration changing the format by which bills such as Bill No. S-7 are presented to the house.
If there was a way of opposing this bill without showing my disrespect for the intentions and aims of the Evangelistic Tabernacle Society, I should be pleased to do so. However, I hope we shall have an opportunity under other circumstances to repeat this point until the committee of the house sees fit to establish rules that allow a more reasonable interpretation of the wishes of organizations such as the Evangelistic Tabernacle Society.


Mr. Reid Scoit (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I have been moved to enter the discussion on this bill by the evangelical plea of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) for some form of legalistic enlightenment as to the nature of the bill. The hon. member for Timiskaming is of course a highly respected member of the house, a member of long standing, a member of great tenacity and knowledge, and I am genuinely moved by his desire to have some sort of legal justification for what he calls the legal jargon contained in this bill.
I would not want the record to suggest for a moment that we were in any way opposed to the present bill which has been sent to us from the other place. We are in support of it and are quite happy to have it pass. I suspect

ruary 15, 1966
r
Private Bills
that the hon. member for Timiskaming is actually more interested in the next bill to come before us and that any elaborate discussion of the present one will merely make that much easier the opposition he intends to mount against the next one, which deals with the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should not impute motives.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, because I was in the process of sitting down I was not able to hear Your Honour's observation. I wonder whether you would repeat it.


Mr. Speaker:: I was suggesting to the hon. member that he should not impute motives.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I would never impute motives to any hon. member of the house except for the fact that the particular approach of the hon. member for Timiskaming is so well known in the chamber. However, to come back to the bill, before Your Honour rules me out of order, at the risk of incurring your displeasure I wanted to endorse the views of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I realize it is difficult to inject this type of consideration into a discussion of the bill itself. However, having read the bill, and approving of the clauses, I think the hon. member for Skeena has raised a very, very important principle, namely that it is rather silly for the House of Commons to be dealing with this type of bill.
The procedure should be something like that used under the Companies Act, which is of course a statute which lays down the general framework within which particular types of corporations can be set up. It seems to me a gross waste of our time, as well as a gross waste of the public's time and money for us to deal in detail with bills of this type and then send them to committee, have them back in the house and pass them at a later date. In my opinion a general statute ought to be passed empowering the executive to incorporate this kind of enterprise in much the same way as we do with companies and other corporations, rather than going through the long and involved procedure that faces us in this House of Commons in its legislative capacity herein assembled in dealing with this type of matter.
If you look at the bill, Mr. Speaker, you will see it contains no very unusual clauses, in spite of the fears of the hon. member for Timiskaming. You can go through it clause

by clause, starting with clause 1 which deals with the corporate name and the incorporation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows very well that he cannot discuss the bill clause by clause when the house is considering its principle. At the moment we are considering second reading of the bill. The hon. member should try to limit his observations to the principle of the bill. I have not interrupted him until now in his dissertation on the procedural aspects of the bill before us. However, if we were to allow this type of discussion every time a bill came before the house, we might spend the whole hour discussing its procedural implications. This is certainly contrary to the rules.
I realize that I placed myself in a difficult position in allowing the hon. member for Skeena to deal with procedural implications in the first place but, as I said, I hoped he would eventually come to the principle of the bill. The hon. member for Danforth did early in bis remarks say that what he was doing was against the practice and rules of the house. I would ask him to bear this in mind as he continues with his remarks.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Reid Scott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I am only too happy to bow to your directive in this regard. I was trying to keep my discussion of the bill within the ambit of Your Honour's directions. I am sorry I was not able to do that. I will try to do so throughout the balance of my remarks.
In discussing the bill itself what I was really trying to do was not so much to deal with the clauses, which I realize would not be appropriate on second reading, but merely to observe that in looking at the principle behind the bill it did not seem to me that anything unusual was being requested. I come back to my earlier remarks. I could not really see the point of parliament having to deal with this kind of very general bill incorporating a corporation for a legitimate and laudatory purpose. It seemed a gross misuse of the time of this house.
I agree with Your Honour that if we were to continue in that vein we might use up the whole hour discussing the procedural aspects of this matter. I do believe in all seriousness that while we would not want to use this bill, because of its legitimate, laudatory purposes, as a vehicle to try to convince the house that we should not be burdened with this type of bill, there might be an occasion when we would want to use a bill to emphasize the
February 15, 1966

point that there should be some general way with which matters of this kind could be dealt much more expeditiously, much more efficiently, than the rather long, cumbersome procedure of a bill coming from the other place, going through a committee, coming back for a third reading and so on. I feel that the people behind this bill have used the correct procedure. I cannot subscribe to the almost defamatory remarks against the legal profession enunciated by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). I merely rise not to hold up the bill but to make clear that we support the principle and are glad to endorse the bill. We hope it will go to the committee for fast passage. However, we could not let it pass without emphasizing our general objection. I realize you have been most indulgent, Mr. Speaker, but we do object to the general procedure being adopted for the passage of measures of this type.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.

Mr. Ian Grant Wahn (St. Paul's) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-10, respecting Interprovincial Pipe Line Company.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in view of the
remarks made earlier about legalistic jargon and the desirability of having short bills, I am sure the bill before the house will now receive unanimous approval. I am also sure that members of the house would like me to be equally brief in view of the short period of time which remains during this hour and also in view of the fact this bill has already been debated in the house on two previous occasions.
I will confine myself, Mr. Speaker, simply to saying that the purpose of the bill is as set out in the explanatory notes, to divide each of the 40 million authorized shares of the par value of $5 each in the capital stock of the company into five shares of the par value of $1 each with a total authorized capital of $200 million, which remains unchanged. I also emphasize that the reasons for this stock split are as set out in the explanatory notes and there is no other purpose. The reasons for the stock split proposed are legitimate.
In recent years a number of studies have been made of the reasons for stock splits. If I could take a few moments I should like to refer to two studies. One is entitled, "A study of Stock Splits in the Post-War Years", published in the Analysts' Journal. The second is 23033-81
Private Bills
entitled, "Characteristics and Procedures of Common Stock Splits", published in the Harvard Business Review. I should like to quote briefly from these studies.
The legitimate purpose of a stock split is to reduce the market price of the shares to a level more attractive to the investment public. There appears to be an optimal level of market price- perhaps in the range of $25 and $50 or thereabouts -which avoids on the one hand the stigma of a 'low-priced, ergo, speculative issue, and, on the other, the practical drawback of high-priced shares.
The second quotation is as follows:
-the exchange (New York Stock Exchange) is officially committed to a policy of keeping individual common stocks at what it considers desirable price levels. In this case, desirable means low or medium priced. The object is to make for orderly trading and to help attract small investors . . . What the Exchange regards as 'the most favourable price level' is in the $18-$25 range.
The present market price of Interprovincial stock is approximately $86 and a five for one stock split will reduce the price to this desirable range. The purpose is not to permit the owners of the stock to unload stock which is highly priced on the unsophisticated investor. The purpose of the split is not to permit the present holders of the stock to make a very large speculative profit. The purposes of the split are as set out in the explanatory notes.
To these brief remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would simply add that this is a Canadian company, the great majority of its shares are owned in Canada and the directors and officers are all Canadian residents and Canadian citizens. I hope that the house will give the bill second reading and refer it to the appropriate committee. At that time any further questions can be answered in much greater detail.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what I expected from the mover of this bill but I listened with great interest to him. I should like to ask a couple of questions which he may or may not answer. Is he aware, for instance, that this company has already gone through this process on two separate occasions? When the stock was very high they reduced the price but it immediately went up again. They split the stock again to reduce the price but again it went back to the $90 range. When he says the shareholders do not want to unload the stock on an unsuspecting public, this is hog-wash. It is not hogwash because that is not a good reason but it is hogwash because I know it has already happened twice.
Private Bills

February 15, 1966
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Let us not kid ourselves. Let us not kid ourselves also about one other simple fact. The New York Stock Exchange does not keep stock at a certain level. They like to group stocks into certain categories but they certainly do not keep them there. The public usually keeps them in these groups and if the stock is a good stock I think it will always reach its proper level.
This company, Mr. Speaker, is an exceptionally good company. I would suggest that if you have $100,000 to put into it you should buy the stock tomorrow because it is a good deal. Some 25 per cent of the capitalization of this company is covered by stock. The rest is in long term, very low interest loans made mainly by Imperial Oil, and if the transmission of oil falls below a certain level Imperial Oil will pick up the tab. These are facts. This is a company which cannot possibly lose money. The more profit it makes the more it can pay off the low cost bonds which represent three quarters of its capital. The other stock carries the remaining quarter and the money flows toward the stockholders of the company. It is a beautiful deal.
I think it was a disgrace that someone should come before us and tell us that the only reason this manipulation was taking place was to help the employees saving plan and so that the employees would be able to buy stock. It was finally admitted that this was a lawyers' gimmick and this was really not the company's intention. It really does not matter whether the employees buy stock at $90 or at a lesser price. If the company wants as many Canadians as possible to buy this stock-I am not aware of what the split is between Canadian and United States ownership of the shares though it really does not matter to the discussion we are having-and if it is true that this stock should be reduced to the $18 level, why not go the whole way and reduce it to $1.80? I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that more people are able to buy stock at $1.80 than at $18.
The company will say that this suggestion is unreasonable. But they have already split this stock in a similar way. It has already been split ten to one and the stock is still at $90. If it were split again I suggest that in two years it would be back once more to $90.
A check of a survey made in 1965 of liquid oil and natural gas companies will show that Interprovincial Pipe Line has done very well for itself. A year or so ago I read about some of the advantages this company offered and it

would probably be easier to read my remarks in Hansard if anyone wishes to do so. The figures I gave at that time were taken from this survey of oils. I gave the amount of shares that had been bought over the years, for itself. A year or so ago I read about some This company declared dividends of $3.40 per share per annum based on the current price of $90. That was as at September 1, 1964. Eighty cents a share was paid quarterly from September 3, 1963, to June 1, 1964 inclusive, bringing the dividend up to $3.40.
This stock has already been split ten for one. That means that an original $50 share in the company would bring a return in dividend of $34 per share I suggest that is not bad. Probably many of the old women in this country who are depending on their nest eggs or blue chips would find Interprovincial Pipe Line a very good investment, and I strongly recommend it to anyone wishing to buy stock.


An hon. Member:: How many shares do you have?


William Arnold Peters: I have been asked how many shares I have. Although members of parliament have done very well, I have not gone into the stock market to buy and sell Interprovincial Pipe Line stock. If I had a share it would only be to enable me to keep track of shareholders meetings and to have the opportunity of attending them and asking questions first hand. However, I have no shares.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps they will make a collection for you.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member suggests that maybe they will take up a collection. If they do, I would be happy to have even one share in my name.
I should like to know what the honest answer is. As the sponsor of the bill has intimated, the matter of stock splitting has been the subject of investigation. There have been two recent ones. I think it behooves some members of parliament who are interested in this field to go to some of the company meetings and find out why the company is asking for this stock split. It seems to me that if a person has enough money to buy a blue chip stock it really would not make much difference if he bought one share at $100 or ten shares at $10. If you are investing money I think the average investor can add up the dividends on ten shares almost as easily as on one. I suggest the $100 a share stock does not really have much advantage over the $10 a share stock if it is held as an investment as a blue chip stock.
February 15, 1966

On the other hand, I think it is quite obvious that if the stock split takes place and the stock very shortly climbs to its original value, is then resplit and once more climbs to its former value, then in each instance the people who are interested in the stock are not looking at the dividend declared. What they are looking at is the capital gain in the value of the stock. This has been fantastically high in relation to the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company. May I call it seven o'clock, Mr. Speaker, because I wish to pursue this matter further.


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

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



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $4,862,900.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to see the Minister of Transport in his seat, which is normal since we are considering his department's estimates.
Since yesterday hon. members have been taking the minister for a ride all over Canada by Air Canada, or the C.N R., or the C.P.R., or by ship; he was even put on the C.B.C. this afternoon.
Tonight, I intend to take him to an area called northwestern Quebec, which includes the ridings of Chapleau, Villeneuve and Pontiac-Temiscamingue. I will limit my remarks mostly to the two ridings with which we are more directly concerned, those of Chapleau and Villeneuve.
Mr. Chairman, since I have known the minister, it was given to me to meet him personally and to appreciate his broadmindedness. He is a smiling and charming man, ready to welcome you at all times and to agree with you most of the time. On the other hand, I noticed that the department works more slowly than he does and that he himself is slower when it comes to doing things for certain areas.
For instance, a few years ago, I asked for the building of two air terminals, one in Val d'Or and one in Rouyn, in the riding of Villeneuve. What we have now are two mis-
23033-81J
Supply-Transport
erable looking huts. The minister is well aware of the situation because he came to the area several times by plane and entered those air terminals, which is rather embarrassing: for us.
The two air terminals have been allowed to-remain in their present state by the present government and by the previous one, that is to say the Conservative government.
Well, Mr. Chairman, a sum of $220,000 was voted for the construction of an air terminal at Val d'Or over a year and a half ago and-nothing concrete has been done in that respect as yet.
At Rouyn, apparently because the airport belongs to the city of Rouyn, we are told that the government can help. As a matter of fact, it did help but not enough since the airport at Rouyn serves not only the people of Rouyn but also the people of the neighbouring area and of the section of Chapleau which includes for instance LaSarre, Macamic and all those places. It is an airport which serves not only the city of Rouyn but all the people of that region.
On December 7 last, the minister advised me that officials of his department and representatives of the city of Rouyn had met in December, 1965 to consider the problems connected with the operation of the airport as well as to seek an agreement. The following questions were dealt with:
Extension and improvement of the runway, aids to landing, federal grants for its operation and maintenance of the airport in general.
I believe the question of general maintenance was definitely settled, for the Department of Transport is now responsible for this. On the other hand, the extension of the runway as well as the improvements to it are necessary, and, indeed urgent.
Recently, on a trip from Rouyn to Ottawa by air, the pilot announced in full flight that, unless improvements were made to that runway, aircraft could no longer land in Rouyn.
Now it is time for the minister and his officials to consider the urgency of helping Rouyn, of helping to improve the Rouyn runways.
In my opinion, it is as easy to do in Rouyn what has been done in Val d'Or by the Department of National Defence. I appreciate the fact that they have a nuclear base there. There, they built a real beauty of a runway. If, for war or armament purposes, Val d'Or, can, or is entitled to, have such a runway, why could we not have a similar runway for the needs of the population of Rouyn and of

February 15, 1966
Supp ly-Transport
the area, which would result in a great improvement of Air Canada services in our area?
I have another point to which I would like to call the attention of the minister and of his officials. I refer to Air Canada service between Montreal, Ottawa, Val d'Or and Rouyn. We know that every morning an airplane takes off in Montreal for Val d'Or, Rouyn, Earlton, North Bay and Toronto, via Ottawa, and that at the same time another airplane takes off in Toronto and makes the same trip before ending its flight in Montreal.
Now, in many cases the opportunity to complain was given to me. There are people from Val d'Or-Rouyn who are in Montreal and wish to take a plane in the morning-I think, it leaves at 8.20 a.m. or 8.40 a.m., something like that-but the airplane is overcrowded with passengers for Ottawa. The people from Val d'Or-Rouyn who are in Montreal are refused a seat on the Air Canada plane, because they are told the aircraft is full. That is true. And so, the people from Abitibi are stuck in Montreal because people working in Ottawa have taken all available seats on the plane which, after landing in Ottawa, takes off for Val d'Or, Rouyn, Earlton and North Bay with hardly anyone aboard, or perhaps with only three, four or five passengers, while dozens of people from Abitibi are waiting in Montreal. Their names, of course, have been registered, but no account is taken of the fact that they come from those northern regions.
On this flight-No. 254, I believe, outgoing and No. 261 incoming-the needs of the regions of Abitibi, Chapleau, Villeneuve or northwestern Quebec should first be taken into account and the seats reserved for people going to the farthest places; and, if necessary, another flight should be set up for people going only to Ottawa. Another flight could be provided, but Val d'Or and Rouyn should have the service they deserve.
Mr. Chairman, I have here a resolution of the Chamber of Commerce of Val d'Or-Bourlamaque that Mr. MacGregor of Air Canada received not so very long ago. It is dated February 11, 1966:
We have read your letter of February 8 mentioning your achievements and projects for 1966.
At a regular meeting held on February 9 last, it was suggested that we should ask you for a second daily flight to serve our city and Rouyn, that is, on the Montreal-Val d'Or-Rouyn run, due to the ever-increasing number of air travellers.
We trust that you will take our request into consideration and that we will get a favourable reply.
The Senior Chamber of Commerce.

