1966-02-17

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the house that three objections signed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and nine other members in one case, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) and nine other members in the second case and the hon. members for Halifax (Mr. McCleave and Mr. Forrestall) and eight other members in the third case, have been filed with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter 31, statutes of Canada, 1964-65 with respect to the reports of the electoral boundaries commissions for the provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba and Nova Scotia respectively.
[Translation1
If the house will agree, I suggest that we again follow the procedure already used during this session so that the text of the objections, together with the names of the members who signed them in each case, will be printed as appendices to Votes and Proceedings for this day. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SWEEPSTAKES


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-125, to provide for the establishment of a hospital sweepstakes board.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to establish, under federal jurisdiction, a national sweepstakes board to regulate, control and run sweepstakes in Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ACCESS TO LOBBIES BY MEMBERS OF PRESS GALLERY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether in his position as recognized leader of the House of Commons he would give his assurance that nothing will be done to set aside any part of the lobbies adjacent or contiguous to the House of Commons from which representatives of the press gallery would be barred. I am sure he will agree to that, because any action in this regard would be a contravention of the spirit of the bill of rights.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Prime Minister will want to reply to this question, but it does seem to me not the type of question or type of matter that comes within the jurisdiction of the right hon. gentleman in his capacity as Prime Minister. I may be wrong, but that is the opinion I wish to express at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Of whom may I ask that question? Should I ask the Secretary of State?


Some hon. Members:: The Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly action should be taken by parliament, and the Prime Minister must be the one who will take a stand on this matter which, in my opinion, is wrong in every particular.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this question does not come within the ambit or jurisdiction of any minister, as such.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the Minister of Finance whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a mutual investment fund of $128 million of the Commonwealth International Corporation is now in danger of passing into the control of the Canadian Channing Corporation, which is a wholly
1356	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry owned subsidiary of the Channing Financial Corporation of New York. May I ask the minister whether he intends to take any action to prevent the savings of some 50,000 Canadians from passing into the control of a United States financial institution?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have had some information about this matter. I am not familiar with all its details and I am not certain whether it would be possible, even if it were desirable, for the federal government to take action. However, I can assure my hon. friend that I mean to inquire into the situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if he will ascertain two things; first, if in the event of this transfer of control taking place this mutual fund will be subject to the economic guide lines policy of the United States government and second, in the event of that being the case, would he consider legislation which would prevent other mutual funds from passing beyond the control of Canadian investors?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the hon. member that the question appears to be hypothetical in the present circumstances.
[Trams lation]



ALLEDGED EFFECTS OF AMERICAN RESTRICTIONS ON VALUE OF CANADIAN DOLLAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
On February 9 last, the Bank of Montreal stated that the American policy with regard to capital had affected the Canadian dollar. On the same day, the Minister stated that the American restrictions had not yet had any effect in Canada.
Does he still maintain today, on February 17, that the American restrictions have not yet had any effect on the Canadian dollar in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This type of question is very embarrassing for the Chair. It is extremely difficult to determine whether this is the type of question which should be answered because it is so urgent that it requires a reply today. May I suggest to the hon. member that perhaps this question might be placed on the order paper.

DEBATES	February 17, 1966


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think that question can be put on the order paper. This is all I want to know. Does the minister still maintain that the American restrictions have no repercussions on the country at the present time?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member could get an answer to that question by putting it on the order paper.



FUNDS RAISED BY U.S. IN CANADA FOR EUROPEAN EXPANSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: I have a question to direct to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister been given details of the activities of United States industrialists who are raising money in Ontario to finance expansion in Europe, as stated yesterday by the leader of the opposition in Ontario?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have been keeping very closely in touch with this situation, not only through the channels through which the leader of the opposition in Ontario obtained his information but otherwise.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Has the minister come to any conclusion as to whether there is cause for worry, as expressed by-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is not urgent in the form in which it is submitted to the minister.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of his reply to the premier of Alberta, when he stated that he is unaware of any case where the new national parks policy will disturb or damage any business, may I ask the Prime Minister whether or not he has examined any of the numerous complaints and petitions from businessmen operating within the parks with reference to this very subject.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Yes, I have, but the minister who is responsible has given them an even more detailed examination.
February 17, 1966	COMMONS


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: May
I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the right hon. gentleman has disagreed completely with Hon. Ernest Manning, premier of Alberta, in reference to the federal government's infringement on the property rights of people living in the parks, will the Prime Minister now consider a judicial inquiry to look into realistic and legalistic complaints by the people conducting business for and on behalf of a million and a half tourists visiting Banff national park?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have already given a commitment, which I am glad to confirm, that before any legislation in this matter is passed those who are concerned by it in any way will be given an opportunity to be heard.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not wish to press this point too far, but would the Prime Minister consider setting up a judicial inquiry or some other form of inquiry, as he promised when he was in Calgary during September?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I did not give such a promise. I promised, and I have confirmed the promise this afternoon, that all those affected by the legislation will be given an opportunity to be heard in an appropriate way. I will discuss with the minister concerned the specific suggestion which the hon. member has made.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: My
question is addressed to the Minister of Industry. Is the minister considering extending the free trade auto agreement to include replacement parts?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: The house will recall that under the terms of the agreement we have with the United States governing automotive products provision is made for a review in the year 1967. At that time the question of replacement parts will be looked into.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister any explanation to
DEBATES	1357
Inquiries of the Ministry offer for the glaring omission of the major Saskatchewan cities of Saskatoon and Regina from the list of Air Canada DC-9 service routes as outlined in yesterday's Hansard?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: No, sir.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was about to consider the advisability of ruling the question out of order. However, the hon. member did receive a reply. I suggest we should now go on to another question.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
About the brief submitted to the federal cabinet by the C.N.T.U. with regard to the tradesmen of the C.B.C., can the minister tell us if he will find a solution to that problem and if the C.N.T.U. will be recognized as the bargaining agent for those C.B.C. employees?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the question of certification is governed by the Industrial Relations Act which comes under the jurisdiction of the Labour Relations board; moreover, both come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour and not the Department of Manpower.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, because I realize that the minister is shunning this question and doing so quite skilfully. I would like to put the same question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson). I had put it to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration because he is the one who gave an answer to a question in this connection yesterday. But today, I want to put it to the Minister of Labour.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have an opportunity to reply to this inquiry. As the hon. member knows, yesterday a very strong representative delegation from the C.N.T.U met with the Prime Minister and other members of the government. They presented a
1358	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry very lengthy brief, and in the course of its presentation they produced a supplementary memorandum which was also quite lengthy.
I met with them following the meeting with the Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet. It was agreed it was in the interests of the unions concerned, the associated unions of the C.N.T.U., that I should be given time to discuss it with officials of my department, and later with my colleagues in the government. We are to meet again some time between now and March 1, after we have had the opportunity to study their carefully prepared memorandum.



DISCUSSIONS WITH U.S. AS TO EXPORT FROM BRINCO DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I preface it by pointing out that the Vermont state legislature yesterday gave preliminary approval to a $400 million bill to purchase from Canada power having as its prime source the proposed Brinco development at Churchill Falls, Labrador. I ask the minister, have there been any discussions between the United States government and the government of Canada with regard to the export of such power, and what is the present stage of this matter so far as the government of Canada is concerned?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take that question as notice.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys with relation to the great lakes anti-pollution measures. Yesterday the minister was reading a fairly long statement, which I hoped he would have completed on motions today; but since he has not, could he answer one question about which we have all been left breathless? Who is going to co-ordinate the Canadian efforts on anti-pollution measures?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I was led to believe my department would be doing that.

DEBATES	February 17, 1968


Gordon Harvey Aiken: We are still breathless.


Mr. Knowles:: Who led you?


Mr, Pepin:: The Prime Minister.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the cabinet committee on water resources yet met to consider the pollution problem?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This matter is under consideration by the government, Mr. Speaker.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Solicitor General on the understanding that the operation of penitentiaries comes under his department. I ask him whether he has any statement to make about reports that (1) officials at Collins Bay penitentiary knew of an impending break and (2), at least one of the guards' rifles was so mucked up with grease it would not fire.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would suggest the hon. member place this question on the order paper.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that several thousand farmers in northern Alberta have now qualified for further assistance over and above P.F.A.A., according to guidelines laid down by the provincial government, would the minister not try to use his eloquence to soften the hard hearts of his colleagues to assure that some money in the form of assistance will be paid through the provincial government to these people?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any word from the provincial government in this regard, but if I do have word I trust it will not be under the very nasty appellation of "guide lines".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
February 17, 1966



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonlon-Slralh-cona):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the house whether communication with the provinces has begun, with the object in view of increasing the old age security payments?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I realize that the matter may be urgent, but it seems to me this is the type of question that might be asked every day. I suggest that it be placed on the order paper.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, 1 suggest it would not be asked every day if the Prime Minister could dispose of it very quickly.