Incidentally this Chamber of Commerce, I am happy to mention, makes praiseworthy efforts and accomplishes much to help the development of our area. When we ask the Department of Transport to do its part, we are not asking for anything impossible. We only ask to do what is possible and logical to give us the service we are entitled to, a service that would give satisfaction to a population asking the Department of Transport for justice.
Mr. Chairman, I said a moment ago that we need an airport and an air terminal in Rouyn. As far as the Val d'Or airport is concerned, it is apparently only a question of months before work starts and Val d'Or will be given an air terminal costing approximately $220,000.
To my knowledge tenders were not called. We ask that tenders be called for the construction of an air terminal at Rouyn and at Val d'Or.
Another point on which I should like to draw the minister's attention also concerns the subject of aviation. Some time ago, about two years, an air carrier of Senneterre, in Abitibi East, Chapleau county, asked for a licence to serve the people who wanted to travel between Mattagami and Rupert House on James Bay.
At the time, the air transport board ruled against the Senneterre company, following the request or the representations of Austin Airways Limited.
The decision was as follows, that is-
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)

The Board is not satisfied that it would be in the public interest to grant the application.
[Translation1
And, as one might expect, the request was refused on the grounds that:

That it has provided service in the James Bay area since 1934.

These are the considerations put forward by Austin Airways Limited which were opposed to the Fecteau Transport Company of Senneterre, with branches in Amos, Mattagami, Chibougamau and Gagnonville, getting a license. The reason-

That it has provided service in the James Bay area since 1934.
February 15, 1966



Mr. Chairman, this is a very weak objection and I call the attention of the Minister to it. If nowadays we heard people telling us: Listen, the Canadian National has been in operation since 1876, 1908 or 1911, and in view of the fact that it has rendered great services since its establishment, let us not grant a licence to Air Canada or other air transportation companies who could compete with the Canadian National or Canadian Pacific or any other railway in Canada. We would say: "Listen, you do not move along with progress."
In my opinion, this objection is very, very weak.
As to the second point:

That there is no community of interest between Mattagami and the James Bay area.
[Translation1
Austin Airways Limited are lying and they know it, for in 1934 Mattagami dkl not exist; this city has been in existence for only a few years. Mattagami is located about 120 miles north of Amos, in direct line with Rupert House, located another 132 miles north of Mattagami.
Now, Fecteau Transport already provided that service from Senneterre, Val d'Or, Amos and even Rouyn, if you want, to Mattagami and they are refused permission to go from Mattagami up to Rupert House, which really is in the province of Quebec. They are refused a licence supposedly because the service existing between Toronto, Timmins, Moosonee and Rupert House is enough. But when people from Val d'Or have business at Rupert House, they must take a plane at Timmins or Moosonee, which is not at all convenient for us.
Now, I call the attention of the minister to this point. I maintain that the application by Fecteau Transport in no way interferes with the operation of Austin Airways Limited now serving a more easterly area than that served by Fecteau Transport.
Another objection by Austin Airways is that-

That the major requirement of the Indians for air transportation is for charter flights to and from their hunting grounds and that their only need for unit toll service is in connection with the Moose Factory Indian and Eskimo hospital.
ITranslation'i
Mr. Chairman, there again, the Minister knows that Fecteau Transport is not asking
Supply-Transport
to go to Moosonee; it does not ask to go from Moosonee to Rupert House, but rather from Mattagami to Rupert House in order to complete its circuit which lies completely in that area. Rupert House is located east of James Bay, while Moosonee lies west, which is not quite the same thing, and Mattagami lies directly south from Rupert House.
Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that it is unthinkable and inadmissible that Fecteau Transport should have been refused the authorization to operate between Mattagami and Rupert House, which operation would not have interfered in any way with the present service.
The following is an excerpt from the board's decision:

If the application of the appellant were granted this would result in competition between the appellant and the present commercial air service in the Rupert House area.
[Translation1
Mr. Chairman, that is the statement the minister made when officials of Fecteau Transport appeared before the department to appeal the decision of the board. He stated that this would create competition for another company. This would result in no such competition because Austin Airways do not serve either Val d'Or or Mattagami. That company has no business there, while Fecteau Transport does transact business there and in other places in our area. We want to go to Rupert House, as near James Bay as possible, and we also want to use Fecteau Transport's services as we see fit. But, in order to do that, the company must first obtain its licence.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
I think the minister should reconsider what he signed on May 20, 1965, by maintaining order no. 2096 of the air transport board of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I will not keep the house much longer. However, I would like to call to the minister's attention the train service from Ottawa to northwestern Quebec, that is from Ottawa to Rouyn-Noranda, going through Ontario and serving the ridings of Nipissing, Sudbury, North Bay, Nickel Belt, Cochrane, Timmins and Timiskaming, in Ontario, and Villeneuve, Chapleau, Temiscamin-gue and Pontiac on the Quebec-Ontario line.
When we want to take the train from Ottawa to get to our ridings, there are no sleeping car accommodations between Ottawa and North Bay. Then, we have to get off the train which leaves Ottawa at 7.30 p.m. and gets to

February 15, 1966
Supply-Transport
North Bay at midnight. We must wait until we get to North Bay before going to bed and then get off the train at Swastika and take another train to get to Rouyn-Noranda. There are 35,000 people in those two cities and over
100,000	in the area.
We get to Swastika around 5.30 or 6 in the morning. We go to bed at 1.30 in North Bay and get off at Swastika at six o'clock. It takes at least half an hour to get ready, which means that we get only four hours' sleep or so during the night and get to Rouyn at 8.30.
When we want to come back to Ottawa, we take the train at 6.30 p.m., I think, as far as Swastika. From Swastika we cannot have a bed either because there is no sleeping car accommodation from North Bay to Ottawa.
We reach North Bay at about two in the morning and from North Bay to Ottawa it is impossible to get a berth on C.N.R. trains.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that C.N.R. authorities-and I also include the O.N.R., known as the Ontario Northern Railway-should urge this latter company to tie in with other systems, so that we might at least get one sleeping car on the run from Ottawa to Northern Ontario and northwestern Quebec, up to Rouyn-Noranda and return.
It was claimed that the line is uneconomic and that nobody wants to travel by train. This is understandable. Nobody from Ottawa, not only among members of the area but among the general public, is interested to board a train in Ottawa without being able to sleep until Rouyn-Noranda.
The minister himself would not ride on that train.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Right you are.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the minister says I am right. If he were to tell me that I am so right that he will act to let us have this sleeping car to and from Rouyn-Noranda, I would say he means it when he says I am right.
These are some of the recommendations I had for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday, my colleague from Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) mentioned the considerable improvements in the Department of Transport, Air Canada etc. as far as bilingualism is concerned. It is a fact. There are still improvements to be made, though.
I noticed when we had the opportunity- and you were one of those, Mr. Chairman- of taking the Air Canada flight from London to return home to Montreal, we had bilingual
[Mr. Caouette.l
air hostesses, speaking English as well as French and French as well as English.
We were delighted to note this improvement on boarding the plane in London. I noticed the same thing travelling from Ottawa to Victoria in British Columbia.
Even pilots who know very little French had the courtesy to tell us, during the flight, at what altitude and speed we were flying. They tried to tell us in French. This is a marked improvement compared to the situation a few years ago.
On this score, we must congratulate the minister and encourage him to continue in the right direction. We do not want to take anything away from anyone, but we want everyone to be respected. It is through mutual respect, and I feel the minister has understood this, that we will have a more united Canada, a country with better understanding, greater assurance and greater development.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Chairman, having listened to a great deal of the debate on the Department of Transport estimates, a stanza of a brief poem runs through my mind. It is a very simple one:
My heart is warm with the friends I make,
And better friends I would not be knowing.
But there isn't a train I wouldn't take
No matter where it's going.
It seems to me that the lady who penned those lines, were she in Canada these days, would find occasionally there are no trains she could take because they are being cut off.
I think too, we will find that if there is not a change in policy we will not be making friends, particularly this year and next year with the centennial celebrations that will be going on in this country, and the demands that are going to be made on all our transport services, including rail transport.
The poem had an air of nostalgia about it, but I would like to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that there are many factors in the rail situation that are not nostalgic. Transportation is necessary. There are people who depend on the railway for their transportation and for their livelihood. There are towns and communities that, to an amazing extent, still depend on the railway both for providing jobs for the working force and providing transportation. One of these is my constituency.
I think it imperative that the Board of Transport Commissioners, for a variety of reasons, do something about the removal of
February 15, 1966

the "Dominion". The supplementary judgment that was handed down quite recently is an interesting document. The surprising thing about it is the way it allows argument concerning sins of omission, and then one finds that the sins of omission are the basis for the justification for the removal of the train. This seems to me to be an inverse use of argument and of the English language.
It is the sort of thing where the Board of Transport Commissioners becomes a very permissive parent, who would speak to its child in the sense of saying: All right, you have got your face so dirty you don't have to wash it any more. This is the attitude we find in dealing with the C.P.R. and their application to remove the service: It "has run down so badly that, all right, you don't have to do anything more about it."
Figures are presented to show losses. These are supposed to be very frightening figures, but I do not think they are. For one thing, we know the profits on the other operations of the C.P.R. are not set down beside them, so that we do not have the two sets of figures at the same time. I do not think the figures showing the losses are so staggering that the situation warrants the complete removal of the "Dominion". There are many small school districts with resources far less than those of the C.P.R. and who, every few years, raise sums of money equivalent to these that are supposed to terrify us.
It is time we began to realize that the arguments presented in justification for the removal of the "Dominion" are not particularly sound, and that the real question does not lie in this sort of inverted argument. To me these arguments are rather Alice-inWonderland-like. It is time we started to apply the answer of one of the other characters in that work, who said, "The words do not really matter at all. The important question is, who is going to be master here?" The same process of reasoning would apply in this situation.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
The question of the low morale of train crews has become one of import, and though some of these matters reach over into other people's departments I think they do have a bearing on transport. I am not a railwayman, nor do I pretend to be one, but I have travelled on trains in Nasser's Egypt, and on trains in India, third class, in recent years. I have travelled on trains behind the Iron
Supp ly-Transport
Curtain where the guards made scrupulous searches for escaping citizens. I have witnessed such attempted searches for persons, and that type of interruption; but never at any time have I seen a train crew so completely demoralized as the one manning the C.P.R. train that brought me from my constituency to Ottawa. The reason for the lack of morale is plain. They know what is happening about the withdrawal of the "Dominion" and the only question in their minds is not whether the C.P.R. will withdraw the Canadian as well, but when this will happen.
We know a number of areas in which that company has tangled with its employees. We know about the employees' concern over the pension plan and the interpretation of the Minimum Wages Act as well as the withdrawal of that train. We know that in a great variety of ways in which the company extends its services it succeeds in making train rides unpleasant and reduces the number of passengers that can be expected. I think it of extreme importance that the Board of Transport Commissioners should either order the resumption of this train service or the government should take over not only the railroad operations but the entire operations of the company.
In closing I should like to make brief reference to another item. With the announcement at the beginning of this afternoon's session that the government has seen fit to engage in subsidies in relation to a substantial power undertaking in the province of Manitoba, the government's attitude regarding the subsidy not being applied to ferry construction in the province of British Columbia seems even more inadequate. In the light of today's announcement I think a reconsideration of government policy in regard to that important industry in British Columbia is necessary.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, it may be of some small comfort to the Minister of Transport if I tell him that at this stage of the consideration of his estimates it is not my intention to pursue at length the subject of the operating philosophy and methods of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. After all, that great corporation through the kindness of its heart has left us one railway passenger car on Vancouver island. I refer to the day-liner which runs between Victoria and the city of Courtenay.

February 15, 1966
Supply-Transport
In addition, Mr. Chairman, I could possibly be considered to be somewhat prejudiced in this matter by having a personal interest, because if some of the suggestions that have been advanced in the course of this discussion were accepted, the C.P.R. might have to divest itself of that reservation it holds on mineral rights on the property on which my home is situated.
I would say, however, that when listening to the discussion on this question I did recall one of my first experiences after being elected as a member of this house. At that time the Canadian Pacific was operating what amounted to a monopoly transportation service by vessel along the west coast of Vancouver island. It was the only lifeline of communication for groceries, mail and everything else that those communities required. I had occasion to listen to some complaints about this service and, in a very conciliatory frame of mind, thinking there are always two sides to every story, I went to see the management of the Canadian Pacific steamship services in Vancouver. I wanted to hear the other side of the story before I made an assessment of this matter. I have never forgotten the abrupt manner in which the head of that particular division banged his fist on the desk and said: If she pays we will run her; if she doesn't we will pull her off. I do not recall whether I ever actually told that story before in the house, but if I had told it at an earlier date it might not have been so much in keeping with the general feeling I have observed during the course of the current discussion.
However, I should like to recall to the minister's mind some discussions that took place during a consideration of the transport minister's estimates when I was first in this house. If I recall correctly, the present minister was then Secretary of State. I have a vivid recollection of the exchanges that then took place between the late Mr. Gillis, the then hon. member for Cape Breton South, and the then minister of transport, now our High Commissioner in London, about the subject of linking Cape Breton Island with the rest of the province of Nova Scotia. Over a period of time investigations were conducted by the government and eventually a commitment was made for the construction of that causeway. Whether or not this ever happened, I do not know, but there was supposed to be some kind of procession across that causeway led, of course, by people playing the bagpipes, in which the then minister

of transport and the hon. member for Cape Breton South were to participate.
If I am correct I recall that even then there were some qualms among certain people on Cape Breton Island-and living on an island myself I can appreciate their sentiments-that in some ways this causeway might not be such a good idea, that it might make it too easy for Sassenachs and other lesser breeds without the law to travel freely into the inner sanctums of Cape Breton Island. However, I must say that I have not recently heard any serious complaints from members representing that interesting part of our country about the fact that the causeway was built. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, to the contrary, apparently the building of that causeway stimulated an increasing interest in the linking of another one of Canada's islands to the larger mainland part of the continent. Apparently over the years this also has borne some fruit. As I understand it, we are now committed to the building of a causeway to Prince Edward Island.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are building it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am glad to hear that we are actually building this causeway. I have not been in that part of Canada recently, but I am glad to know that we have progressed to that point. This immediately raises another question. Where do we go from here?


John Whitney Pickersgill: To Prince Edward Island.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I recognize that we cannot do all these things at once. We did build the Canso causeway, which was considered to be a mammoth engineering project. From articles of that time it is apparent that when this construction was well under way, with the kind of engineering techniques and equipment then available, it became clear that it was a somewhat more simple job than earlier forecasts had indicated.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
We are now building a causeway to Prince Edward Island. If I understand correctly it will span a distance of some nine miles, and perhaps the minister can correct me if I am not completely accurate in that figure. The fact that this is under way led me recently to ask a question of the Minister of Transport in the House of Commons. Perhaps I might direct the attention of this committee to page 808 of Hansard for February 7, where I asked the Minister of Transport:
Now that the Prince Edward Island causeway is under way, will the government undertake to
February 15, 1966

carry out feasibility studies concerning the linking either by causeway or tunnel of two other major islands with the rest of Canada? I refer to Newfoundland and Vancouver Island.
The Minister of Transport in reply, speaking I am sure in a rather jocular vein, said:
Mr. Speaker, I think priority should be given to Newfoundland.
Of course, representing Bonavista-Twil-lingate I have some appreciation that the minister's immediate reaction might be in that direction. However, Mr. Chairman, much as I admire the island of Newfoundland, I happen to represent a fairly substantial part of the geography of Canada and the people of Canada encompassed within the boundaries of Vancouver Island, and I think the minister will understand me quite well when I say that I should take the opportunity of presenting the other side of the case assuming, if he wants to for the moment, that we are not going to carry out these projects at the same time.
I should like to draw to the minister's attention that this is the year 1966, which is of particular significance to many Canadians because it is the 100th anniversary of the date on which the people of the then crown colony of Vancouver Island decided to throw in their lot with the people of a large part of the mainland of what is now Canada, and become part and parcel of the then crown colony of British Columbia. Therefore I would advance as a first point in this discussion that, while we were all very happy when Newfoundland decided to become part of Canada, it will be several years before Newfoundland will be celebrating its centenary of becoming linked in a constitutional way with the mainland of what is now Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman is quite wrong about that. Newfoundland has always been linked in a constitutional way with the mainland of what is now Canada. The coast of Labrador has always been a part of Newfoundland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I admit that the minister is constitutionally correct in that respect; I would not quarrel with him. However, I might point out in reply that while we have not quite reached that point, mainland or not, at least British Columbia became part of Canada in 1871, which will still mean we shall be celebrating our 100th anniversary somewhat before Newfoundland. I think we have to put this matter into perspective.
Supply-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman spoke about perspective and I must say that thought was going through my mind. I did make an appeal yesterday that subjects which could just as well be discussed on the 1966-67 estimates as on the 1965-66 estimates perhaps could be adjourned until we reach those estimates. I cannot help but feel that this visionary project, in which I take a great deal of interest, is one that would still be quite current when the next round of my estimates comes before the committee in a few weeks from now. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would not consider that perhaps this matter is not urgent between now and March 31.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I appreciate the desire of the minister to have his estimates proceeded with as rapidly as possible, but I would point out, Mr. Chairman, through you two things to the minister. One relates to my reference to the building of the Canso causeway. All these matters have to start some time, and if my recollection of the debates that took place before the decision was made to build the Canso causeway is correct, I would suggest it is not at all too soon to begin right now putting forward this proposal, which as far as I know is a comparatively new one, as far as making a serious request for a feasibility study in which the federal government would be prepared to participate is concerned.
The second point I should like to make to the minister is this. In making this proposal at this time I am in effect assisting the minister with a suggestion which will enable him, in my view, to get himself off the hook in respect of another matter which is of very current and immediate interest and has been the subject matter of considerable discussion during the process of the consideration of these estimates. I refer to the question of subsidies on shipbuilding.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. gentleman assure me that if I agree right now that we will start a feasibility study on a causeway to Vancouver Island there will be no more ferries needed between now and the time it is built?


Mr.   Barnell@: Well, now, Mr. Chairman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Otherwise I do not see how the hon. member is getting me off the hook.


Mr.   Barnell@: Of course, I am not the only one who has any say in the question of a ferry service. In fact, as the minister knows, I have very little if any say in the question of a ferry service that may or may not be

February 15, 1966
Supply-Transport
*operated between Vancouver Island and the mainland part of British Columbia. However, I and possibly some people who are not in this house might be less disposed to press the question of what some of us contend is a *discrimination in the minister's shipbuilding subsidy proposal, if we knew this question of linking Vancouver Island was going to be put forward as a serious interest of the federal government.
I have no desire to pursue this matter at any great length at this time, but for the record I think it should be said at the outset that Vancouver Island has played quite an important role in respect of the development of Canada as we now know it. The founding by the Hudson's Bay Company of Fort Victoria in 1843 as a bastion, if you like, of the area of influence, at that time of course of Great Britain, can in many ways be argued as resulting in our now having a Canada from sea to sea.
It can also be argued, Mr. Chairman, that if this had not happened and we had allowed the encroaching influence of our American cousins to extend up the coast, as they certainly would like to have done, perhaps the problems of the Minister of Transport would be a little less difficult in some respects, but certainly Canada as we now know it would not be under discussion in this parliament.
I think it is not without some interest that back of that decision to establish Fort Victoria lay the question of whether or not our boundaries might have been along the Columbia River in the western part of the continent. In this connection our links with the eastern part of Canada go back quite a long way. Just to illustrate this point, Mr. Chairman, I should like to recount to the committee a story in respect of Fort Astoria which, as many hon. members probably know, was located at the mouth of the Columbia River by the American trading interests from the Atlantic coast.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
At one point, just before the war of 1812, the Hudson's Bay Company had concluded a deal to buy Fort Astoria from the Astoria Trading Interests. They had actually hoisted the union jack atop Fort Astoria when the war of 1812 was declared. Orders were issued to capture any available enemy posts, and a ship of the Royal Navy was dispatched to Fort Astoria. The officer in charge decided he had to carry out his instructions to the letter. When he found that the union jack was flying over Fort Astoria, he insisted that the union

jack be lowered and the stars and stripes raised so that he could actually capture the fort. The result was that in the settlement of the war of 1812, when it was agreed that all territories held by either power before the outbreak of hostilities would be returned, the United States got Fort Astoria back, even though it had already sold to the Hudson's Bay Company.
I mention this, Mr. Chairman, as one of the reasons in the background of our history that this proposal for linking Vancouver Island in a modern transportation sense should be of interest and concern to the people in the east, or what was then Upper and Lower Canada. I hope that the members from this part of the country will be unanimous in their support of the plea I am making for the proposal to link Vancouver Island with the mainland.
I should like to point out to the minister that this is a very practical question. There is a lot of pressure building up in Vancouver Island over the fact that the people in the rest of Canada, with the possible exception of the island from which the Minister of Transport comes, can travel by automobile from one end of the country to the other on toll free highways, except of course for the tolls the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources levies going through national parks. There have been suggestions made from time to time in British Columbia that the tolls on the ferry system should be abolished.
This is an interesting suggestion, and I am sure the minister recognizes it would create practical problems. If there were no tolls, if it did not cost me $7 for myself and my car to go from Nanaimo to Vancouver on that ferry, I would probably go a lot oftener. This would mean we would have to build an increasing number of ferries. I leave it to the minister's imagination to take into consideration the fact that the population of Vancouver Island is almost 300,000 and he can envisage just what kind of pressure that might create on the building of ferries and, incidentally, on the federal shipbuilding construction subsidy in respect of the building of the ferries that would be required.
This is a serious added cost to those who live on Vancouver Island. For example, if a man, his wife and four children want to start on a holiday, it is going to cost them $34 to get back and forward from Vancouver Island before they go anywhere else in Canada. I am not going into the question of the added cost for the transportation of goods at this time.
February 15, 1966



I realize fully, Mr. Chairman, that the remarks I am making tonight are only of an introductory nature to this subject.
I would be most happy if the minister would give a less qualified commitment with regard to the willingness of the federal government, jointly with the provincial government, to enter into a feasibility study of a tunnel or floating causeway or whatever it may be to connect Vancouver Island with the mainland. I am taking my figures from the xeport of the Redistribution Commission, but I understand that the population base of Prince Edward Island is 104,659 and the population base of Vancouver Island is 289,679. If the causeway to Prince Edward Island is nine miles in length, one could argue that an equivalent on a per capita basis so far as Vancouver Island is concerned could be .something of the order of 27 miles. I understand that a direct link across the Strait of Georgia from Point Grey to Gabriola Island, on the outskirts of Nanaimo, would be of the order of 16 miles. I think this may be fairly close to the length of the proposed crossing of the Strait of Belle Isle, but I have never been there.
In any event, Mr. Chairman, if the minister is prepared to indicate the willingness of the federal government to proceed immediately with a feasibility study, then perhaps I, for *one, might be willing to be less emphatic in pressing my argument on the subsidy for the construction of vessels to operate between Vancouver Island and the mainland of British Columbia under the aegis of a public authority.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I may just point out to the minister, in view of the [DOT]discussion we have had about the Canadian Pacific Railway, and in view of the rather sorry history of their previous services by ferry to Vancouver Island, that perhaps his whole concept of shipbuilding subsidies is upside down, and that if there is to be any subsidy it should be for vessels which are to be constructed for a publicly owned and *operated authority which is basically concerned with providing transportation services to people as they require them, rather than primarily with providing a profit to private shareholders.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Chairman, I was going to make these remarks as we went through the various items, but since they involve at least three subsequent votes, namely 30, 35, 40 and 75, rather than delay the passage of these items as we come to them I thought it might be more expedient if I were to make a
Supply-Transport
few remarks now and confine them to the broad field of aviation.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
I should like to extend on behalf of a lot of people interested in aviation in Canada our thanks to the Department of Transport and to the minister for certain very enlightened attitudes in the field of general aviation. I think particularly of aid to municipalities which are interested in the construction of small airports. Perhaps at this point I should qualify what I mean by general aviation. It is that field of aviation that excludes military aircraft and the larger commercial air carrier, such as Air Canada, C.P.A., and to a lesser extent E.P.A. and Eastern Canada. I am referring rather to the small commercial service firms in this country and to the many thousands of businessmen who utilize the aircraft and airports of our country and the flying clubs which train the pilots to fly.
Coming back to my first point, the question of aid to municipalities for the construction of airstrips, as beneficial as the fund of up to $1 million has been we still have from one end of the country to the other a lot of criticism from municipalities who would like to take advantage of this offer and provide their area with a strip capable of meeting immediate needs of local flyers. However, they are a little reluctant to proceed because part of the legislation covering this kind of assistance by the government involves the turning over of the ownership of the land to the federal authority, and quite understandably this a lot of municipalities are reluctant to do.
I would ask the minister and his departmental officials, who have done much to bring this legislation about, to improve upon the earlier legislation, which involved cost sharing and which was very limited in application. The next time this matter comes to their attention I would ask whether they could find some way of making it possible for the specific municipal units involved to retain ownership of the land which they are now required to turn over for the construction of these small airports.
The second item to which I should like to refer the minister and his department is the question of landing fees for light aircraft, both private and commercial, at Department of Transport airports across the country. It is my understanding that this matter is under study by the department. I hope that out of this study will come the elimination of landing fees.