HOCKEY-GOOD WISHES TO NATIONAL TEAM IN WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to thte right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Canadian national hockey team, based in Winnipeg, departs this week end to play for the nation's honour in the world hockey championships in Yugoslavia, would the Prime Minister be inclined to wish the team success on behalf of the Canadian people?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there are no other terms of reference than those contained in the correspondence I tabled.


Mr. Nielsen:: May I ask as a supplementary question whether the minister will consider making a statement, during our consideration of his estimates, outlining the instructions he gave the superintendent with respect to this committee?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made his suggestion.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice concerning the study of future legislation in respect of bankruptcy. Would the Prime Minister consider referring that study to the standing committee on justice?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there are two studies now being undertaken, one by the committee I mentioned the other day having to do with revision of the whole Bankruptcy Act, and the other with respect to amendments to the Bankruptcy Act which we hope to bring before parliament shortly. It is presumed that there will be opportunity to discuss these amendments in committee or in the house.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be very glad to do that, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian national team has had success in the past. The team has been training hard for the world championships and we wish it the best of luck. It has always conducted itself well on and off the ice.



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In addition to the two rather unrevealing letters that were tabled yesterday with respect to the committee on bankruptcy, will the minister table his instructions respecting the terms of reference to the superintendent of bankruptcy so they can be studied before his estimates come up for consideration?
On the orders of the day:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to give an answer to the question I put to him last Friday. I asked him then whether he could indicate to the house the date by which legislation on medicare would have to be enacted so that payments under it could start on July 1, 1967.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether I allowed the question, although I believe I did. If the minister who would normally reply to this question wishes to do so he may, in view of the fact that the question was asked previously. I have some doubt as to whether the hon. gentleman is asking a question at this time, or is asking for a legal opinion or an interpretation of the statutes. I believe his question is out of order, but it was allowed before and I now invite the minister responsible to make a reply at this time if he so desires.

February 17, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that my question was put to the Prime Minister last Friday. It was allowed at that time and, as a matter of fact, a supplementary question was also asked and answered. The Prime Minister said he would discuss the matter with his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. That is the reason I hope he now has a reply.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question posed to one of the ministers is related to something that might happen in 1967, and for that reason I think it is out of order. In view of the fact that when the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona asked a question about a much more urgent situation it was ruled out of order, I do not see how this question could be in order.


Mr. Speaker:: The matter of urgency is very relative in regard to questions at this time. I feel that the question should not have been allowed before because it does seem to ask for an interpretation or opinion by the responsible minister. However, I am placed in a rather difficult position inasmuch as I allowed the question last week in a moment of weakness.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe Your Honour had a moment of weakness. My question was based on a statement that had just been made-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest that this whole matter might be resolved if the hon. member placed the question on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that Your Honour has already invited the appropriate minister to answer the question. My question was based on a statement of the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre very well knows, this is the kind of matter that can easily be discussed during the adjournment debate. I ask the hon. gentleman whether he wants to avail himself of that opportunity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you for your suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I shall comply with it.



WAR ON POVERTY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a

question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the finding just published that many children of immigrants with low incomes are not able to benefit from Canadian schools because of language difficulties, will the government consider this problem as part of its war on poverty?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a very important matter which might be placed on the order paper.



MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that we are rapidly approaching-I do not know whether the Minister of Finance is listening; I am over here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the fact that we are rapidly approaching the expiry date of the municipal development loan fund, I wonder whether the minister can tell us how much of the $400 million originally appropriated for this fund will not be spent by this date.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this is not a proper question.
[Translation1
INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION OF PERIOD On the orders of the day:


Mr. Auguste Choquelie (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
I should like to ask him if he is now in a position to make a statement concerning the possible extension of time to enable municipalities to take advantage of the refund provided for under the municipal loans legislation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the question has already been asked and answered.



EXPO '67 AWARDING OF DISPLAY CONTRACTS TO U.S. FIRMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I have found that it is not under my jurisdiction.']
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that I should like
February 17, 1966

to direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. A few days ago Your Honour was good enough to let me ask the minister a question which had to do with allegations that large Expo contracts were being given to firms in the United States due to the difficulty of Canadian firms tendering. At that time the minister was kind enough to say that he would look into the matter and make a reply later. I wonder whether he is able to do that today.


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, at that time I said I could scarcely believe the allegations having regard to the method of awarding the contracts. They are awarded according to the advice and procedures of the Department of Defence Production to Canadian suppliers wherever possible. I have found no reason in the meantime to believe anything to the contrary.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Has the minister received the advice he had requested from the Department of Justice concerning Mr. Echlin's letter requesting permission to send volunteers to Viet Nam? Has he received an answer from the Department of Justice since that time?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received an answer. I was informed this morning that I may expect an answer perhaps Monday or Tuesday morning.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, two days ago the hon. member for Qu'Appelle asked me when we could expect the interim report on the study of a national transmission grid. A draft final report is expected from the consultants in March, 1966. May I add that a first report was actually delivered on January 15, 1964, to the working committee. Because the report contained utility data considered 23033-87J
Supply-Transport
confidential, this report has not been released. The report now expected might not be tabled for the same reason.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister yet been able to familiarize himself with the aspect of this matter that I asked him about?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I have found that it is not under my jurisdiction.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr
Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the fact that no provision was made for that in the estimates, could he tell the house whether he is seriously considering the necessity of increasing family allowances and will he inform us of his decision in his next budget?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Marine Services-
5. Administration, operation and maintenance including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates, pensions grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen as defined in section 306 of the Canada Shipping Act and, in respect of the Canadian coast guard service, authority to make recoverable advances for transportation, stevedoring and other shipping services performed on behalf of individuals, outside agencies and other governments and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current fiscal year not to exceed a total amount of $24,689,500,	$41,512,600.


The Chairman:: House again in committee of supply on the estimates of the Department of Transport, vote No. 5. Shall vote No. 5 carry?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I should like at the outset to apologize to the minister for something I said the other day when I spoke initially about the question of shipping and safety factors involved in shipping. I levelled the accusation that there had been a conspiracy of inaction and a conspiracy to do nothing. I want to withdraw that comment and to express my thanks to the Montreal

February 17, 1966
Supply-Transport
Star for having brought to my attention that I was in error.
Perhaps I could indicate what the Montreal Star had to say in an editorial on Tuesday, February 15:
The government has been accused of being a party to a "conspiracy of inaction" on matters relating to the safety of navigation in the St. Lawrence system. That, we suggest, is not quite right. A conspiracy is hardly possible without study, thought and planning. And the government can hardly be accused of any of these things -and more's the pity.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I should like to withdraw the reference to a conspiracy of inaction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would mind sending me over that editorial.


Frank Howard: In anticipation I had two photo copies made, so I will send the minister one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You might as well put it on Hansard and let us all see it.


Frank Howard: Indeed, I think it is more a question of a pretty deliberate and intense indifference that is involved. I should like to make some comments about the answer the minister gave in the house on February 11 in a short reply to my initial remarks. Before I do that I should like to thank the minister for having sent me over, along with a covering letter signed in his own hand, an application for employment in the government service of Canada. I looked quite carefully at this application for employment, because the minister and I had jocularly made some comments about what value I might be to him.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I was stumped by the first question, which is "Position applied for". I quickly came to the conclusion that the only position vacant appeared to be that of the minister, and I must say I am not applying for it. I am not going to bother filling out the application.
I should like to make one or two references to Hansard for February 11, page 1118, where the minister is reported as saying:
He left the impression, I think, that because there were no regulations made under section 407 of the Canada Shipping Act, nothing had been done by the government or my department to insure the safety of the crews of ships. I
I am glad the minister admitted that no regulations had been made under or pursuant to section 407 of the Canada Shipping Act, because that is the section which refers to ships being manned by crews sufficient and

efficient from the point of view of safety of life. For the minister to have admitted that no regulations existed under that section is gratifying, at least for the admission itself.
The minister went on to point out, as he was quite able to do, that section 464 of the same act calls for a customs officer to detain a ship on the complaint of any person if he has reason to believe it is unsafe by reason of undermanning. The section provides that a steamship inspector rule on the question of no regulations existed under that section is cleared.
This is a correct interpretation of what section 464 says. What the minister failed to tell the house is that section 464 and the following section which also deals with the activities of customs officers and inspectors, as well as section 410 of the Canada Shipping Act had their origin in the merchant shipping act of Great Britain. All these sections were based on the United Kingdom practice, and when the Canada Shipping Act was initially passed we merely extracted these provisions from the British shipping act and put them into our law here. Under the British shipping act, and in every other shipping nation in the world, there are regulations which spell out the level of manning, but under section 410 of the Canada Shipping Act there is not a solitary word or regulation by the Governor in Council or even a letter from the minister that indicates what is the correct level of manning for ships.
Then the minister has the unmitigated gall to stand up in parliament and say that any sailor can complain to a customs officer if a ship is undermanned. He can do this under section 464. Of course he can. However, there is nothing in writing in any regulation or in statute form anywhere to indicate what is an undermanned ship, what is the correct level of manning. In addition to that, under section 466 of the Canada Shipping Act, if an individual does complain about the seaworthiness or the manning level of any particular ship, then the customs officer-let me read the section to you:
-he may exact from the complainant a deposit of money to defray the expanses of inspection and to pay any loss which may be sustained by the owner on account of the detention of the ship, or he may exact such security for the payment of such expenses or loss as he deems sufficient.
This provision is to guard against trivial or vexatious complaints, and those words are contained in the section. I ask the minister, how in heaven's name are you going to find the average sailor with anywhere upwards of $1,000 in his pocket to put up as security to a
February 17, 1966