February 15, 1965
Supply-Transport
I suspect that a close examination of the keeping of records in this regard, the collection and billing of the amounts involved, and so on, would prove that it is quite costly. I think there is a more simple expediency. I would suggest that most operators in the country would not be averse to the addition of one half, three quarters or even a full cent per gallon of gas in the form of airport fees. If the minister will consider that I am sure that his department would receive from the people involved their further very grateful thanks.
Moving now briefly into another area, which again has some sense of urgency about it, I should like to say something about the application of aircraft for agricultural purposes. In this connection I would ask that the minister consult with his appropriate colleagues in the government so as to encourage their favourable consideration of the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on aircraft used purely for agricultural purposes. It seems to me quite unfair that farmers who have a ready use for agricultural aircraft are somewhat deterred from making an entry into this field owing to the application of this sales tax. They can buy their tractor and virtually every other piece of equipment used on their farms without paying sales tax. Yet when it comes to the utilization of a piece of equipment which in many cases would save time and money, improve planting and so on, the farmers run into the question of sales tax, a factor which can add $2,000 or $3,000 to the cost of a piece of equipment. I commend this matter to the minister for his very active consideration.
The fourth item I should like to deal with, Mr. Chairman, involves the development of broad guide lines for that area of commercial aviation fondly known to myself as the operations of regional air carriers. Without recalling this too vividly to the minister's mind -though in this respect perhaps the government in office before the present one was a little tardy as well-since early 1960 the Air Transport Association of Canada and the Canadian Pilots Association members all gathered together one by one at conventions and meetings to appeal to the federal government and the Department of Transport for the establishment of a regional air policy, a policy designed to improve service in the several regions of Canada where, to a large degree, subsidies are required to maintain, I was going to say adequate levels of service, but to maintain service. I am sure these

commercial operators do not even yet feel that the level of service has reached adequate proportions in any of the regions of Canada.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
In 1963 the then Minister of Transport told the house that he believed some clarification of the future role of regional air carriers is essential to meet the rapidly changing technical and economic circumstances of aviation. Mr. Chairman, he was right. Then in November 1963, the new Minister of Transport.-the old minister having returned to a new portfolio-was right when he reiterated those words. He was right again on February 26, 1964, when he suggested to the house that the whole question of future air policy is under very active consideration. However he said that no conclusions had yet been reached. As soon as one has been reached it will be made known. I hope this will be before too long. It was in late February of 1964.
He was again right in September 1964 when he suggested to the house that he was going to keep on pushing for a regional air policy, just as hard as he could. He hoped that at the end of the year he would be able to make good recommendations to the house which would receive the approval of the house. Again he was right in February, 1965, when he said, referring to the time it would take to introduce effective regional air policies, "I do not think I can say anything useful about the time it would take, beyond saying it will be done just as soon as we think we have something to communicate to the house which will really work."
I understand the problem faced by the minister, Mr. Chairman. It is an old problem and not one that can be left hanging too much longer. Our regional air carriers need some firm direction, they need direction and clarification on the question of subsidies. These subsidies remain necessary in spite of certain protests about them. The government should, and I certainly hope shall, perform that action before 1966 passes into 1967. In order that at some future time the minister will not be embarrassed, I will not take it upon myself to ask him this year, although somebody else might.
Mr. Chairman, a final matter that I wish to deal with in the few minutes left is the question of the necessity of the government of Canada to look at the entire field of light aircraft, including single and twin engine aircraft with fixed gear and retractable gear.
Tebruary 15, 196S

I refer to all aircraft in Canada of under
5,000	pounds all-up weight.
Mr. Chairman, the whole field ought to be reviewed. Knowing the competence of the members of the entire department, the review will not be a difficult one. I think that the officials of the department should survey the whole question with this in mind: How many of the aircraft reviewed were made in Canada? How many could have been made in Canada had there been some action, or some stimulus on the part of the federal government to foster and encourage in Canada the construction of a truly all-Canadian aircraft?
In Canada our aircraft industry has developed some of the finest aircraft in the world, but they are highly specialized. They have been designed to meet special needs in our northland and in our bush areas. No attention has been paid to them, except by one or two very hardy souls. No attention has been paid to the whole field of a truly Canadian light aircraft. We have one prototype, the Cheetah, whose designer and original constructor has been running around the country trying to sell it. He has a good piece of equipment. It is well built, but he will never make the grade I am afraid because he has not the support from a government that should be concerned about the high level now reached in the importation of aircraft from the United States into this country.
I think the government, Mr. Chairman, should very seriously consider the objectives of the Department of Transport or of the Department of Industry. I would ask the minister to give serious consideration to the establishment of a fund of money which would not purport to hide itself in any mist of subsidy, but which would be an outright grant to the Canadian aircraft industry of up to $5 million, for the design, development and building of a prototype of a truly light aircraft, for pleasure or for commercial purposes here in Canada. I suggest that Canada needs badly a fixed gear single engine high-wing aircraft that can be used for pleasure flying and for flight training. If we do not do it we are going to see the entire market flooded, from now until eternity I am afraid, with products from across the border. Mind you, they are excellent aircraft, but they are not better than we can build here ourselves.
The level of buying in Canada now is reflected in these figures, that as of December 31, 1965 there were 7,542 aircraft registered in Canada. Of these 5,205 were private aircraft, the average cost of which was from
Supply-Transport
between $10,000 to $20,000. That, Mr. Chairman, represents a substantial industry.
I suggest to the minister as he and everybody else probably knows, that the vast majority of these light, private aircraft are made in a country other than Canada, and that they could very well be made here, if the industry could be encouraged to design, develop and get some prototypes on the market.
Other interesting figures I might point out are a 25 per cent increase in the number of licences issued by the minister's department, including private, commercial and other upgraded tickets. The vast majority of these, of course, are private licences. During the past year 9,094 people received an upgrading of their licence or a new private flying licence. If that number of pilots and that number of aircraft does not warrant considerably more active consideration directed to the industry than it now receives from the federal government, then I am afraid it will be a long time before the opportunity which exists right now again presents itself to the government.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
There exists a very strong base for the government to justify the introduction of admittedly substantial sums of money, but the returns would be manyfold, and all to the good of the industry. May I commend that suggestion to the minister. If we do this, then, we have policies in Canada that are designed to protect our own manufacturers when they have achieved some 10 per cent, say, of the market. Recently the government saw fit to impose a 15 per cent duty on certain types of aircraft coming into Canada in order to protect Brown Brothers and their new aircraft. Mr. Chairman, I suggest to the minister that again the new aircraft is highly specialized, and in no way suited to private use. I do not think a competent instructor would take it upon himself to teach in one of them. That is not what it was designed or built for. We are concerned about the protection of the aircraft industry in Canada and we take good measures to protect it. I think this is a good measure but I also think it has been misapplied. The impact of taxes on general aviation among the smaller operators will have a disastrous effect and this will always be the case as long as we approach this question in a piecemeal fashion.
I use the present illustration to underline the need to develop aircraft in Canada which will cover the whole range. Then, when we

February 15, 1966
Supply-Transport
impose taxes, we shall not be imposing hardship on those who need to fly, or enjoy flying, the type of aircraft which is here being penalized because it falls into a broad general category. If the minister would give some consideration to these four or five items I would be grateful, as I am sure the entire aviation industry would be.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: It appears we are approaching the end of our discussion on this first item, but I should like to ask the minister a question before he replies. I should like to point out that there are some on this side who are foregoing their opportunity to speak; we know there will be a further chance for them to express their views when the main estimates for 1966-67 come up for consideration.
Before I ask this question I should like to point out that the minister has on two occasions failed to make an initial statement on the first item in the traditional way. I hope this will not become a pattern. If it did, I would regard it as a bad habit. Perhaps his failure to make a statement is one of the reasons why the debate has ranged so widely. Had he told us what had been accomplished in the department-supposing anything has been accomplished-and challenged us on one or two points we would have been obliged to reply and deal with what he had said and perhaps, as I say, we would not have ranged so wide in our comments.
I wish to inquire as to the whereabouts of three reports all of which are, I think, important. First, there is the Pilotage Commission report. I want to know what is happening to that and when we can anticipate legislation with respect to changes to be made in the Shipping Act. I want to know, too, how we are getting on with the report on the future of the air lines, and possible mergers-the Wheatcroft report. This is important because when we are examining the affairs of the C.P.R. we should know how much of the moneys of the C.P.R. are going into air services and being taken away from the rail passenger service. Last, I want to ask about an old favourite. Where is the interdepartmental study on the future of the merchant marine? This is important in days when we are moving bulk cargo all over the world and Canada is losing her position at the bargaining table.
This is what I am interested in. I hope the minister appreciates the sacrifices we are all making here. I think he has learned a good

deal this week as far as answers are concerned.


Mr. Pritlie:: I am not prepared to make any sacrifices. I have already made my sacrifice, as has the minister, by listening to about 50 speeches on the estimates of this department.
Over the years there have been many suggestions made that the Department of Transport is far too big, dealing as it does not only with railway questions but with canals, telecommunications, broadcasting, harbours and so on. There have been suggestions that it should be broken up, or at least, that a department of civil aviation should be created under a minister of its own. I made this suggestion in 1963, and even then it was not an original one. The Air Transport Association has advanced this idea from time to time. I am sure the minister appreciates that if his department were dealing only with railway matters, for example, the estimates might already have been passed. I recall that the hon. gentleman said a couple of years ago that he felt big and able enough to handle this particular department. I am not so sure he believes this, now. He is certainly very capable but I think the size and complexity of the job have slowed him down.
If one thinks of the problems facing this country in the field on railway operations alone it becomes apparent there is a strong argument in favour of a separate department to handle these questions. I think the size of the department requires that it be split, at any rate, into two, in such a way as to recognize the importance of civil aviation in Canada. I was looking at the 1965-66 estimates and I noticed that the estimates of the air services branch alone are more than those of 12 departments of government; there are 12 departments, each in charge of ministers, whose budgets are smaller than that of the air services branch of the Department of Transport. They are the Departments of Agriculture, Citizenship and Immigration, Defence Production, Fisheries, Forestry, Industry, Justice, Mines, National Revenue, Northern Affairs, the Secretary of State and Trade and Commerce. All these departments have budgets smaller than one branch of the Department of Transport.
If the government does not see fit to establish a separate department I suggest they do as has been done in the Department of National Defence-appoint an associate minister and make him responsible for the conduct of part of the department. I realize that a
February 15, 1966

step was taken in this direction recently. It was stated that the Minister without Portfolio was to be given some responsibility in this department. Why not go further and make him associate Minister of Transport for civil aviation? I think recognition of this type is due to the air transportation industry in Canada.
I was interested in the many comments which have been made about the Canadian Pacific Railway. Members of all parties have taken a few swipes at this giant corporation. I would point out that since I came here in 1962 members have never had a chance to have a face-to-face meeting with the top management of that railway. I understand we are to have such an opportunity this year. On the other hand, we have had a chance to meet Mr. Donald Gordon and the assorted vice presidents and comptrollers of the C.N.R. each year.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I think these meetings in the transportation committee have been most useful. They provide an opportunity for the management of the C.N.R. to learn directly what members think on certain subjects and they can communicate with members directly rather than in a roundabout way through the minister. If you will look at the minutes of the transportation committee, Mr. Chairman, you will see some of the topics which have been discussed with Mr. Gordon and other senior officials of the C.N.R. Among them was the question of priority for railway facilities in ports, for hotel operations, passenger railway service, and the position of the C.N.R. in the trucking industry. These are the sort of things which members have been bringing up during the past few days in connection with the C.P.R.
Some two years ago I introduced a bill, the purpose of which was to provide that any railway company in Canada receiving any public moneys at all should be required to file a report with the Minister of Transport. It was my hope that such a report would be sent to the railway committee where members of parliament could have an opportunity to question the operators of the railway lines. Of course I had the C.P.R. particularly in mind. I recall the debate which took place on my bill at that time. The government members who spoke on this included the hon. member for Labelle, the hon. member for Stanstead, the hon. member for Resti-gouche-Madawaska and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier-Lasalle. All through their
Supply-Transport
speeches there were references to snooping into private enterprise, to creeping socialism, and all that type of talk. You would think I had brought in a bill to nationalize the C.P.R. Well, people are coming to that point of view.
The National Farmers Union and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have declared themselves on this question, and it seems to me that a Social Credit member tonight made some reference to it. However, that was not the purpose of my bill. It was simply to have the management of the C.P.R. come before a committee of the house each year so that members could question the management of that company in the same way as they can question the management of the C.N.R.
I know it has been explained to me that the reason the C.N.R. appears before a committee is that it is a crown corporation. When the government members were talking against my bill two years ago they referred to the fact that the C.P.R. was a private company and that the alternative was a public corporation. The C.P.R. may be a private company but it is a sort of public institution in Canada and it certainly has had a great deal of public support.
I have been interested to note that some of the new Liberal members in this parliament have had their say about the C.P.R. These have included the hon. member for Port Arthur and the hon. member for Renfrew North. I only hope that when my bill comes up again this year-it is Bill No. C-18 on the order paper-I can expect support from them because I think it would be a very healthy thing if the management of the C.P.R. could be questioned by members of parliament each year. Perhaps if they knew they had to come here each year they might mend their ways a little bit, although I am not too sure about that point.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches made about the harbour of Vancouver by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. I found them very interesting, and the points that all those members made are worth-while points. I understand the minister is going out soon to have a look at the harbour of Vancouver. When he is out looking at the port of Vancouver I hope he will also go and have a look at Vancouver International Airport. There are one or two points I want to bring up in connection with it.

February 15, 1966
Supply-Transport
It will be no surprise to the minister if I suggest to him that I and the people of my constituency have a continuing interest in the question of access to Vancouver International Airport. In the past two sessions of parliament I have introduced resolutions calling for the construction, with federal participation, of either a bridge or tunnel directly from the city of Vancouver to Sea Island where Vancouver airport is located. I will not go over the whole matter again, but simply remind the minister that at present one has to cross two bridges from the mainland to get to the airport, and that one of these bridges is a two-lane swingspan bridge, that it has been out of commission at times, that when it is out of commission or when it is open Vancouver International Airport, the third most important airport in the country, is cut off from the mainland altogether.
I believe there have been some discussions about this matter between the Department of Transport and the British Columbia department of highways. I imagine there has been no agreement as yet on a sharing basis, but I would like to have the minister report at some time on that point.
The new terminal at Vancouver airport is beginning to be constructed. The groundwork is done and I believe the actual construction will soon start. It is scheduled for completion in 1967, and I hope by 1967 we could make a start on a better approach to the airport, which is located in Richmond.
There is another matter concerning the airport which is of interest to a number of people in my constituency. The airport is located on Sea Island. At the present time the Department of Transport owns most of that island. However, two or three residential subdivisions still remain on the island, and the people in one of these subdivisions in particular have cause for concern. The airport is constantly expanding. The department is buying up new property all the time, but these people do not know whether the government will eventually want their property or not.
The subdivision I have in mind in particular is called the Cora Brown subdivision, a Veterans Land Act settlement. It is very difficult to sell homes in that area. It is also very difficult to borrow money to make improvements to those homes. In fact a few years ago the people there could not borrow money at all and the Department of Veterans Affairs had to make loans available to them because private borrowing was denied to

them. There will be a tendency for this subdivision, this group of homes, to go downhill unless some decision is made soon concerning the Department of Transports' long-range plans for the airport.
I notice that the other day in Vancouver Dr. T. G. Howe, regional director of the department of transport for B.C. was speaking to a service club, and he talked about the need for new and longer runways. He talked about the amount of air freight to be handled in Vancouver, which will probably be multiplied several times in the next few years, and he said new terminals would be necessary for this freight and new runways would be required for this type of cargo. Therefore I would ask the minister, and the officials concerned in his department about these things, to have a look at their land requirements on Sea Island so that the people who are still resident there can have some assurance of what is to happen in the future.
If necessary perhaps they could be bought out, and if their homes are not required right away they could be rented back to them for a period of a year or so. It is necessary that some decision be made before long.
Finally, there is one matter of personnel concerning the Department of Transport to which I wish to make reference. Members of parliament from the lower mainland of B.C. have been getting quite a number of communications from the radio operators employed by the department. There seems to be a great deal of dissatisfaction about the lack of promotion in the department, and about the pay rates paid to these employees, pay rates which they feel are not commensurate with their duties and the amount of training they have had.
I would suggest it is most unsatisfactory to have a group of employees who feel this way about their working conditions. They have been making some applications to the department through the Civil Service Commission, through their employees association, which I believe is the Civil Service Association of Canada, and I would ask the minister to instruct the officials of his department to take a look at this problem and try to regulate it as soon as possible.
Otherwise I do not think they are going to get the very best work from these employees, these radio operators, who are doing work of great importance. They are concerned with the whole question of air traffic control and the lives of air travellers depend on the efficient work of these people. I would
February 15, 1966

ask the minister to check into that point, in addition to the others I have mentioned. Those are the only remarks I have to make at this time.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take just a tew moments of the committee's time to urge a suggestion on the Minister of Transport. It stems from this business of curtailing passenger service, about which we have heard a lot in the last few days. I think it is a very wrong and mistaken time to be talking about curtailing passenger service just when we are entering into an age of leisure, when hours of work are being shortened and holidays lengthened, when people are needing ways and means to use their leisure well and to good purpose in their lives.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
This is no time to take off the "Dominion" or curtail the services in other ways. After all, the running of passenger services on railways may not be profitable but we must have these services. Just the same in collecting garbage: This is not profitable, but it is a service which people must have and it is up to us to see that it is carried out. If the C.P.R. does not feel it can carry on with its passenger services the government should have the courage to force that railway company to stick by its bargain. If it will not run passenger services, in exchange for all the profitable enterprises it now has, there is no choice for the government but to take over the profitable as well as the unprofitable operations to ensure that we have passenger service in this country.
There are a great many people in this country who are retired on old age pension to whom travel is a very important facet of their leisure pastime. As an example of what can be done for these people, let me refer to what has happened in Norway. In that enlightened country the government pays half the fare of an elderly person travelling around the country, because it considers travel to be one of the best ways to encourage the elderly people to use their time. There is on the order paper at this time a motion which suggests that the government should go the entire way and pay all the expenses of elderly people who are travelling. I would be content to see this government adopt the practice followed by the government of Norway, going halfway to pay the travel costs of our elderly citizens.
Supply-Transport
Mr. Chairman, anyone who has studied the needs of elderly or aged people will realize that there is a need to provide a means by which elderly people can remain alert and live out their remaining lives in something other than loneliness. In the city of Vancouver the hydro company there sponsors mystery tours on buses around Vancouver and its environs at very reasonable rates during the seasons of the year when weather will permit. I know that a great part of that traffic is composed of elderly people who take advantage of these very reasonable rates to get a change of scene and some form of relaxation during this twilight period of their lives.
If the Minister of Transport wants a trite phrase, let me suggest that we institute travel subsidies for senior citizens. This could be a very important form of relaxation for those who are elderly and aged. It would give them a great deal of interest and new experience. It would enable them to visit their children and grandchildren, and many of them are not able to do this today. This would also keep our elderly people in the main stream of life during their final years. I urge the minister to give serious consideration to this suggestion. If Norway can afford this kind of policy I do not see why Canada cannot afford it. One of the troubles with us in this country is that we are too isolated and seem to think that because a great many people live here in an affluent society, everyone enjoys this position in life. That is a wrong concept, and as long as we have one quarter of our people living in poverty it is up to us to find ways and means of lessening that poverty.
I hope the minister during the course of this debate will tell me whether there is any reason why this country cannot adopt a policy such as I have suggested. Certainly from the standpoint of increasing the popularity of his government this would be a sure-fire method, and would at the same time make it possible for our aged to mix with their contemporaries across this country.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to this debate for some time and do not intend to repeat those things that have been said. Two subjects that have been touched upon have caused me some surprise. The first is the lack of government initiative to establish a national transportation policy in Canada. I understand the minister is going to remain in his present position only until new transportation legislation has been introduced, and legislation concerning two or

February 15, 1966
Supply-Transport
three fields within his jurisdiction, mainly cable television and others. I am surprised he has not outlined to parliament some of those things he hopes to do in the national transportation field, particularly in view of the fact he will be leaving this department. Surely we should be given an outline of government policy so that we can consider it now, rather than having to go through the same considerations we have undertaken in the last five or six days.
During this debate we have touched upon a number of things, not the least of which is passenger travel throughout Canada. One of the most novel worth-while proposals I have heard in this regard is the one just made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. A great number of long-time employees of the railway companies were issued lifetime passes. The value of these passes has now been cut in half and these people must now pay half fare. I am sure the hon. lady for Vancouver-Kingsway will not oppose the suggestion that the government institute a policy which would allow these long service pass holders to travel without cost.
Surely the minister has come to the conclusion as a result of this debate that the majority of members would like to see the government adopt a national transportation policy. We in Canada should be ashamed because of those things we have allowed the Board of Transport Commissioners to do in respect of passenger travel. Let us consider for a moment the abandonment by the Canadian National Railways of sleeper service from North Bay to Ottawa. I remember when I was first elected that that train provided a reasonably decent mode of travel. All the traffic originating in northern Ontario and northern Quebec made use of this service in travelling to Ottawa and Montreal. This area represents probably one tenth of the entire area of Canada. It was serviced by the Ontario Northland Railway to North Bay, at which point these people transferred to the trans-Canada services operated by both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National. All the traffic originating in the northern part of northwestern Ontario, northeastern Ontario and northwestern Quebec used these facilities to travel south.
At one time the people of northern Ontario and Quebec could catch a train, take a sleeper and travel south. First of all the railways abandoned sleeper service at Swastika, because it cost $200 to rent a pullman car and

move it over these rails. Eventually they cut off the service at Englehart, another division point, and eventually at North Bay itself. At that time if you were travelling north you had to get up at seven o'clock in the morning, leave the sleeper car and travel by coach the rest of the trip. Shortly after that you could not obtain sleeper service at all.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
One of the reasons for abandoning this sleeper service is that the Canadian National Railways made a very bad blunder when it purchased a lot of old sleeping cars from a defunct United States railway company. These cars were not suitable for use in northern Ontario. They did not put heat on both sides of the car in the winter and these cars were not equipped for operating in our climate. They had so much trouble and found themselves without the necessary equipment. This is true, Mr. Chairman, and I believe every member who has spoken on this subject has indicated that we do not have the equipment to operate passenger service in this country. This is the reason for the abandonment of lines.
Last week I was toying with the idea, and perhaps I will be able to accomplish it, of getting the people who produce "This Hour Has Seven Days" to bring their cameras and accompany me on the train from northern Ontario and northern Quebec into the town of North Bay. I should like these people to board Canadian National train 104 and shoot pictures during the night in this one coach on a freight train which has a number of express cars. I am quite sure the Canadian public would be disgusted with the railway and the Board of Transport Commissioners in allowing this train to run at all. Either get rid of the damned thing and provide passenger service in an alternate fashion, or put on a service that is worth while. On this train there is no sleeper, there are not enough seats for most of the people travelling and quite often they have to stand. In addition, there is no diner and there are no passenger facilities of any description. This car has been crammed with passengers on the many occasions I have ridden on it. The seats in the coach are not the reclining type; the cars are much too old to have this amenity.
If the minister really wants to do something by which the Department of Transport can be well remembered he should face up to the transportation problem. Let us do something about the railways. I am not opposed to
February 15, 1966

our taking over Canadian Pacific Railway, but why should we? Why should we not take Canadian National Railways and decide to make it the operating railway to supply all passenger transportation in Canada?
I think the minister will find that if many people want their freight shipments to go on the same line, Canadian Pacific will have to *do some scratching, which they are not doing at the present time. I believe the minister is a very capable man. I have had the opportunity of observing many of the things he has done in the past five or six years. Some of them I have agreed with and some I have disagreed with. His capabilities are certainly about the average of those of his colleagues in the cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, Oh.


Michael Starr: That has really pulled the minister down.


William Arnold Peters: It seems to me that if anybody is to make an impression on this department, it should be the minister. He asked for this department.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: Perhaps this is why we have the quandary that faces us at the moment, because I think the minister has the necessary capabilities. In my opinion this is a field in which a serious contribution has to be made. I think the day has arrived when we must make a decision as to what we are going to do to keep the people of Canada united as far as travelling across the nation is concerned.
The fuss that was raised with regard to the run between Ottawa and Toronto was not really caused by the people of Canada but by Members of Parliament. They had decided that if better accommodation was not provided for them, the roof was going to blow off. Members of parliament expressed the opinion that an improvement was to be made nationally, too, and they were in the mood to have the minister stand up and ask that a committee be established to look into the question of passenger service in Canada.
Let us face this problem and do something about it. If we have to subsidize the railways, let us subsidize them. Let us bring this question out in the open and ask the Canadian public what they wish done about it. I think it is a disgrace that we give Canadian Pacific equal rights with Canadian National in terms of freight hauled; yet the
Supply-Transport
Board of Transport Commissioners has allowed Canadian Pacific Railway to double their passenger fare on the run between North Bay and Ottawa. I have checked this, Mr. Chairman, and the Canadian Pacific fare is almost double that of Canadian National.
We have allowed Canadian Pacific to do this while at the same time being well aware of the end result. You do something to get rid of the passengers and then come before the board and say: "Look, we have no passengers". I can assure the committee that anybody who rides on Canadian National train 104 is not a passenger in the true sense of the word. They travel on this train because it is an emergency and they have to get from one point to another. This is the only way it can be done. It is not a comfortable way; it is not a cheap way; it is not in any way a good way of travelling but it is simply a way of getting from one point to another. As far as I am concerned, it they took the damned thing off it would suit me just as well, because I will be able to ride in the caboose on the pass of a member of parliament and would be just as comfortable sleeping in one of the workers' bunks as in one of the coaches provided on this passenger service which is producing revenue. I do not want to beat a dead horse, and it is a dead horse.


An hon. Member:: Do you mean the minister?


William Arnold Peters: I do not mean the minister; I mean the whole transportation problem that faces parliament. There is a general agreement in this respect and if there were a free vote on whether to set up a transportation committee to study policy, I am sure it would be set up tomorrow. However, the committee will become bogged down with these estimates and will not be able to get around to solving this problem.
The minister will have to give leadership in this regard. I believe Canada has reached the halfway mark as far as transportation is concerned and should turn over to a completely new type of passenger transportation system and scrap the old one. I believe everyone agrees that we have reached this stage.
What burns me up is that we have the Board of Transport Commissioners who do not seem to do anything. They do not even seem to ride on these trains; I have not seen one of them riding on the trains for a long time. I do not really know what they do.


Erik Nielsen: They go by Air Canada.

February 15, 1968
Supply-Transport


Mr. Nesbill:: They dissolve the railways, mostly.


An hon. Member:: There is only one member of the board.


William Arnold Peters: Somebody said there is only one member of the board. I thought there was more than that. They are called commissioners, and I should like to know what has happened to the other two. Perhaps they do not travel. I have been reading their recommendations and they certainly have not said anything that has impressed me with regard to passenger service. The decision they made in relation to the "Dominion" is no credit to them. They have said that things are going to change in 1967, so these things may have to be done all over again.
I really do not care if they get rid of the railways altogether-I say this sincerely to the minister-and put on road transport. I have not really been able to find out whether the Canadian public are subsidizing Smith Transport or the hauling of freight on Canadian Pacific, and I do not think anyone in this house is really aware of the breakdown with relation to the ownership of these road transport companies which the railways have incorporated.
One last question I should like to ask the minister is this. What is the matrimonial intention of Canadian National Railways with respect to Ontario Northland Railway? I notice that we have allowed Canadian National to send several of their senior officials to operate this railway. This will not do the railway any harm because in Ontario we have not been doing a very good job recently in regard to its operation. We have a commission made up of political appointments by the provincial government. This commission does not have any say in whether the workers can deal with their employer. The workers now find they must go to Toronto and deal with a department of government.
I had an opportunity of talking to one of these pseudo-Canadian National employees not long ago. He was of the opinion that he really was not dealing with the commission set up to administer Ontario Northland and that in terms of passenger traffic, freight, express and some of the other problems it was a matter of dealing with both Canadian National and the Ontario government directly in the capacity of an agency.
I believe the people of northern Ontario would like to know what the intention is in regard to this railway. If the railway is up for

sale it would probably be a very lucrative buy for Canadian National if they intend to extend their operation. We have some excellent contracts there for hauling iron, pulp, paper and some other heavy commodities.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The railway needs some maintenance. Some new money could be put into expending branch lines to the iron ore properties that are being developed. The Ontario Northland, whether it is owned by the Ontario government or comes under the Canadian National, will need a terminal in our main city of Toronto. It is going to have to have some relationship with the other railways because of the passenger problem.
I suggest that if the minister really wants to do something, he could be open and aboveboard on this matter and indicate to members of parliament whether or not he really intends to have a committee look at passenger service across Canada. If he does not, the railways themselves will get rid of rail lines. When passengers find that they are unable to get reservations a week ahead of time or that the two crack trains that are running now are booked a month in advance, they will no longer be rail passengers, but will find alternative means of transportation. The railways will be able to get rid of passengers and passenger service in this way.
If this is the end result that the minister wants, all he has to do is sit quietly and do nothing about it. If I can judge the temper of the speeches made by members in this house, then I think a decision will have to be made by the minister which will not make it necessary to repeat these arguments when the new estimates come before us. Surely the Canadian public have indicated, through their members, that they want a passenger policy, and that this policy is not going to come from the Transport Commissioners but from parliament. We are really going to have to make a decision whether we are going to buy the Canadian Pacific or let them go out of the passenger business. We will have to decide if we are going to do something about subsidizing or upgrading Canadian National passenger service or whether we want to get out of that business and go into air transport. This is a large country. There is no question but that air transport could be the answer in many cases.
I think the country is anxiously awaiting a policy decision. I hope the minister will give us an indication he is going to make a very blunt decision that will decide the future of
February 15, 1966

the railway passenger business for the next 25 years in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not believe I would [DOT]ever see the miracle we have just witnessed of the hon. member for Timiskaming and the Leader of the Opposition both asking me to give leadership to this country. The shock is almost more than I can bear. I think I will probably have quite a lot of time to do this, although the hon. member for Timiskaming seems to be rather better informed about my future than I am myself.


William Arnold Peters: I only know what I read in the newspapers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman ought to know, if he has read newspapers for as long as I have, that he should take a lot of these gossipy stories with several grains of salt. For example, I have been reading a lot about my ill health. I told the Leader of the Opposition, when he asked me about my health on New Year's Day, that I thought my ill health was in part in the minds of some people who would really like to see me out of my present position.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I felt very much tempted to say that I have never felt better in my life, but I knew that phrase was copyright. If, in fact, I am going to stay in this portfolio until the railway legislation is passed, as well as several other pieces of legislation to which the hon. gentleman referred, and if the pace is going to be the same leisurely pace that we have witnessed for the last two weeks in parliament, I believe I am quite safe in this portfolio, provided I am spared, as Mackenzie King would have said, until at least 1971 or 1972. At the rate we are going I do not believe we will get more than one or two bills passed before Christmas.