customs officer if he lodges a complaint that the ship is undermanned? It is just arrant nonsense on the part of the minister, and he knows it-and he knew it when he made the statement-to make this suggestion. He made the statement, too, in the face of 40 people having been killed in shipping accidents last year and millions upon millions of dollars of damage.
Then the minister said there was a specific provision in section 164 requiring qualified mates and masters, and that these are constantly checked. In the first place the minister cited the wrong section, but that is understandable. In the second place, what is the value of placing reliance for safety measures entirely on the shoulders of masters and mates of ships when there is no requirement for efficiency levels or proficiency levels of the crew? Can the minister tell me what are the requirements for a wheelsman on the great lakes, the St. Lawrence seaway or the St. Lawrence river? Can he tell me what are the requirements for a boatswain or ordinary seaman so far as safety measures are concerned?
The minister shakes his head. He cannot because there are not any. Not more than 3 per cent of the Canadian sailors sailing on Canadian ships are certificated, and I am referring to the ordinary crews. Apart from the fact that the minister got the wrong section in his reference, he also drew the wrong conclusion, as if to leave the impression that there were some safety standard being imposed by himself or by his government.
Perhaps the minister unconsciously knew what he was talking about when he mentioned section 164, because it is an appropriate section to mention in passing. This is the section that allows shipowners to employ children on boats with wages in the range of $50 per month. Section 164 is the one that deals with the apprenticeship of any boy to sea service, and that it shall be by indenture between the apprentice and the master or owner of the ship requiring the apprentice. This provision relates to the old scheme which allowed shipowners to employ people at extremely low wages. Perhaps the minister unconsciously knew about it and was really trying to apologize for it when he referred to section 164.
Let us get back to the main point with which we should be dealing. My hon. friend from Timiskaming wants to know why the
Supply-Transport
minister has not got his advisers in front of him so they can advise him. He does not need them. He would not listen to them anyway. He has not so far, and I do not see the necessity for them. The other night the minister made a fantastic speech for about 25 minutes or so on the subject of a national transportation policy, and he wound up by saying that we did not have one.
In that fantastic speech he indicated that there was going to be a sort of vivisection take place within his department at the ministerial level. He was going to have a minister who would do the thinking, and that obviously excludes the current one. He was going to have a minister who would do the doing, and that excludes him. The only other portion of the sort of troika ministerialship over the Department of Transport for the present minister is the minister who does the talking.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
All we have had so far is talk. We have been given no reasons for this state of affairs or any indication of serious concern about the welfare and the lives of the people who sail the ships of this nation. We want specific answers. The people of Canada and the people who sail these ships also want specific answers. They want to know about the traffic control system.
Last November the promise was made that the question of a traffic control system would be studied. The minister told us that on the seaway we have the most advanced and finest traffic control system in the world. Incidentally, there is not the same need for a traffic control system at the locks because a ship cannot very well fall over there anyway. The minister said he had this fantastically efficient traffic control system on one part of the seaway, but while it was promised last November that a control system would be put into effect in the lower part of the seaway comprising the St. Lawrence River and gulf region not a word has been said about that.
Another question the sailors would like answered and which should be answered in this house is: What about the requirement for radiotelephone communication between ships to enable one ship to communicate with another and give an indication of the position of the one with respect to the other, what the weather is and what the situation is regarding visibility? In this regard the sailors were told last November by the minister's deputy that

February 17, 1966
Supply-Transport
the department was already drafting regulations with respect to the use of radiotelephones for this purpose. What about that matter?
There is also the question of a two way channel. The minister is arranging to build a second channel at the Welland locks, presumably one for upstream and one for downstream traffic. What about the lower part of the St. Lawrence seaway? This was another of the items upon which there was agreement between the Seafarers International Union, the underwriters and the ship owners. They agreed on the necessity of providing a two way channel. There was also agreement on the question of radio telephone communication and the necessity for a traffic control system.
We must be told clearly and concisely what is happening in the department with regard to these matters and what the minister is doing about them. There is also the overriding and important question of drafting and promulgating regulations under section 410 (1) (n) concerning the level of manning of ships so that people can see what is the legal minimum requirement for numbers and classifications of crew personnel on ships.
All of these measures, are designed for one purpose, to save the lives of people who man the ships that sail in and out of the ports of Montreal, Quebec and those on the Great Lakes. Maybe my words are harsh. Perhaps the minister has felt a little uncomfortable. Perhaps I have said things in an angry tone of voice. But just think, Mr. Minister, of the feelings of the widows of men who have lost their lives on that blessed seaway partly because of your failure to act, partly because we have a Canada Shipping Act that is older almost than these halls of parliament and contains provisions that are out of date. We have provisions that give the Governor General in Council authority to do things and they have not done them. Answers are required, action is required, but we need action more than answers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I cannot take very much more action at the moment than to give the committee the statement which I indicated I had with me the other day but which I had no time to give. In view of what the hon. gentleman has said this afternoon I think I have no choice now but to give the statement, though it is somewhat lengthy.

Before I do so may I say I am grateful to the hon. gentleman for giving me this editorial from the Montreal Star, because I inadvertently left my copy in my office. I want to point out that the editorial is completely and totally inaccurate in one of its statements when it says that I blandly-I do not know that I have ever done anything blandly but I am not making a point of that-assured parliament that traffic control on most parts of the seaway is as complete as it is anywhere in the world.


Frank Howard: That is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for
Skeena did not make a distinction in his speech the other day, though I tried to get him to do so, between the seaway and the St. Lawrence ship channel, which are two entirely different things. One is above Montreal and the other is below Montreal. I never said at any time that I was satisfied with the control on the St. Lawrence ship channel.


Frank Howard: I never said you did.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, you did.


Frank Howard: I did not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, we will not argue about it like two small children.


Frank Howard: Just arguing like one small child is enough.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not satisfied and neither is anyone in my department with the conditions on the St. Lawrence ship channel, and I have never said I was. But if the hon. gentleman looks back to his speech he will see that he kept referring to the seaway, not to the ship channel. There were almost no accidents on the seaway last year because on the seaway there is a good and efficient control system. There were a regrettably large number of accidents in the ship channel and even in one or two cases in the port of Montreal itself, and a lot remains to be done before we can be satisfied with the provisions for safety.
As the hon. member pointed out, the government has received representations from a number of sources. He also referred to the meeting held in Montreal. Long before that meeting was held and ever since the department has been giving attention to every aspect of marine safety, and with the unfortunate sequence of serious collisions in the St. Lawrence River last year particluar attention has been paid to this area.
February 17. 196$