An hon. Member:: You are an optimist.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Here we are on the first item of the estimates of the department after five days of discussion, all of it spent on the first item.


Michael Starr: Would the minister permit a question at this point?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, sure.


Michael Starr: Does the minister not think that if he had not made 34 or 35 speeches during consideration of the estimates we might have completed them by now?
Supply-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I do not know, because the hon. member for Saint John-Albert said that if I had made an hour long speech at the beginning we would have completed these estimates long ago. The house leader on that side now says if I had not made so many speeches we would have been through. I do not believe it would have made any difference whatever.


William Arnold Peters: Would the minister permit another question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely.


William Arnold Peters: Does the minister not agree that if a national transportation policy, which we are told is now prepared, had been presented to the house, the discussion of transportation problems that has taken place probably would have been redundant?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I feel quite sure that if I had made a speech on national transportation policy, no matter how reasonable or how sensible, there would have been at least twice as many speeches as there have been during this debate. I do not believe one would have to go to the other side of the house to get to that position. It just so happens that in a country like ours, we have been discussing national transportation policy since the days of the Charlottetown and Quebec conferences, over 100 years ago now. I said once, rather lightheartedly, that people talk about bilingualism and biculturalism, but if one really wanted to arouse the passions of Canadians all he had to do was mention railways. I think that long before we agree on a national transportation policy every little Canadian will be born speaking both English and French.
I am regretfully, therefore, not the least optimistic about evolving an agreed national transportation policy-it sounds much nicer to call it "national". I have listened to the speeches most hon. members have made, and there has not been much demand for a national policy. There have been one of two speeches that were not regional, but there have been any number that were just-I may say I am a terrible parish pump politician myself-


An hon. Member:: Like the one now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly; I am a terrible parish pump politician myself, and so are most of us. Most of the speeches have been parochial. If we are really honest, I do not believe many of us are more concerned with national transportation in the country than

February 15, 1966
Supply-Transport
we are with some of the local aspects of transportation. After all, national transportation is our job. We have to have some viable way of dealing with it.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Now, I imagine there are no 20 million people belonging to the same society anywhere in the world who pay so much for their transportation, whose transportation enters to such a great degree into the cost of living, as is the case in this country. The second point I should like to make is this: There is no other country with 20 million people in it in the whole world that depends so much for its standard of living on exporting a large proportion of its products to the rest of the world and, in so many cases, to competitive markets. Now, these two facts mean that if the producers in Canada are to get reasonable returns for what they produce, and what is sold in the export market, the cost of transporting the goods must not be too great. That is a basic fact about transport in this country. It may be that there are some areas, where the production is entirely for the local market or exclusively for consumption in Canada, in which this element is not so great; but it does affect all of us.
I also agreed with another thing said today by the Leader of the Opposition. I sent him a note earlier today to the effect that I hoped he would recover from the shock when I told him I agreed more with what he said about transportation than with anybody else who had taken part in the debate. I agreed with him for this reason. He said that we had to change; that we could not leave things as they are, that we had to be up to date. I am roughly paraphrasing his words. Perhaps I can claim to do this once in a while because he also does it, but I think I can say I am being completely fair. He was indicating that we have to have modern transportation in this country. That also means that, unless we are going to pay an exaggerated cost for our transportation in this country, when services become redundant they must be discontinued -however nice they were 25 or 50 years ago. If we are going to maintain a high standard of living and an opportunity for decent leisure for the old as well, then we have to be efficient. We have to be prepared to scrap out of date services and services that have ceased to be used to any marked degree. This is a fact of life that we have to face.
I know of only two ways, Mr. Chairman, in which we Canadians can pay for our transportation; and I think we have to pay for

part of it one way and for part of it another way, if we are to have a sane and viable policy. It seems to me that transportation can be paid for either by the users or by the taxpayers. I do not know of any third way. It might just be possible for a very short while to do what some hon. members seem to have suggested-make the C.P.R. provide transportation at a great deal less than cost and pour the profits of its other enterprises into transportation to meet the losses. But I question whether that would last for very long. I have very grave doubts about what its effect would be on the whole of the Canadian economy, and no serious person who has studied this question has ever suggested that it should be done in this way. In any event, no matter how it is done, the amount of our manpower, our resources, our capital, our knowhow that we devote to transportation is going to have to come out of the sum total of what we produce. If the amount we expend on transportation is too high in relation to the rest of the expenditures of the country, we are going to be, not richer, but poorer. It seems to me that that is self-evident.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond suggested that there ought to be a separate department of civil aviation. I know there are a lot of strong arguments for this course, and I am not saying that one day there will not be a separate department. However, my own opinion is this-and this is no mere desire on the part of an old man to hang on to his empire. At any rate, I have rationalized it, and my rationalization is that it is so frightfully important to integrate all forms of transport in Canada and to eliminate, as far as we can, the redundant and the wasteful and the really unnecessary and that, if we did not have one department of government and one minister to do these things, or try to do them, then they would not get done at all.
When I think of what my hon. friend, the Minister of National Defence, has been doing in these last three years and how he has been trying to integrate our armed forces-and I certainly think he has done that in a most admirable way-it seems to me that it is just as important-taken from a long term standpoint it may be even more important-to integrate our transport services in this country and to make sure that we do not devote unnecessary resources to them. That is my view.
I do think that the department is too big for one man. I must say I welcome the assistance I am already receiving from my
February 15, 1966

hon. friend, the Minister without Portfolio, and I am sure this assistance is going to grow more and more. If parliament would see fit to amend the law so that he could be an associate minister, no one would be more happy than I. I think this kind of division could be made. We should keep the whole spectrum together, but there could be some division between the more or less administrative functions and what I call, though I hate to use the word, the thinking.
Some hon Members: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about your parliamentary secretary?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Because a tremendous
amount of thinking does need to be done in this field.
Once again I agree with the right hon. gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, this afternoon in what he said about the importance of research and development in the field of transportation. I am not entirely sure that the specific suggestion that he made about having a research and development division of the Department of Transport is necessarily the most satisfactory way to deal with the problem; but that research should be done and that it should be co-ordinated is frightfully important.
One reason the Canadian National Railways have made quite a number of advances in the last few years which have made it today one of the most efficient railways in the world is that Dr. Solandt, who had been in charge of research and development in the armed forces, went to the C.N.R. and built up a research division there which has had a very considerable effect on the railway. There is not any doubt in my mind that we need more research and development. We need more co-ordination and we need more planning to provide the best possible transport services for this country.
With regard to the other question, I said a few moments ago that I knew of only two basic ways in which we Canadians could pay for our transport services. One is by having the users pay for them; the other is by having the taxpayers pay for them. I said I did not think that transportation could all be paid for by the users because there are some services which are essential to hold this country together, services which the users simply could not pay for directly because they would not be sufficiently used, and the development of some of the outlying parts of Canada would not take place.
Supply-Transport
I would also suggest-and I say this not because I think profits are more important than service; in fact, I do not think anyone can go on making profits for long if he does not give service-that there is a simple, easy and automatic way of finding out whether a service is really needed; and that is to subject it to the test which the economists call the test of effective demand, which is the willingness of people to pay for the service.
In the main, I believe that where the volume of traffic is sufficient to make this test possible, and above all where there is some competitive mode of transport, this is far and away the more satisfactory way of doing it. But I do not deny for one moment that there are many services that are essential to this country which cannot be paid for by the users.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
In the first place I do not deny that we should never have had confederation, or we should never have had British Columbia in confederation in 1871 without the $25 million and the 25 million acres of land and the other things that went into the Canadian Pacific which, if capitalized today, would-and I draw this to the attention of people in British Columbia who are constantly talking about the Prince Edward Island causeway-represent a very much more substantial subsidy from the people of Canada to bring British Columbia into confederation than any paid in eastern Canada at the present time. I think that that kind of argument which has been raised is a divisive argument which I do not want to become involved in, and is one which we should forget if we want to adopt a national outlook.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I ask a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am interested in the observation about the capitalization of the 25 million acres. Is that not putting it the wrong way round? Would it not be better to ask if the people of Ontario were not glad that they were linked to British Columbia?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is just the kind of argument that I think is dull, stale, unprofitable and un-national. Either we want to have British Columbia in Canada or we do not. I think one of the greatest political miracles of our age was when the little Canadian parliament in Ottawa pulled off, four years after confederation, the feat of getting British Columbia, which was 3,000 miles away, into

February 15, 1966
Supply-Transport
this country and thus making Canada possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I also think that Canada would never have been the kind of country that some of us are proud to have it if we had not in 1949 been willing to do one or two quite revolutionary things that were quite upsetting to the existing federal-provincial relations, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam well knows, in order to make it possible for a provincial government to exist in Newfoundland and thereby to bring Newfoundland into confederation.
Now the price that we have to pay to conserve this half continent as a separate country is probably in many ways, financially and economically, higher than it would have been to take the alternative of throwing up our hands and asking the United States to take us in on some kind of terms.


William Arnold Peters: Just because we cannot run our railroads?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, the hon. member says that that is just because we cannot run our railways. Notwithstanding what one hon. member said about the superior efficiency of the railways he travelled on in Egypt, India and so on, I do not think he intended us to take that very seriously. Whatever grievances we may have against the Canadian railways, I do not think that their capacity to run railways is in question at all. There may be many questions about the manner in which they do run them, but about the capacity of Canadians to run railways-well, I think that is as great as that of any railwaymen anywhere.
What I want to say I think I can put into one sentence. It is that my conception of the foundation of a national transportation policy is ultimately to have the best possible transportation, by the best mode that we can get and that we can afford in relation to our total production, so that we do not spend all our income or too large a part of it just on transportation. There are some other benefits, I would imagine, that Canadians want out of their lives as well as transportation. My conception would be that wherever possible, that is wherever it is reasonably possible, transportation should be paid for by the users, and that the government should look very hard at every case where a subsidy is asked for to make sure that what is required

is really, in national terms, worth the subsidy. I think, if it is necessary for the preservation of any part of British Columbia or of Vancouver island to provide shipbuilding subsidies for ferries, it would not break my heart to have to change my view. If I may be parenthetic about it, I do think that, for the first time, the people of British Columbia know that one third the cost of these ferries came out of the treasury at Ottawa. They would not have known that at all if this policy had not been announced the other day and if the premier had not complained about being so badly treated. If we came to the conclusion that Mr. Bennett would build the ferries in Japan unless we gave him a subsidy, then rather than have him go to Japan I think we ought to take another look at the question.


An hon. Member:: He ought to go too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, if it is just a question of Mr. Bennett's going-


Mr. More:: Would the minister say that the premier of Newfoundland lets the people there know that there are some shared costs? I have never met anyone from Newfoundland yet who did not think that everything came from Joey.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will tell the hon. gentleman that the federal government, since the present government came into office, has been paying in the four Atlantic provinces $90 out of every $100 of the cost of the trans-Canada highway. In the province of Newfoundland, on every stretch of highway that was being built during the last three years-and I might add that the highway is now completed-there was a sign saying: "We will finish the drive in 1965, thanks to Mr. Pearson." I point out that there are no signs like that in Nova Scotia.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Were those signs put up in 1963, and moved from place to place?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, they were moved from place to place as the road was finished.


An hon. Member:: Who paid for the signs?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be willing to pay for the signs for Mr. Stanfield, if he would put them up.


An hon. Member:: I am sure that Premier Stanfield would not mind paying for them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether I am running out of time.
February 15, 1966


An hon. Member:: Let us get back to the railways.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that I should attempt to give any elaboration at this time, on the first item of these estimates, of a national transportation policy. I do think that I will take the advice of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and I will try, in presenting my estimates for 1966-67, to give an elaboration on the basis of the foundation that I referred to tonight. I know that a number of specific points have been raised in the debate. However, looking at the clock I see that I have exhausted my time.


An hon. Member:: Gc ahead.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are hon. members willing to let me go ahead?


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will try to deal with some of these specific points which have been raised, and I think that perhaps I should begin with a self-denying ordinance. I do not think it would be appropriate for me at this stage, for two reasons, to discuss the question which I think has been discussed more than any other on my estimates.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
As hon. members know, the management of the Canadian Pacific are coming here as soon as the transport committee wishes to call them, and the terms of reference of that committee are very wide. I would hope-and I share this hope with the hon. member for Timiskaming-that we will confine ourselves to the question of passenger services and not spread ourselves all over the lot. I agree that if we choose to do the latter, the committee is likely to be far less productive than if we deal entirely with the very serious problem of passenger services-and it is a very serious problem.
Nevertheless, I do not think I shall say anything about it tonight, for two reasons. First, as hon. members know, there are a number of petitions lodged with the governor in council appealing against the decision to cancel the "Dominion". I am a member of the cabinet which will have to consider these appeals and I think it would be improper for me at this stage to prejudge the case before hearings have taken place. And I do not think I could talk about passenger services in general without seeming, at any rate, to prejudge the case. I think it would be better if I simply noted this matter.
Supply-Transport


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before the minister leaves that point, could I ask him whether there is necessarily any relationship between the two matters? I mean the passenger service generally, to be considered by the Committee on Transportation, and the question of the "Dominion" which is going before the cabinet. I take it that the latter will not be held up pending some decision on the former question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think that is likely to arise, provided the committee proceeds with reasonable dispatch. One of the petitions, the petition from the government of Alberta, arrived only a short time ago. Indeed, I first saw it today. There has not been time to consider it yet. Then again, we have had notice that there will be one or two further petitioners and I do not think any attempt will be made to reach a decision until we have all the petitions in front of us. As to whether or not we should make a decision before the committee has completed its consideration of the passenger service, I would say there are arguments on both sides. I do not think I should give an answer on that matter tonight; I think I should consult my colleagues.


Thomas Miller Bell: Would the minister keep in mind that some of these delegations from western cities are coming here, presumably, to make an appearance before the committee which is considering the affairs of the C.P.R., but also to interview cabinet ministers in connection with the appeal?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think this will present a problem. The mayor of Moose Jaw, who is spokesman for eight or ten cities across the prairies has indicated clearly that they are not appealing the decision about the "Dominion" but are coming to make representations to the cabinet about passenger service generally. There would not necessarily be a conflict. Nevertheless there is an awkward problem and at the moment, I do not feel I can give an adequate answer.


Mr. Smallwood:: Would the minister permit a question? The argument I advanced yesterday in this debate was that the railroads were not delivering the grain to the ports. After I had finished speaking the minister gave us certain figures covering the last six weeks-the number of cars loaded on the prairies and the number of cars unloaded at the ports. On adding up these figures I found

February 15, 1966
Supply-Transport
there were 2,745 cars loaded on the prairies and 3,130 cars unloaded at the ports. So between the prairies and the ports they apparently picked up 385 loaded box cars.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have not had the benefit of the higher mathematics of the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose. I think I will have to examine them before I venture on an explanation. It occurs to me that if I wanted to write a thriller it would be called "the disappearing box car". It is perfectly clear that it is not only for wheat we are short of box cars. My hon. friend from Cochrane spoke to me yesterday about the difficulty the lumbermills were having in part of his constituency in getting box cars to move lumber to the markets. The plain fact is we are producing so much wealth in this country and are able to market so much wealth that we just do not have the transportation facilities to carry it all and we had better hurry up and get more. That, I think, is the only real solution to this problem.
I could go on to deal with a number of other questions which were raised. I know my hon. friend from York-Humber would not mind if I do not go into the question of water levels today.


Mr. Beaulieu:: May I ask the minister if I can put a question to him before the debate is over? In my constituency of St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville we have an airport. For three or four years people have been asking that the landing strips there should be lengthened. The department has expropriated land there, though no payment has been made in respect of it. I know we are considering last year's estimates but I should like to know whether this money was paid or whether provision is made for it in next year's estimates.
This airport is very close to Montreal. It is closer to Expo than is Dorval airport itself-15 miles closer. If there were longer running lanes at this airfield pressure would be removed from Dorval. We have the need. We have an aircraft industry which employs a great many people. If this work could be started now it would help even more of those in my constituency.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
It was formerly a training camp for the air force. The buildings are there. It is close to Expo. It is about 1 to 2 miles from St. Jean, and 12 to 15 miles from Montreal. I want to ask the minister for a clear answer. Is there an amount included in the budget for next

year to start this work, so that it will be ready in time? I will speak about Expo later, but at the moment it is essential that this matter be not left up in the air.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is a new member, but he, having experience of some considerable magnitude in another assembly is aware-I think he has indicated it himself-that there is no provision in the estimates for 1965-66, which are the ones before the committee. I would be very glad to discuss the matter and give him an answer when we come to my other estimates, and in the meantime I shall give the hon. gentleman an answer privately.
Now, sir, I will deal with these things in the order in which they were raised and I hope hon. members will not mind if, in the case of any subject that is likely to be of continuing interest, I do not deal with it tonight but deal with it on the next instalment of estimates.
In his first speech the hon. member for Lapointe mainly discussed competition between the railways and the trucking industry, a very large subject which should be part of any broad statement of national transportation policy. If it were agreeable I would prefer to deal with it in that context.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat discussed the railway question and I think I have already said all that I ought to say at this moment about that.


Gilles Grégoire: Can the minister tell us when he intends to speak, or to give us the policy of the government on this question of subsidies to the railroads for the transportation of merchandise? When will the minister give this?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Actually, of course, the whole question will come up in connection with the railway legislation, and it was provided for in the bill that was introduced last year; but I do not think that the bill will be introduced in the same form this year. We are still giving consideration to this matter, and it would not be proper for me at this moment to report on things which have not finally been decided.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South discussed a matter which at some stage I want to discuss at considerable length in the house, but I do think there is one point that I ought to try to make as clear as I can. It is this, that in respect of the bilateral negotiations the basic principle that was followed, as I understand it-these negotiations began some
February 15, 1966

time before I became minister and they were in midstream before I became actively involved in them-was that if a place was served by a United States air line that line would have priority, and if it was served by a Canadian line that Canadian line would have priority; but wherever there was enough traffic for both a Canadian and a United States line, in general the desire was to provide for what is usually called double tracking.
When the negotiations were almost completed a deadlock developed over the question of whether a United States line would be allowed to fly from Chicago to Montreal in competition with a route that was to have been reserved exclusively for Air Canada, and whether a Canadian line would fly direct from Winnipeg to Chicago. There was a real deadlock and it lasted for months. We indicated to the Americans that we were prepared to conclude the agreement on either one of two terms-either they would withdraw their request for an American line between Montreal and Chicago or, alternatively, they would agree to our having a flight from Winnipeg to Chicago.
Financially the Montreal-Chicago monopoly for Air Canada is considerably more valuable than any value that could reasonably have been placed on the Winnipeg-Chicago route. Therefore I thought, and I believe all the Canadian negotiators thought, that if the deadlock was broken at all it would be broken by the Americans conceding the Winnipeg-Chicago route. No one was more surprised than I when to the contrary, the Americans withdrew their request for Montreal-Chicago. We had given them the alternative and, having given it, we either had to have no agreement at all, or make the agreement.
The agreement, of course, does provide for a direct service by the American line from Winnipeg to Minneapolis, which has not existed in the past, and if the prospects of traffic in Winnipeg are anything like what most of us believe they will be, I think our case is going to be irresistible at the next run. But we had reached the conclusion that otherwise we could get no agreement at all, and, notwithstanding what some people have said,
I think the balance of advantage on the bilateral is pretty even between the two countries and it is going to provide a very considerable benefit to the users in both countries.
Supp ly-Transport
As 1 say, we were faced with a very awkward position. It was particularly unpleasant for me because I had really hoped very sincerely that we were going to get this Winnipeg-Chicago flight, and I believe in time we are going to get it. After he has had more experience here I do not really think-the hon. member for Winnipeg South will find that there is any deliberate attempt on the part of this government, or that there would be on the part of any other government, to ignore Winnipeg, or any other part of Canada. But this particular government, although we represent various provinces, has three or four Winnipegers in it who are all pretty sentimental about Manitoba and it certainly has no hostility to Manitoba or to Winnipeg.
In his maiden speech the hon. member for Port Arthur made a very thoughtful and enlightened presentation of the railway problem as it looks to people in Northern Ontario. I am sure that in Northern Ontario, where I understand many of the roads are still rather rudimentary, the railway bulks even larger as a form of transport than it does on the prairies. But here again we will have a chance to go into this question when the C.P.R. is before the committee.
The hon. member for Moose Mountain discussed the railway problem in a very moderate and reasonable fashion, and he again will have his chance in the committee.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano and, more recently, the hon. member for Burna-by-Richmond all discussed the problems of the port of Vancouver. My hon. friend the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is going to carry me out to Vancouver bodily one of these days and keep me there until I have undertaken to do all the things that are necessary to improve that port, which is rapidly becoming one of the greatest ports in the whole world.
The hon. member for Kindersley spoke about the C.P.R. and about the Saskatoon television station. I will pass on what he said in that regard to my colleague, the Secretary of State.
I can assure the hon. member for Pictou that I will deal with all the points he made and will be in touch with him about them. We had a little exchange across the floor of the house. We understand one another pretty well anyway.

February 15, 1966
Supply-Transport
The hon. member for Brantford made a speech about the Grand River which touched my heart, because my ancestors came to Upper Canada at the same time as Joseph Brant, and anything I can do to help develop that part of the country, which I cherish, I will be glad to do.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke spoke about the airport there. I am taking his observations into consideration.
We had a most exciting tour around the Gaspe with the hon. member for Gaspe, munching sandwiches as we went, and I will look into the various points that he raised.
My hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo talked about one of the most difficult of all problems of national transportation-and this is a national problem-along the rugged coasts of southern Newfoundland. I do not think I need assure him or anyone else that that is something in which I am greatly interested.
I think we were all interested to hear the contribution made by the hon. member for Nickel Belt who spoke, I thought, very moderately about the C.P.R. considering he was a C.N.R. man. He certainly knows something about railways.
The hon. member for Simcoe East made an appeal about the Trent canal that touched my heart. If he can do as much with his friends in Toronto as I can do here we may make some real progress.
The hon. member for Chapleau spoke about airports in the northern region he represents. We are in discussions with the town of Amos at the present time about the airport there. We are also looking into the other problems which exist at Chibougamau. The name of the other place with which we are having discussions escapes me for the moment.
The hon. member for Melville cut his speech short, for which I am grateful. We are giving most serious attention to the theme of that speech, which was the Freedman report.
The hon. member for Skeena, apart from applying for a job in my department, made a very important and interesting speech mainly about two topics; the wharfage on the floats in his constituency, about which I want to have some discussions with him because we are reviewing this whole matter, and about safety in shipping. I have quite a long speech on this subject which I could make, but with the indulgence of the committee I would prefer to make it at another time.

The hon. member for Cochrane, like myself, is exceedingly interested in his own constituency and spoke about the problems there about which he and I will do our best.
The hon. member for Kamloops made-I was almost going to say the standard speech about the C.P.R., but he made it in the way to which we were accustomed, we old timers here, who remember him when he was here before.
One of the most interesting speeches made during the entire debate was made by my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River. I believe he is the youngest member of the house and he certainly knows a lot about railways.
The hon. member for Assiniboia also spoke about railways and the movement of grain.
The hon. member for Vancouver East, and I should have mentioned him earlier with the other members for Vancouver, made a speech about the development of the port of Vancouver. I hope it will be possible for him to be in Vancouver when I am there because I know he will have something to say about this subject.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Arthur would be glad to have him along on the tour.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If hon. members would like to carry the item without going along with my catalogue, I will be pleased to concur in that action.


Mr. Nowlan:: Before the debate on item 1 is concluded I should like to direct a question to the minister, in view of something he said during his cataloguing about Newfoundland. I wonder whether the minister when he was in Nova Scotia saw a sign which said: Here is the road; it is nice and wide, like the guide lines from America; so beware of the signs.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is quite evident that the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings is going to be the wit of the House of Commons. I feel sure that as time goes on he will endear himself to the members of this house, on a personal basis, as his father did and, if he does, he will have accomplished a lot.


Frank Howard: In the minister's earlier remarks he said there were some things the other members have dealt with which he could not deal with at this time. He said he wanted to discuss them with his colleagues. I felt that if he discussed these between now
February 15, 1966

and tomorrow he would be in a position to make a statement then. I did not list these items but it seemed to me they were items that should be dealt with under item 1.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether, on this specific item the hon. member has in mind, we could deal with it when we are considering the appropriate item, allowing us to carry item 1?
I do not think there is anything I expect to discuss with my colleagues between now and the time one might reasonably expect to carry these estimates.


Frank Howard: I have no objection to allowing item 1 to carry if the minister gives us his assurance that I can raise this matter of safety at sea and on the St. Lawrence Seaway during our consideration of his estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quite prepared to make a statement about safety in shipping at any time, but it is rather lengthy.
I think this item can properly be raised on the first item connected with marine services.


Frank Howard: Perhaps I could call it ten o'clock and follow up with respect to these shipping matters tomorrow.
[Translation1


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, we would be quite willing to pass Item 1, but we put a few questions to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and we would like to have an answer. Amongst others, the minister has not replied to the question about the airport at Bagotville, nor to the question on winter navigation on the Saguenay and the St. Lawrence.
I believe those are the two main questions which we would like to have answered.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman is agreeable and we can carry item 1 at this time, I will be glad to answer questions raised concerning railway and air services.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that it is now ten o'clock I am going to address my remarks in the form of a question to the Minister of Public Works in his role as government house leader. I would ask the minister whether he would hold off the estimates of the Department of Transport until the end of all the estimates, in view of the fact that it is quite obvious to me that the Minister of Transport is determined not to allow his estimates to go through.
Supply-Transport


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: I think we should consider the estimates of other ministers who will be more co-operative and willing to have their estimates passed. This is a suggestion that the government house leader should take under serious consideration overnight.
[Translation1


Gilles Grégoire: We object to this. As item 1' of the Department of Transport is now before the house, we feel it would be better to complete consideration of the estimates of that department.
Now, I find that the minister has been most obliging in rising to answer every question asked, and the Conservatives generally object to this-if the ministers do not answer, they complain, if the ministers do answer, they still complain. I think the house should carry on with the consideration of the Department of Transport's estimates. Personally, I have always obtained answers to the questions put to the minister. I think the minister can supply the answers and the house should continue with this department in spite of the suggestion made by the Conservative house leader.
[English1


Maurice Rinfret: Shall vote 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Chairman; I call it ten o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering whether we could not have the assurance that the answers to any of the questions we have asked on item 1 would be given on one of the other items? With that assurance we might agree to pass item 1, but nothing more, tonight.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would certainly give the assurance in the most unqualified manner that any question I have not dealt with tonight and which any hon. member wants answered-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister might even complete the indexing job he has been doing respecting the debate of the last five days.

February 15, 1966
Supply-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should be very glad to do that right now, Mr. Chairman, if hon. members would give me another five minutes.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that would be good for the study of the estimates. It would mean we would start this discussion all over again on the other items. It would be better to leave the questions that have been asked and to which we just need answers.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I was asked a question a few moments ago. I think there is an appreciation on the part of all hon. members in the committee that some method should be found for having a full examination of all the items but at the same time being able to do so within the fiscal year. We have spent two weeks and one day discussing the estimates of the year almost past and have succeeded in passing the estimates of only one department so far. There are the estimates of some 25 departments to be passed. I would hope we could find a workable system that would have the estimates for 1965-66 adopted by the committee, particularly in view of the fact that the estimates for next year have been tabled in the house-


Michael Starr: That has nothing to do with it.


George James McIlraith: -that the standing committees have been appointed and we are operating under new rules which will mean that those estimates will be referred to standing committees for examination. I think that will provide a better way for getting information about departmental activities. I am wondering whether we could not come to some consensus in this committee to make more rapid progress consistent with members obtaining the information they feel they would like to have about the various departments.


Michael Starr: Mr Chairman, with regard to the matter raised by the government house leader, we in this party stopped debating the first item of these estimates two hours ago, or perhaps two and a half hours ago, in the hope that the first item would be passed and we could then question the minister on the items following the first one. However, I see no sense in carrying on and trying to be co-operative when the minister himself takes up half of the time of the whole debate. He has just finished speaking for exactly one hour, and this was one of the 34 or 35 times he has been on his feet. I do not believe that is necessary. I appreciate the fact he made a

very nice speech, but he should have made that speech at the beginning of his estimates, and probably that would have eliminated a lot of the speeches that were necessary. This is the point I want to bring out. You can get the co-operation of the opposition if you do not try to talk out your own estimates.


George James McIlraith: I want to point out that I had a very careful analysis made of those who have spoken on these estimates up until noon today. While I may have an opinion about some taking too much time or some taking too little time, I do not believe that opinion would be of any interest or concern to the house. I believe that we have to operate on the system where each member has a right to ask whatever questions he believes are appropriate on these estimates, and the minister must be given an opportunity to answer.
In the final analysis, there are two effective checks of any abuse of this system. The first one is the common sense of the hon. member and the second is that at election time the voters will leave at home any hon. member who does not use common sense.