Various suggestions have been made for improvements in the law and in our procedures and facilities. All of these have received and will continue to receive not merely attention but wherever it is possible to take immediate action which seems to be justified that action will be taken.
I should like first of all to say a word about the separate ship channel system which is advocated by many of the users. One proposal that is frequently made is that in the interests of safety there should be duplicate channels in the St. Lawrence, one for up-bound and another for downbound traffic.
The problem in this connection is, first, to determine by hydraulic studies whether the project is capable of achievement without materially disturbing the level of the river and, second, its cost. Both of these processes have been going on. A scale model of the whole river channel is being built so that we can make sure that these very costly works, if they are undertaken, will accomplish what we want and not make the situation worse instead of better.
Studies in this field are being pursued, and so far as we can judge the cost would probably be as much as $225 million. Until we are quite sure of the effects on the water levels and on the strength and direction of the currents, this huge program cannot be embarked upon without the risk that the situation will be made worse rather than better.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
In 1967 the channel will be a minimum of 800 feet in width throughout its length except for a 20 mile stretch in Lake St. Peter where flow studies are being made prior to widening. By re-enforcing the requirement for up-bound and downbound ships each to keep to their own side we have a practical achievement of dual tracks in the existing system. However, it is apparent that additional and up to the minute information is required by the ships using the channel in order that collision with other ships may be avoided. I may say, answering the question raised by the hon. gentleman, that during the past 12 months the department has given intensive study to the traffic information and control system whereby a network of experimental shore-based v.h.f.-I believe that means very high frequency-radio stations has been established along the river from Montreal to Quebec. If our feasibility studies prove successful permanent equipment will be installed
Supply-Transport
and the system will be expanded to the limit of pilotage waters at Les Escoumins.
In the meantime ships which already are fitted with v.h.f. sets will be able to communicate with these existing stations during the next navigation season. Procedures are being developed to enable the latest information on traffic movements and weather conditions to be given to the ships in the system. Commencing with this traffic information service, the department expects to widen the scope of traffic surveillance and eventually to institute traffic control on a planned basis from Montreal to the open sea.
The next question has to do with the matter of radios on ships.
We have tried before and are renewing our efforts to encourage bridge to bridge communication between the large ships using the St. Lawrence system. Here we would take advantage of the fact that most of the foreign ships and all of our own lake ships using the river are fitted with v.h.f. radiotelephone sets. Until such time as the remaining ships are fitted the department has the ability to provide portable sets suitable for bridge to bridge communication, but not giving a full capability in ship to shore transmission in all parts of the river. We are working toward the introduction of a system of compulsory transmission of security calls at specified points as an additional aid to collision avoidance in the St. Lawrence.
The next question has to do with speed limits. Proposals which have been made to effect a general reduction of speed for vessels in these waters have been given careful consideration but, similar to other proposals for mandatory speed restriction to a fixed figure in conditions of limited visibility, the department feels that the extreme variety of ships and local conditions preclude formulation of such rigid rules, which, incidentally if they did exist, would be quite hard to enforce effectively. In a river such as the St. Lawrence the speed of each vessel is best governed individually through the advice of the local Canadian pilot to the ship's master. Although the relative speed of vessels in collision is a major factor in the seriousness of the resulting damage, a general reduction of speed for all ships in specified waters does not reduce the number of collision encounters requiring evasive action. The best aid to proper evasive action is preparedness for the encounter, which the department intends to provide by its traffic information service and

February 17, 1966
Supply-Transport
by promoting direct bridge to bridge communication between ships.
The next question has to do with manning and the scale of manning. It has been submitted, and the department has been seriously concerned with this aspect, that recent casualities have been caused by the lack of sufficient people aboard the ships. By regular inspections the officers of the department continue to enforce the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act requiring that every ship be sufficiently and efficiently manned. On the basis of studies made by the department the manning of ships is not held to be a contributing factor in the shipping casualties which have occurred in the St. Lawrence. Studies are continuing into the most effective employment of the men aboard ships and whether more formal requirements for watchkeeping duties should be laid down.
Because of the vast changes which are now being wrought in the shipping industry through the introduction of new and sophisticated methods of ship control, it would be inappropriate for the department to confirm manning standards which are based upon obsolescent concepts. What must now be done is to ensure that our studies keep pace with predictable trends in automation so that changes in manning can be anticipated and suitable provisions made.
The next question has to do with helmsmen. In respect of proposals which have been made to put Canadian helmsmen aboard foreign ships in pilotage waters, the department is satisfied that there have been no accidents attributable to a failure of communication between the pilot, the ship's officers and foreign crewmen at the ship's helm. It is preferable in narrow waters and here I am simply passing on the advice that has been given to me, to have a seaman who is thoroughly familiar with the handling characteristics of the ship rather than a local man put aboard a strange ship. Experience in steering is gained by the crew of a ship over a period of time in the open waters of the oceans before arrival in Canada and we cannot expect that a local man would require any less experience on each particular ship.
As to training, the training of Canadian seafarers is a matter about which the department has long been concerned, in the past by sponsoring nautical schools which the provincial governments now operate under the federal-provincial vocational training schemes.

Examination and certification of ships' officers and crewmen is conducted by the department and, based on the examination syllabi, guidance is given to the nautical schools in the matter of training programs.
We are waiting and still await, most impatiently I might say, because I have made some inquiries about this recently, the report of the Royal Commission on Pilotage, which was appointed by the previous government and which, I take it, must be doing a very thorough job, before turning attention to the problems inherent in the training and examination of pilots. In the wake of the vast changes in navigation techniques and current improvements in ship equipment, attendance at courses such as that for radar observer has been encouraged. This sort of training is especially necessary for those men who gained their qualifications before the general introduction of radar as a navigation and collision avoidance aid.
The department has under consideration a compulsory certification in radar observing for masters, mates and pilots, with periodic re-examination. But this, with the attendant increase in training facilities and administration, will be only a part of a long term project to keep certification standards for seafarers abreast of the times. For seamen there already exists the qualification as an A.B., able-bodied seaman, which some saltwater seamen have obtained. Work is progressing on a revision of the syllabus for this certificate so that men on our inland waters ships will be encouraged to improve their standing.
Qualification in marine emergency duties is another subject which the department has been anxious to see included in the syllabus of the nautical schools. This qualification would be open to all members of the crew. Extension of the training syllabus for life-boatmen is another matter now under review and a revision of this certificate of qualification may be made in company with the other innovations under study. These are the department's proposals which will certainly be brought forward by the minister as soon as it has been determined that the proposals made are sound.
We propose to put forward amendments to the Canada Shipping Act with a view to extending to foreign ships in Canadian waters the requirement for reporting wreck, collision and accident. At the present time this requirement includes only Canadian and
February 17, 1966

other Commonwealth ships. The department is rapidly training a number of officers, competent in the nautical field, to investigate marine casualties and accidents aboard ship in order to provide a much wider exercise of the powers conferred by the act in respect of the enforcement of safety regulations. Legal officers of the department will be assisted by specialized teams so that where warranted the department can move swiftly to learn the immediate causes of accidents and take corrective measures.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I think it will be seen from the outline I have given that the most serious attention has been paid to this problem. Its gravity is certainly underlined by the record of accidents and the loss of life in these accidents, which I regret as much as the hon. member does, during the last navigation season. It should not be forgotten in this context that the volume of shipping is rising at a rapid rate. The situation in this respect is not very different from the situation on the highways. When the volume of shipping in narrow waters increases the prospect of accidents does not only increase arithmetically but more than arithmetically; opportunities for collision are more than arithmetically greater, as hon. members know.
One of the great problems in enforcing traffic control on these waters is that it is not as easy to have speed cops as it is on the roads. Nearly all effective controls have to be directed from the shore. It is also true that the weather has been a contributing factor in the case of most of these accidents. Here again we are constantly seeking to improve the meteorological service and to make the benefits of forecasting available to shipping on a better basis than has been possible in the past. A great deal of progress has been made in this field. Nevertheless, as the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and I well know, the fog often comes down when the weatherman has not predicted it.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: I do not
know what the minister is talking about when he talks of fog.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can understand that,
coming from the hon. gentleman.
The one controversial question is whether the law or the regulations made under the law should lay down conditions for the overall manning of ships or whether the conditions laid down in this field should be selective. It has been the view of the department
Supply-Transport
up to now that selective regulations devoted exclusively to the safety of the ship are better than over-all regulations governing every man who is to be on the ship. I have been informed-I may be wrong about this-that in the United Kingdom there is not in fact detailed legal regulation of the manning of ships and that apart from those regulations which are required for the safety of ships manning is generally and largely a matter of collective bargaining. But we are continuing to look at this matter. I am informed by those who have studied it carefully that the investigations into the accidents which have taken place so far have produced little or no evidence that undermanning as such has been the cause. In those cases where causes could be clearly ascertained the accidents were nearly always the result of other factors.
It is true that radar has developed rapidly and has become more sophisticated. Unfortunately there are many ships' officers and even pilots who received their certificates some time ago and may not have advanced their training as rapidly as would be desirable in order to make the best possible use of these modern devices. I can assure the hon. member that we are taking every possible action in this field as fast as we can be sure that what we do is going to improve the situation.


Frank Howard: I should like to make a passing comment, if I may. I am very happy that the department is considering all these things. Every statement which the minister made about every aspect of difficulty was to the effect that the matter was under study, was being examined, and that it had been under study for many years. Somewhere along the line it is necessary to get out of the study stage and do something.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to be unfair. I told him we had in operation an experimental system along the shore between Montreal and Quebec using radios. We made radios available to those ships which did not already have them. I said they were required on all Canadian ships and that we were doing our best to have them installed on foreign ships using the channel where this could be done without undue interference with commerce. This is one of the points the hon. member raised. I also told him we were doing a practical study on the matter of two channels, and I do not think he would suggest we should consider letting contracts for something which might make the situation worse instead of better.

February 17, 1966
Supply-Transport


Frank Howard: If the minister would not be so touchy and let me finish, perhaps we could deal with this question more rapidly. I say again I am happy that these matters are under study and consideration. What the minister told me was that the two items he mentioned were under study. He said that when he jumped up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They are in operation. The hon. gentleman is almost deliberately misrepresenting me.


Frank Howard: I can understand the sensitivity of the minister in this field where he is vulnerable. But perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you would have him contain himself for a moment. Let us consider what happens in the confined space of the St. Lawrence River or in the larger space of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Never mind the upper part which is probably correctly called the seaway. One ship travelling without radio communication facilities where there are other ships is like a car travelling without lights on a high speed highway at night. An experimental venture is not enough. If the minister is serious about the subject of radiotelephone communication between ships and a central traffic control system on shore, there must be compulsion and all ships must be required to use the radio communication system so that every ship may know where every other ship is. One ship without it is a liability.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is quite true.


Frank Howard: The minister says that is quite true. To my mind, what he is doing in these experiments is just another form of study, another way of examining this question. Why does he not take the steps which he knows must be taken and make this a mandatory requirement, if it is considered to be a worth-while safety measure, which it is in my opinion and that of everyone else who has gone into this question?
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The minister himself drew an analogy between travelling at sea and travelling on a highway. There is not any hesitation whatsoever by any provincial government or by any state of the union in the United States of America, if that is where proper jurisdiction lies, in saying that all cars travelling on highways at night must have their lights on, because they recognize it is a safety measure which is required in order to help preserve the lives of others. If the analogy is correct in

the one sense I submit it is correct in the other and that one blind ship travelling on the system is a hindrance to all other ships that may be travelling there.
A radio and television aid to navigation system is operated in New York harbour which involves u.h.f., the ultra-high frequency band. The area of water through which ships travel is scanned by groups of television cameras and information is transmitted to a particular type of receiver on the ships so that each ship can see at any precise moment what is happening around it in the area through which it is travelling.
Radar can be very misleading when it is relied on alone, because there is a blind spot in its coverage. This blind spot depends on the size of the ship and the height of the radar antenna. The blind spot covers a radius of many hundreds of feet for which area nothing is shown on the radarscope and in foggy weather or when visibility is low because of rain or mist this blind spot area is most crucial and dangerous. Knowing that a ship is proceeding some distance away is all right but not knowing what is within a 500, 600 or 700 foot radius is most disconcerting. Radar cannot show that but radio communication between ships can pinpoint other vessels in the area.


Mr. Groos:: I think you are getting out of your depth, Frank.


Frank Howard: I do not have the experience at sea which the hon. member had. All I did was to travel about on a small fish boat, but perhaps my hon. friend with his great experience may be able to enlighten the committee and bring his knowledge about these matters to bear on the minister, which could be worth while.


David Walter Groos: I am satisfied with the answers he has given.


Frank Howard: The hon. member may be satisfied with the answers the minister has given but I have been in this chamber long enough to know that the very kindly and genial Minister of Transport never says anything plainly. I have come to expect that I must always take what he says with a grain of salt because I find that he always leaves something to be desired. He sets out on a course, as he did a while ago, of using a superfluity of words to cover up a paucity of information, and I must congratulate him on the success he achieves. But what we are concerned about is not words, we are concerned about the lives of the people who sail
February 17, 1966

the ships. I take the minister's word that he is concerned about them but I wish he would do something instead of just talking about the matter and explaining the studies and examinations which are being conducted in his department.
What we need is some action. Speeches are cheap. They do not cost anything to make, especially when somebody else writes them for you. In passing may I say that this is the only time in my memory I have ever seen the minister read from a prepared text, and I assume it was prepared for him. Speeches which are written by others come cheaper than ones you write yourself.	*


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not so sure about that.


Frank Howard: Please, Mr. Minister, do something worth while and concrete. Get cracking with your department. Snap them out of their lethargy. You know the way the civil service operates. You were in it yourself. It consists of professional status quo seekers. So long as things are not upset and everything runs along on an even keel, the keel they want things to run on, they are satisfied. There are very few progressives within the civil service structure primarily because the structure of a department itself suppresses progressives. As a former civil servant the minister will know exactly what I am talking about, but he broke out of the confines of the civil service some years ago and is now in another sphere.
I wish the minister would take to heart what I have said. Whether I am inside my depth or outside it does not matter. What matters are the lives of the people who sail the ships, and it is the minister's responsibility under the Canada Shipping Act to do something about the problem. All we ask him to do is act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope the hon. member will permit me just one second to say I made a mistake, as he pointed out and ridiculed me for doing. The other day I was sent a note giving the section of the act. I thought the note read "164" but the section I was referring to and should have given is section 114. I think this is the kind of mistake even ministers can make and apologize for.


Frank Howard: I have only one comment to make. That is also what comes from reading speeches prepared by others.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was not a speech, it was a note.
Supply-Transport
ITranslationl


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to call the minister's attention to another matter and I shall try to do it with less pettiness than the previous speaker, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). After all, courtesy is always at home in the house.
Mr. Chairman, I should like the minister to make a statement regarding winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river. For several years, mention has been made of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence-I mean from Montreal to the Atlantic-and I feel it is time now that the Department of Transport take a stand on this matter.
Is it the intention to continue closing our eyes to this problem or does the Minister of Transport intend to make a decision some day on opening the St. Lawrence, one of the greatest waterways, to year-round navigation?
Has the Department of Transport a definite policy or will a decision be made soon? I am asking a short question and I hope the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) can answer today.
If the Department of Transport does not want to make a decision on this question, could the Quebec government use its own icebreakers to keep winter navigation open on the St. Lawrence?
I think this is a direct question and I should like a statement from the minister on this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, it is quite easy for me to make a declaration but when I have made it I do not think the hon. gentleman will agree with the policy. However, I feel quite sure that the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, who is listening to me with undivided attention, will agree with what I say.
Up to the present it has been the view of the government of Canada that icebreaking activities on the St. Lawrence River in wintertime should not extend to any attempt to keep navigation open between Quebec and Montreal. But there is a great deal of icebreaking activity, as the hon. member knows, that has to go on between Quebec and Montreal in order to prevent flooding, of which, in spite of our best efforts, we have had some regrettable examples this winter at the east end of the island of Montreal and along the shores of the St. Lawrence.
I am happy to say that situation is a great deal better than it was and we have been able to keep the ferry open between the north

February 17, 1966
Supply-Transport
and south shore at Sorel. We also have to deal with the whole problem of the flow' of the river itself. We regard that as a function which we must make the maximum effort to perform efficiently. I am not saying anything at all about whether it would be fair or unfair to the east coast ports, but the cost of icebreaking to keep Montreal as a virtually ice-free harbour, or at least a useable harbour for 12 months of the year, has up to know been considered to be too heavy a charge on the taxpayers in relation to the advantage that there would be from the commerce that would result from it.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I feel quite sure that, in time and as methods improve this situation will require review. However, I do not know what the results of such a future review might be. I do hope we will reach the time very quickly when the ports of Halifax and Saint John will be so busy because of the great development in that part of Canada that they will not be concerned in the least about the traffic that comes from what they call Upper Canada and will not care if Montreal harbour is open 24 months of the year. At the present time we must realize that if the taxpayers' money is used freely to keep the St. Lawrence open to Montreal and these taxes continue to be collected in the cities of Saint John and Halifax and perhaps in some other ports that are kept open by nature, the people would feel that they had a real grievance. This involves one of the many problems we have in attempting to preserve a fair balance between various parts of Canada.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask another very definite question. Can the minister tell us if an investigation was made, if studies were made to find out how much it would cost to keep the St. Lawrence channel open, by means of icebreakers, between Montreal and Quebec City? Can the minister tell us if studies were made to find out what the eventual volume of traffic would be on the St. Lawrence if navigation were maintained the year round? Can the minister give us the findings of that investigation with regard to the cost and the increase in traffic?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think there has been any really up to date study of this matter. There are a great many studies going on all the time and I will have to obtain advice in this regard before I can be sure of

giving a correct answer to that question. I will look into the situation right away and reply to the hon. gentleman.