An hon. Member:: A lot of your people did not do that.


George James McIlraith: I could retaliate with certain comments about hon. members opposite, but I do not believe that would serve any useful purpose. I am not going to do it. I am quite sure each one of them could reply in kind. This would get us nowhere. I appeal again for hon. members to give some thought to the problem that is confronting this house, and ask them to try to find a way of meeting the problem. If they have any ideas to put forward certainly I, as house leader, will be glad to hear them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We have tried to get this first item passed for the last ten minutes. I see very little value in lecturing the committee if we are willing to pass the item. I have not heard any objection to passing it, provided we have the assurance that we will be able to discuss these questions on other items.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the item carry?


Michael Starr: We are prepared to pass it now without any further word being spoken, but if there is anyone else who wishes to participate in this debate then we have four or five members whom we have asked to co-operate by withholding their speeches. If others are
February 15, 1966	COMMONS
going to carry on, then it is only fair that we should allow our members to make those speeches they are prepared to make.


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not know what is going on, Mr. Chairman, but you are continuing to call members. The hour is ten o'clock and it has been called half a dozen times. However, you are still asking members to get up and speak. I think this is quite wrong. Either we decide to carry on for another half hour or something like that, or we call it ten o'clock and resume tomorrow. This is quite incorrect, to continue in this fashion when it is past the hour for adjournment.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again?


Michael Starr: I appeal again, that if all members of this house wish to carry this item now without further speeches, we are prepared to do that. If members wish to carry on tomorrow, then we will continue with the four or five members who want to speak.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the item carry?
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, may I have clarification-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. Shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
[Translation1

Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, at a previous sitting, I was allowed to put the following question tonight to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin):
In anticipation of a constitutional reform, or a constitutional interpretation, or an eventual formula for amending our constitution, is the minister considering convening provincial attorneys general to set up a Canadian constitutional court?
DEBATES	1293
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Mr. Speaker, my remarks do not reflect in any way on the integrity or personal competence of the Supreme Court justices. They are purely objective and seek to describe the organizations required for the advent of a positive and balanced federalism in Canada.
In a truly federal system, it is important that the arbitrator of constitutional disputes between the two levels of government be independent and impartial and not subject to one of the parties in the dispute, in Canada.
Before 1949, our tribunal notably on constitutional differences between Ottawa and the provinces, was the Privy Council in London. Neither of the Canadian governments had authority over the appointment of the judges. Thus, the objective character was maintained. The provinces also secured favorable decisions against the sometime centralizing efforts of the central Government.
But, in 1949 Canada abolished appeals to the Privy Council and did not establish a true impartial constitutional court when it gave the central government sole authority for appointments to the Supreme Court, and to the latter, the exclusivity of decisions.
That is why the provinces refuse to let the Supreme Court rule on the case and at this time they would rather resort to political negotiations.
If I may digress for a moment, is it necessary to bring back to mind the mining rights on the continental shelf?
In 1949, Ottawa made a mistake and did an injustice that has to be corrected as soon as possible, because 1949 saw the amendment of the constitutional interpretation given in 1867.
It is necessary to convene the representatives of the provinces with a view to creating a federal type constitutional court which would not be the exclusive organization either of the central government or of the provincial governments.
Representations made before different commissions require or suggest constitutional reforms.
The constitution too is subject to interpretations. I just referred to mining rights. There is also the matter of family allowances, where certain persons and certain provinces, question the constitutional validity of the law in view of the fact that it is an indirect meddling in the field of school attendance.
There is also reference to a formula for amending the constitution. Conflicts and interpretations that may arise between the central government and the provinces or
February 15, 1966
1294	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion some provinces will have to be submitted to an objective court representative of the parties involved.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, there must be established a constitutional court with judges appointed by Ottawa and the provinces. I would therefore call upon the minister to take this suggestion in serious consideration and to convene the provincial attorneys general at an early date for this purpose.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the reasons given by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) for inviting the attorneys general of the provinces to examine the question of setting up a constitutional court.
There is no doubt that, in this respect, the hon. member reflects quite accurately the findings of several committees and seminars on the subject, where the setting up of a court to settle the constitutional problems of Canada was advocated.
Now, I think that the hon. member was right to point out that the judicial committee of the United Kingdom was replaced by the Supreme Court of Canada.
We have had in Canada a court which in fact was a real constitutional court and I do not admit at all the arguments of the hon. member for Sherbrooke to the effect that, considering the way appointments are made, the Supreme Court might not be independent and that its judgments were not objective. I maintain that, in its deliberations and constitutional decisions, the Supreme Court was always completely independent and very effective. As a matter of fact, it has rendered great services to Canada thanks to its decisions on constitutional matters.
I suppose that the hon. member did not want to question the objectivity of the Supreme Court. His suggestions about the constitutional court might have some value, although I do not know to what extent they are worthy of consideration, but there is no doubt that the amendment of the constitution must be studied by the government. There are also other organizations, such as the provinces, which can also make other suggestions along these lines.
The constitutional court advocated by the hon. member may be a good idea, but it should be ascertained whether it is timely to broach this matter. In fact, officials of the Department of Justice have not yet seriously considered convening attorneys general to


discuss the matter. Of course, we think it will be necessary, at a given moment, to arrange a meeting of the federal and provincial authorities in order to study this problem, but this is not contemplated at the moment.
The suggestion of the hon. member for Sherbrooke may have its merits and I can assure him that it will not be disregarded.
At the moment, however, there is no question of convening the attorneys general.


Mr. Valade:: When will it be appropriate to convene them?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can answer this question just as well as I can.

[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)



HOUSING-TORONTO-COMMUNITY CENTRE FACILITIES FOR DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENTS

Mr, D. S. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I raised the question with the Minister responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as to what response the Corporation had made to a proposal for the construction of a housing development in downtown Toronto to be known as Trefann Court and more particularly whether any recommendation had been made to include a community centre as part of that development.
By way of setting the scene I would refer to a report in the Globe and Mail of February 10, 1965 in which it is stated:
City Council yesterday approved the final draft of a $9,144,000 urban renewal plan for Trefann Court, a rundown 24 acre industrial, residential and commercial area bounded by Queen, Parliament, River and Shuter streets.
This is in downtown Toronto. I would point out that Trefann Court is in immediate proximity to what is probably the heaviest concentration of public housing in any constituency in Canada-Regent Park North and South.
To illustrate the high population within a few city blocks I would refer to the following information made available to me by Central Neighbourhood House, a united appeal agency which has done yeoman service in this neighbourhood. In the North Regent development there is a population of 5,153 people of whom some 2,612 are children. There are 1,400 families. In South Regent there are 3,801 people of whom 2,419 are children divided among 732 families. In other words, there are more than 5,000 children in these developments within a few blocks.
February 15, 1966	COMMONS
I am sure the housing authorities, city, provincial and federal would all agree that if they had an opportunity to begin again they would not have planned the Regent Park development in its present form but would have dispersed a larger number of smaller public housing developments throughout the residential downtown districts. But they cannot have second thoughts in this regard. A heavy investment has been made. Therefore the question remaining is how to provide the best possible environment for these residents.
At the time Regent Park North and South were constructed only limited facilities were provided for recreation. This was in accord with the statutes existing at the time which provided only limited authority to C.M.H.C., although in both cases C.M.H.C. had contributed to the cost. As the house knows, by the 1964 amendments substantial increases were made in the sums available for public housing, particularly toward capital cost. My proposal this evening is that the same amounts should be made available to provide better recreational facilities and more particularly a community centre to serve not only the projected Trefann Court development but the Regent Park South and North developments as well.
In parenthesis I might add that my hon. friend from Spadina (Mr. Ryan) has also been active in proposing this kind of development through the medium of St. Christopher House in Alexandra Park. I do not minimize the city's financial difficulties when it comes to providing this accommodation. Toronto has a tightly stretched budget and its income cannot be extended on the present limited tax base. It is for this reason that the senior levels of government have come forward to provide assistance in respect of public housing and, in the case of the recent amendments to the statutes, to provide the lion's share of assistance through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I am asking that this assistance be extended to a community centre in the new area of Trefann Court, assistance which will also be of benefit to Regent Park.
The minister in his efforts to promote public housing has earned the consideration mentioned in two lines from a poem by John Masefield-
And he who gives a child a home
Builds palaces in Kingdom come.
DEBATES	1295
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The minister and C.M.H.C. have sought to do that. I would urge them to try to earn the reward mentioned in the preceding couplet.
And he who gives a child a treat
Makes joy-bells ring in Heaven's street.
The treat in this case is to provide for those who have not had good luck, the opportunity for good recreation in a community centre, to provide for those at a disadvantage the advantage of better neighbourhood facilities. I hope this particular appeal can find some response from the corporation.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the question that was asked yesterday was:
Has C.M.H.C. recommended to the city of Toronto that the plan for the Trefann Court housing development in downtown Toronto include community center facilities for the Regent Park and Trefann Court developments?
I might say that yesterday C.M.H.C. received their first communication on this subject. It was a letter from the city of Toronto enclosing what they referred to as a report, report No. 13, from the board of control, relating to the Trefann Court development. The purpose of this letter was to advise the corporation that it was the intention of the city of Toronto to apply to the federal and provincial governments for financial assistance in the implementing of an urban renewal scheme in downtown Toronto, that is, in the Trefann Court development area.
I might say that, subject to the approval of the province of Ontario, because the initiative here rests with the municipality and the province concerned, C.M.H.C. is prepared to consider and make recommendations to me, as the minister concerned, respecting the extent of financial contribution under the act to worth-while projects. According to my information this particular project involves, not the amount mentioned by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), but a sum slightly in excess of $5 million. But that is not the point. Nowhere in the communication received from the city of Toronto is there any reference to a community centre.
I might say that this is probably accounted for by the fact, as mentioned by the hon. member, that until the 1964 amendments to the act it was not possible to provide recreational facilities of the kind suggested by the hon. member. That probably accounts for the omission in this proposal put forward by the city.
February 15, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I think I have already announced to several members belonging to different parties in the house that the government is now seriously considering a number of recommendations that have come in from different parts of Canada as a result of the 11 or 12 urban renewal and housing symposia which we held across the country last year and the year before. We have received some very constructive and worth-while suggestions, among them one as to what more might be done to improve certain areas that could hardly be described as urban development areas, and also that work might be done on existing houses in older sections of our cities.
The government has reached no conclusions on these recommendations. I have agreed to meet with some members of the house and officials of the Corporation to discuss suggestions of this kind. I would be very glad to do so with other groups interested, but before these proposals can become law they must first be discussed with all of the different provinces. I must also say that I am personally sympathetic to the suggestion that public housing that was built 10 or 15 years ago, when there was no possibility for providing recreational facilities, should be considered in this respect since these facilities can be provided today for new public housing projects. I cannot say what the government's action will be but I can assure the hon. member, and any other members interested, that if proposals of that kind are put forward in the way they were put forward by the hon. member tonight, they will receive serious consideration.



PUBLIC SERVICE-PRINTING BUREAU EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN PRIVATE PRINTING

[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, initially I must say that I apologize to the minister for keeping him here this evening, because of the personal situation of which I am well aware. However, I did ask this question today on orders of the day. It is regrettable that an answer was not allowed because I am sure the minister had one. I believe the implications that are evident and to which I referred, appearing in the Canadian Press dispatch, would warrant a reply by the minister. The question I asked today was: Does the minister condone permanent employees of the Queen's Printer to be directors of or directly interested in a private printing syndicate outside the function of the

Queen's Printer? This evening I intend to elaborate a little in that regard in presenting this question again to the minister.
In addition to the objectives of the company, as referred to in the minister's answer to a question on the order paper, what other fields of lending is this company interested or involved in? I would appreciate an answer to these questions at this time.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best thing I can do is outline as briefly as possible the facts of the situation. I think when the facts are outlined the hon. member will accept that any suggestion or imputation that people have behaved wrongly, or that there is any criticism to be offered of the public service is quite unwarranted.
In brief, in the month of April, 1961, a small investment club was formed in Hull with a membership of 21, of whom 12 were employees of the Canadian Government Printing Bureau in Hull. The club receives periodic subscriptions from its members and makes investments as a club, as outlined in the answer to Question No. 329, at page 1142 of Hansard. Among other investments made was an investment in a commercial firm operating under the name of Imprimerie Gasparo Ltee.
As a consequence of this investment three of the directors of this firm are also employees of the Canadian Government Printing Bureau. These three are Mr. Marquis, foreman compositor linotype, Mr. Hould, a hand compositor in the bureau and Mr. Cousineau, a hand compositor.
The Canadian Government Printing Bureau has no interest in, or does it award any commercial contracts for government printing. It has no power to grant contracts. The firm of Gasparo Ltee. in mid-1964 made an application to the Department of Defence Production for qualification as a competitive tenderer for government printing. Following the usual procedure this qualification was accorded or approved. Following this qualification invitations to tender were sent to this firm Gasparo Ltee., among others. Of all competitive tenders in 1965 the Gasparo Ltee. firm was awarded four contracts amounting in total to $338.27. In addition one contract in the amount of $12.21 was negotiated, as provided for in the regulations of the Department of Defence Production. This firm does an annual business of some $21,000.
I suggest this relationship between the competitive government contracts in the
February 15, 1966	COMMONS
amount of $338, the negotiated contract in the amount of $12 and the annual volume of $21,000 would tend to indicate that it is unlikely that these three directors, who are also employees of the Canadian Government Printing Bureau, are really using their energies on a full time basis in the prosecution of the work of this firm.
It would also indicate, I suggest, that this firm bids on government business rather for reasons of prestige than profit and the results would tend to indicate that this is so.
I may point out to the hon. member that there are regulations governing the activities of civil servants. These regulations are promulgated in the "Treasury Manual of Financial Authorities and Procedures" of 1951. Under the heading "Additional Employment Outside Public Service" are provided a number of prohibitions regarding the kinds of outside employment or occupation in which full-time civil servants may not engage.
DEBATES	1297
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
A perusal of this list would indicate that the three employees concerned have not transgressed these regulations. So I would suggest in the circumstances that any imputation that there has been wrongdoing on the part of either the Canadian Government Printing Bureau, which does not have in itself the power to award or influence the awarding: of contracts, or these three civil servants, one a linotype foreman and the other two hand-compositors in participating in an investment club, part of whose activities relate to an investment made in a commercial printing: firm and the giving of advice as directors of: this firm, does not, in any way that we have been able to discover, operate so as to make them unable to perform their functions within the Canadian Government Printing Bureau, nor to the detriment of the public service as a whole.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.39 p.m.
23033-83|

Wednesday, February 16, 1966