Gilles Grégoire: What surprises me is that the minister should tell us that the cost would be prohibitive, when he does not even know how much it would be exactly. In my opinion, that is characteristic of the mentality that prevails in this regard. It is not the cost which seems to bother or displease him. I feel it is not a matter of comparing the work done in the eastern ports of Halifax and Saint John but of finding out why the channel on the St. Lawrence is not kept open the year round, since we are having difficulty with the shipping of wheat.
Three weeks ago, a Russian ship had to help a Canadian ship ice-bound on the St. Lawrence near Montreal. The Russians are doing the work of the Canadian icebreakers in the Montreal harbour. That does not make sense.
The Russians get through, and many other European ships built for navigation through ice are already at work. One or two extra icebreakers would be needed to keep the river open.
The minister said it would cost too much, but he does not know how much.
I wonder if the minister is not doing anything about it because he is afraid of offending some people. It is not a question of taking anything away from the Maritimes but of helping the port of Montreal and other ports between Quebec and Montreal, including the ports of Sorel and Three Rivers, by opening the St. Lawrence to winter navigation. Would the federal Department of Transport object to the provincial government using its own icebreakers? Has the minister anything to say about that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: So long as the government of the province of Quebec complied with the general laws of Canada in respect of navigation, which I am sure they would do if they had any ships, I know of nothing in the law which would prevent them from engaging in that kind of activity. I know of nothing in the law that would prevent any private company from doing so and, indeed, there are many private companies, as I am sure the hon. gentleman knows, which do own icebreakers or ships that are also icebreakers and are used in that way in their ordinary commerce. As a matter of fact, the department welcomes
February 17. 1966

that kind of activity because we have never been able to persuade the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board to put up enough money to provide us with all the icebreakers we would like to have.
I am sure the hon. member for Saint John-Albert would agree with me that if there is not a study already in existence we should make a study of the costs and the benefits which would accrue. After all, the Atlantic Development Board did initiate a study of the disabilities that would be suffered by Halifax and Saint John if winter navigation took place on the St. Lawrence, and the taxpayers' money was used for that study. I am sure the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, like myself and the hon. member for Lapointe, likes the truth and we would all be very glad to have such a study made so that we would know what the cost would be and have the best possible estimate of the benefits. I will ascertain whether we have good information in that regard in our possession. If we do not have that information I will see whether we can get something under way to obtain it.


Gilles Grégoire: Could the minister tell us when this inquiry will begin, this study of winter navigation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That information may already exist but if it does not we will undertake to make such a study just as soon as we can find someone competent and obtain the necessary funds.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, on the same subject-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in this study, as well as in the comments of my colleague from Lapointe, because now there is in fact winter navigation up to Trois-Rivieres. I repeat that there has been winter navigation in my region for several years and I have even had the opportunity to look into the matter in the last few years.
I also appeared in the city of Halifax on a televised forum with those in charge of the port of Halifax, at which time I tried to prove to them that winter navigation up to Trois-Rivieres does in no way harm the
Supp ly-Transport
Maritime ports but help to develop transportation by cargo-boat in all eastern Canada.
There are two points I want to make in connection with the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), who advocates winter navigation as far as Montreal. Since I have been looking into this matter myself for seven or eight years, I am led to believe that winter navigation as far as Montreal is not yet economically feasible. He mentioned earlier that a Russian icebreaker went to the help of a Canadian ship, but if he reads the press reports, he will find that the Russian icebreaker was ice-bound itself.
Therefore, it seems impossible, from a practical point of view, that this problem could be overcome within a few years, which would justify a further study.
I should like to remind the hon. minister that there are ferry services at Quebec and Trois-Rivieres that require the federal government icebreakers to keep the channel open the year round. No additional cost to the Department of Transport is involved in keeping the channel open since it must be done to maintain the service in operation.
Having said this, I claim that if navigation is open as far as Trois-Rivieres, the Mari-times will not be deprived in any way, and at the proper time, I shall make public the results of the enquiry I am making. With the industrial development shaping up in the Trois-Rivieres area due to the construction of Sidbec and related industries to follow, I say the Department of Transport should keep the channel freer still to allow navigation as far as Trois-Rivieres. This will not cost more to the Canadian taxpayer and it will be a factor in the development of commercial and industrial shipping from Maritime ports up to Trois-Rivieres. I repeat that I see no objection to opening the channel the year round as far as Montreal, but I feel this may be slightly premature, and I doubt that it can be done the year round.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Saint John-Albert.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister whether he has been able to resolve a problem in which we are both interested. When an icebreaker, which is paid for by the Canadian taxpayers goes to break ice in the St. Lawrence in order to avoid flooding, why is it that the greatest coincidence in the world suddenly occurs,

February 17, 1966
Supply-Transport
namely, that there is a merchant ship right behind waiting to get into the port of Montreal. While the minister is thinking about that question and his answer I would simply say that I have resisted the opportunity to get into a wide-open debate on icebreaking because my thoughts on this subject are well known and have been expressed over many years.
The hon. member for Lapointe has spoken many times in the house on Quebec matters. I suppose that we can tolerate this but he had better be careful when he moves into this field and suggests things that will work to the detriment of the Maritimes. If he does so he will really get into trouble. The hon. member for Lapointe suggests that it might be all right to spend a little more money on the port of Montreal. When you consider the situation in Halifax and Saint John you realize that Montreal is not doing too badly now judging by the size of the Expo bill.


Gilles Grégoire: In this connection, I want to say that the threats of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) do not scare me.
I am not pressing for winter navigation on the St. Lawrence to hurt the Maritimes or the port of Halifax. There is nothing wrong with the federal government spending as much as it sees fit to help the port of Halifax, but this should not prevent it from helping other ports.
The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) said earlier that he was in favour of winter navigation up to Trois-Rivieres, but not any farther.
Why, Mr. Chairman-I ask my friend the member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain)-why such parochial spirit, such regionalism, when Quebec as a whole is concerned in this matter, and winter navigation to Montreal will help the port of Trois-Rivieres as well as that of Quebec City?
I come from Quebec, Mr. Chairman, and I do not ask that winter navigation stop at Quebec City; no, I am asking that the river be kept open to Montreal and, later on, to the lakehead if possible. I would be delighted, because that is progress:	Improving the
means of communication and transportation, especially the most economical, that is, waterways.
I am not asking that it should stop at Quebec City or at Trois-Rivieres, but that it should go as far as Montreal, and, if possible,

use the seaway to Toronto. That would contribute even more to the development of the whole country.
But, in the meantime, one thing can be done, that is to keep the St. Lawrence ice free as far as Montreal.
The minister tells us that he will have an investigation made. I hope it will not take too long, so that next year, when the centennial of confederation comes around, the study will at least be completed and it will be possible to take action, that is keep the channel ice free to allow year round navigation on the St. Lawrence.
Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Transport will give me his attention for another minute, I would ask him to do the same kind of study and analysis about winter navigation on the Saguenay as far as Port Alfred.
I asked the same question when item No. 1 was being considered. I wonder if the Minister has any comments to make about winter navigation on the Saguenay. I see him nodding his head. He might have some remarks to make immediately, if not, I would ask him to tell us at least that the possibility of opening the harbour at Port Alfred the year round, will be studied.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1 intend to look into that question, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to detain the committee very long. There are just three matters that I wish to bring to the attention of the minister and his department. A few minutes ago the minister said that he did not think he ever did anything gladly. I wish to refute that statement now, Mr. Chairman, and thank him for his co-operation in helping us in Prince Edward county to preserve the ancient remains of a venerated aid to navigation, namely, the False Ducks lighthouse. I think the minister must surely have done this gladly and I want to thank him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When did I say that I did not do anything gladly?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I wish to thank the minister for responding to the representations I made on behalf of the Prince Edward Historical Society because the president of that society, Mr. David Taylor, and his committee were determined to save the superstructure of that old lighthouse. It was the first lighthouse built on Lake Ontario and dates back to somewhere between 1825 and 1830. The
February 17, 1966

South Marysburg Historical Society is going to mount this portion of the building on the shore of the bay as a memorial to the mariners of Prince Edward county who have served in sailing ships and steamboats since 1785.
Under vote No. 5, Mr. Chairman, I would draw to the minister's attention the need for an aid to navigation in my area. Another old and venerable port is concerned here. We have heard quite a bit about the ports of the Maritimes and of the St. Lawrence estuary this afternoon. I now refer to the port of Bath, which dates back to 1785, situated on the Bay of Quinte. I have a communication here which emphasizes the need for an aid to navigation in this port. It is a letter from one of the councillors of Bath and I am sure the minister will heed this request. The letter reads:
Would you please ask the Department of Transport officials to instal a water navigational marker buoy which has a light on it to mark the shoal out from the Village of Bath. This would replace the wooden spar buoy which is there now.
Last evening there was a near tragedy here involving two local youths who struck the unlighted spar buoy with their new, expensive boat. The boat was badly damaged. I know of two other people who have collided with this buoy at night.
The boat traffic has increased greatly in this area-
In this area of the Bay of Quinte:
-in the past few years and I feel, in the interest of boating safety, this dangerous shoal should be marked with a lighted buoy. Please give this matter your earliest attention.
This letter is signed by Mr. Don Turner of Bath and I would assure the minister that I can vouch for the good opinion held of Mr. Turner. He is a member of the village council whose opinion is highly respected. I am sure the department will take action to remove this hazard to life and limb before the opening of navigation this spring.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The next matter with which I wish to deal under vote No. 5 concerns the item for canals administration, operation and maintenance. This question concerns the bridge over the Murray Canal which carries highway No. 33 from the mainland into Prince Edward County. The bridge is in Northumberland County and it is not within my constituency. However, it serves principally my constituency of Prince Edward-Lennox. This bridge over the Murray Canal which carries No. 33 highway does not have the capacity to carry heavy machinery and heavily loaded trucks such as are in use today. It is limited to light loads. I ask that the government instal a
Supply-Transport
bridge of sufficient carrying capacity at that point. The present bridge is hampering the flow of commerce to and from Prince Edward County because it is at the western entrance to that county. I trust my request will be given careful consideration as soon as possible. I could be of assistance to the department in that connection in that I have some correspondence in my office pertaining to and supporting this request which I would gladly turn over to the department for their attention.
This is the full complement of items to which I wish to refer under this particular vote. Before I resume my seat, Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation to your new position. I have not had that opportunity previously so I take it now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to tell the hon. gentleman that I will look into all these points gladly.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Raymond Langlois: I should like to ask the minister a question arising out of a statement he made a few minutes ago to the member for Lapointe. The hon. member inquired if it would be possible to have icebreakers on the St. Lawrence throughout the winter and the minister answered that it would be quite expensive, that he did not have the necessary money and he wished that the Minister of Finance would consider giving his department more money. Since the minister seemed to indicate that he had already asked for money for that purpose, would he tell the house how much it would cost? The hon. member for Lapointe asked that question but the minister did not answer. He probably forgot, and if he did I should like to give him the opportunity to answer now. How much would it take to maintain these icebreaking operations on the St. Lawrence throughout the winter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would take a great deal more than just icebreakers to maintain continuous navigation on the St. Lawrence. The plain answer is that I was not able to tell the hon. member for Lapointe. If we do not have an adequate study of the matter now, I will have one as soon as I can get a competent person to do it and a little money to pay for it. Such a study should not cost a large amount of money.


Mr. Peters:: I do not intend to say much about this item since it does not really affect


John Whitney Pickersgill: The studies with regard to the disabilities of the ports of Halifax and Saint John were made by the Atlantic Development Board. They have been published and to the best of my recollection they have been tabled in the house. I will get copies of them and send them to the hon. gentleman.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, item 5 now under discussion refers to canals coming under the Department of Transport.
I believe that this includes the Rideau canal, its locks and the Rideau river.
Mr. Chairman, you might point out that this matter is of no interest to my riding or to my province. True, it is in Ontario, but all the same, there is a beautiful river here in Ottawa, the Rideau river, a tourist attraction. A great number of tourists come from Montreal and the United States to the Rideau canal.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). He must he aware that at present, the locks-there are approximately 39 between the Chateau Laurier and Kingston- are open until 8.30 p.m. during July and August, and only until 5.30 p.m. during the other months of navigation, that is in May, June and September.
This means that if one wants to go for a cruise on the Rideau river, which is a strong tourist attraction it is virtually impossible to do so because one comes upon locks every five or six miles from Ottawa to Kingston; in fact, there are 40 of them on the 123-mile stretch.
I wonder whether the minister would be ready to consider opening the locks on the Rideau canal, from May 1 to the end of September, from 7.00 a.m. to 11.00 p.m.
February 17, 1966

Besides, I believe that the maintenance men on the Rideau canal are year-round employees and therefore the cost to the Department of Transport would not necessarily be much higher and it would favour an entire area in Ontario. As I am equally interested in the development of Ontario as in that of my province, I think the minister could easily agree with that request. Could the minister comment on this?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr, Pickersgill:: I will be glad to look into the possibility of doing that.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I say to
the minister that if there is any possibility that the hon. member for Lapointe might take one of these trips and not come back I am sure we would support his contention 100 per cent.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I want to interrupt only briefly because I see the deputy minister is now on the floor. A number of us have been wondering why the minister has not had the officials of each branch with him on the floor of the house. We can speed up the business if they are there to give answers to the minister to the questions raised.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I appreciate this vote of confidence in the minister and I will see if I can get as many officials down here as I am allowed to have. I have been merely trying to speed up my estimates.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, with reference to the same matter, the minister tells us that he will look into the possibility of opening the locks until later hours. But the possibility is there; since they are opened during the day, it is possible.
Could the minister, after consulting with his officials, give us an answer on this before consideration of his estimates is concluded?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know whether I can make a decision about that, Mr. Chairman, before these estimates are passed. In fact, I hope I cannot. But I will certainly give the hon. gentleman a response on the estimates for next year. In any case it will be under those estimates that we will have to bear the expense.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lapointe made a few statements which I think left a wrong impression. He
Supply-Transport
said that I am against opening the St. Lawrence River as far as Montreal. I am very sympathetic to that but what I actually said was that opening the river to Montreal is now prohibited. In any event I think it is too soon to do so.
I do want to repeat for the benefit of my hon. friend from Saint John-Albert that opening the St. Lawrence River as far as Trois-Rivieres has been done for years and years. It has to be opened up on account of the ferry systems operating at Quebec and Trois-Rivieres. There is no additional cost involved in keeping it open all year. It also enables us to benefit from winter navigation and it does not take anything away from the Maritimes.


Frank Howard: I wonder whether the minister would mind telling me something I understood him to say a while ago that the department has always required ships to be manned with crews which are sufficient and efficient from the point of view of safety of life. They are the words which, as I recall, are in section 407 of the Act. Can the minister tell me how you determine what is a crew sufficient and efficient?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am informed that the steamship inspector, who of course is qualified for the position or he would not be holding it, makes the determination on the basis of the kind of ship and the kind of operation in which it is engaged. It would be quite difficult, having regard to the great variety of ships that ply our waters, to set these categories down precisely in advance. However, the steamship inspectors are very experienced people and the responsibility under the statute is clearly upon them.


Frank Howard: I gather the minister does not know then how to clarify what is meant by the words "efficient and sufficient" except by taking the interpretation of the individual steamship inspector and what is in his mind at the time he looks at a particular ship. Is that correct?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed, Mr. Chairman, that that is the way it is done.


Frank Howard: Well, it seems to me a terribly sloppy way to do things.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is much the same, of course, as the way medical doctors treat us.


Frank Howard: I think from that statement, Mr. Chairman, that the minister needs a medical doctor, preferably one in the field of

February 17, 1966
Supply-Transport
psychiatry. To leave it up to some individual, depending on the way he feels and his knowledge of the circumstances, to decide on the interpretation to be given to the words "a crew sufficient and efficient" from the point of view of safety of life is an asinine and sloppy way to approach things.
I am given to understand that this is a situation peculiar to Canada. Now that the minister has all these advisers in front of him and having consulted with the knowledgeable member for Victoria (B.C.) a while ago, can he tell me what is his intention with respect to developing regulations to determine manning levels on ships under section 410 (1) (n) of the Act?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I know it is very unwise of unlearned ministers to give legal advice to the house but as I read that section it does not make any provision for regulations to be made under it. The question whether there should be some general regulations with respect to manning is, as I indicated in the statement I gave a little while ago, under very active study. There are very experienced and competent people who have opposite views about this matter.
I may say that the only point of view from which this matter is regarded by the Department of Transport is from the point of view of safety of the ship and its c^ew. We do not think that the question of manning from the point of view of handling the cargo is a proper function of the Department of Transport. That is a proper matter for the owner of the ship and for collective bargaining with his employees.
So far as safety is concerned, if we are satisfied that precise prescriptions for the manning of ships will contribute substantially to safety we will ask parliament to provide the necessary authority to have those prescriptions made. But I suggest that even when that is done it will not be possible to put, either in the Act or in the regulations, a precise prescription for every conceivable type of vessel.
I may say that the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) really knows something about this question. Unlike the hon gentleman and myself, who are just amateur sailors, he is a real professional, and I would be surprised if he would not agree with me that the House of Commons, or even the bureaucrats for whom the hon. gentleman has such contempt, would not be able to prescribe for every conceivable type of vessel precisely what complement each should have.


Frank Howard: It is too bad that the minister has to resort to calling the officials in front of him such nasty names. I did not. Could the minister tell me who it is who is making this particular study and who the two equally competent people are who hold divergent points of view about what should be done?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The study is being made by the Department of Transport.


Frank Howard: But by whom?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have to take the responsibility, and the abuse, for what is done. I have no intention of naming names of public servants. I am responsible for what they may produce and I will take the responsibility and the blame for it. Obviously I am going to take plenty from the hon. member for Skeena. I do not think that under our British system, defended so eloquently yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, any other proper course can be taken by a minister.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, at the risk of opening up the rich field of debate having to do with icebreaking operations I should like to direct a few comments to the Minister of Transport.
A few years ago I suggested in this committee that if the St. Lawrence ports had to bear the weight of the direct cost of the icebreaking operations in the St. Lawrence River during the whole winter this would tend to equalize the competitive factors between the St. Lawrence ports and the more distant ports of Halifax, and Saint John vis-a-vis carrying traffic into the competitive markets of central Canada.
Apparently that formula would not really work today because the conditions of operation in the St. Lawrence are such, if the minister is correct, that ships find it fairly easy to get in the wake of an icebreaker and so make their way up the St. Lawrence River to Montreal, Trois-Rivieres or other points on that river. I suggest that we are tackling this problem in a rather negative fashion.
It is being made to appear that the ports on the St. Lawrence River are of greater interest than the ports of Halifax and Saint John. Undoubtedly this is true over all in the sense of competition but not true over all in the sense that we may be able to work out a formula whereby both may benefit. May I put two things to the minister. First, let us get the officials of this department working on the cost of supplying a proper icebreaking
February 17, 1966

service in the St. Lawrence River so that it year-round traffic is to be attained under any system of control, flood or otherwise, we will know what that cost is. Second, I hope that the minister and his officials will shortly look again at the reports coming out of the Maritimes as to the adverse factors that we face with regard to railway transportation in trying to be competitive with areas that are closer to the central and main markets of Canada. If we tackle this problem as one that has to be faced rather than one where you do not allow one area to have too much because this would seem to take away from another area, I think that this approach would be much better and healthier for Canadian development as a whole. It would also not leave us in the Maritimes in the rather invidious and unenviable position of seeming to be anti-Quebec and the people of Quebec seeming to be anti-Maritimes.
I would also refer to railway costs. I realize that strictly this is not germane but it is the other side of the equation. In this regard I would direct the minister's attention to what has been said recently by a professor of Dalhousie University.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to follow up some points with the minister. I appreciate his concern about keeping secret some things that go on in his department because this allows him to keep secret some things that do not go on too well. With reference to the studies and examinations that are being undertaken can he, with respect to any one of them, tell me when he expects the study will be completed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman was quite correct a few moments ago when he said that the answer I read to his first query had been prepared for me. It is our intention to consult with the various groups that we met at the Montreal meeting and with any other people who are interested with a view to seeking to reach an understanding about the priority in which these things should be proceeded with.


Frank Howard: Can the minister say when this meeting will be?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope to have it as soon as possible after the committee releases me. I am very grateful to the hon. gentleman for having the information put on Hansard so that in the meantime interested people will have a chance to read it.


Frank Howard: If the minister is talking about the document from which he read, why
Supply-Transport
is he thanking me? Is that the document he is talking about?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Frank Howard: The minister thanks me for making it possible for him to put it on Hansard. I thought he would jump at the opportunity to take the initiative himself because of the importance of the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman did not give me a chance.


Frank Howard: I did not give him a chance? Surely, Mr. Chairman, the minister was champing at the bit the other night to get these estimates passed without discussion. Can the minister tell me what is being done with respect to lookouts on ships? As I understand from the letter that the deputy minister wrote, there is no requirement now to post a lookout. I think those were the words used. In other words, there is no person in the position of keeping a weather eye open for other ships. What is going to be done about that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot give a final decision about that because it is one of the things on which we are going to consult those with whom we are to meet. This is one of the points on which there is a very sharp difference of opinion.


Frank Howard: Yes, I can understand that. At the meeting that the minister has referred to which is going to take place, will there be a set agenda with particular points that the minister would like to have discussed or will it be a composite type of meeting embracing things which are already under consideration plus anything else that any other person may want to raise which may not have been dealt with before?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would say anything having regard to safety that any person directly concerned with this matter wants to raise will be raised.


Frank Howard: May I mention another point to the minister. I understand that large numbers of sailors of French speaking origin are on some ships. I understand that under the Canada Shipping Act the regulations and documents which the ships are required to carry are in the English language only which makes it awkward for these sailors. That is the story as related to me. While on that subject may I also ask how many customs officers and steamship inspectors are bilingual in the area extending from west of Montreal down the river?

February 17, 1966
Supply-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I point out that customs officers do not come under my jurisdiction. I should be very surprised if there were customs officers along the St. Lawrence who were not at least competent in French. They might not be so competent in English.


Frank Howard: Could the minister answer the first part of my question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed that the great majority of steamship inspectors are bilingual.


Frank Howard: Can the minister answer the first part of the question dealing with Canada Shipping Act regulations being posted on ships in English only?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think, in spite of the fact that I have advice in front of me, that I can answer as to how the regulations are posted. Copies of the Canada Shipping Act and the regulations made thereunder are available in both languages. There is no question about that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railways and Steamships-
15. Payments to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport made by the company to the Minister of Finance, to be applied by the company in payment of the deficits, certified by the auditors of the company, arising in the operations in the calendar year 1965 in respect of the following services: Newfoundland ferry and terminals: Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals; Yarmouth, N.S.-Bar Harbor, Maine, U.S.A., ferry service, $14,778,400.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, may I make a few representations on Vote 15 to the minister concerning railway service between the cities of Sherbrooke and Quebec. It is a service owned by the Quebec Central and the Canadian Pacific. I am looking at item 15 and I have some doubts whether this will be in order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think there was an understanding that the hon. member, having been good enough to allow the first item to go through last evening, could make his observations on one of the other votes. While it is true that this item does not directly relate to the particular railway I believe he has in mind, it does relate to railways and I hope the committee will give the hon. member its indulgence and allow him to make his observations on this vote.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Raymond Langlois: There seems to be a fuss about the railway service between Sherbrooke and Quebec City. In fact there is only one train a day in either direction. The intention now, it appears, is to close down this service completely. Trains Nos. 1, 4 and 2 will be affected. So there is to be no passenger service at all between Quebec and Sherbrooke.
This affects close to three quarters of a million people living in the cities I have mentioned and in the various towns along the route, a distance of some 150 miles. Closing down this service, when one takes into consideration the other facilities existing in the region, is possibly the stupidest thing anyone could do. This is the only rail passenger service we have in the district between Sherbrooke and Quebec City.
The railway company claims it does not have sufficient passengers. Well, there is a damn good reason for that. Up to July 1, 1965, a one way ticket from Thetford Mines to Quebec City-Thetford is about half way between Sherbrooke and Quebec-cost $2.95. A return ticket cost $5.35. Now the fare is $3.85 one way and $7.70 return. This amounts to an increase of 90 cents on the one way journey and $2.35 on the return journey.
I do not have the cost of travelling directly from Quebec to Sherbrooke but I have the rate from Sherbrooke, to Thetford, the midway point. Up to July 1, 1965 it cost $2.75 one way and $4.95 return. The rates are now $3.60 one way and $7.20 return or $2.25 more on the return ticket. The railways say they cannot get enough passengers. That is not surprising. They used to offer a week end fare for students enabling them to travel between Quebec and Sherbrooke for $4.40 return. This rate has been abolished and the fare is $7.20 return. This is one good reason there are fewer passengers on that train.
Let me compare the rates charged by the C.N.R. on one train and by the C.P.R. on another. The C.N.R. rate from Sherbrooke to Montreal is $2.60. The other company charges $3.35 for the same journey. Furthermore there is only one connection, except on Sunday, which one can make to go to Montreal when travelling from Quebec via Sherbrooke to Montreal. It is necessary to stay over night in Sherbrooke and take the morning train to Montreal. That is the case except on Sunday night. I know this service. I have to use it to get here. I leave Thetford
February 17, 1966

Mines and get to Quebec City in the morning. It is only 300 miles but I arrive here at 9.30 at night because I have to cover more than 130 miles to catch a train in Quebec and then travel that mileage again along the north shore.
People do not take kindly to a policy ol this kind. They do not take the train unless they are obliged to do so. I think this company does everything in its power not to get passengers. In the first place they cannot provide a decent sandwich. The sandwiches are not edible. I wonder how anyone can chew them and still digest them. I think they pick them up somewhere after they have gone stale. There is no coffee service. Sometimes travellers can get a Pepsi but the supply often runs out during the trip. Remember, people have to sit on this train for four hours.
Yet this is what the pamphlet calls a fast dayliner. That is ironic. It is 150 miles between Quebec and Sherbrooke but it takes this train four hours. The speed works out to 37i miles an hour, slower than the first C.P.R. trains which steamed across Canada in 1885. Nevertheless there are representations from Sherbrooke, Quebec, Thetford and all the other towns along this line in favour of maintaining this service. It is the only one. It is still a necessity in this region. The company wants to close it down. It is doing everything in the book to prevent people using this service either by raising prices to a point at which people decide to take a bus or by other means. Compared with fares charged for comparable distances by the C.N.R. the C.P.R. rates are fantastic. People do not want to take the train when they are obliged to pay out such sums.
Yet on week ends the train is packed. Sometimes when I have taken it it has not been possible to find a place to sit down. I have seen people sitting on their suitcases. On week days passengers are few. If I did not have to take this train I certainly would not take it at such rates.
I believe the whole matter is now before the board. I should like the Minister of Transport to look into this matter and see whether there is not a possibility of lowering the fares charged and getting a better service on this train. At least let us have a decent sandwich or have the train stop at one station so that passengers can get a sandwich if they wish to do so. The journey takes four hours when the train is on time. I have known it to
Supply-Transport
be an hour and a half late. What is the average speed then? I leave the minister to figure that out. It is not much better than it was in the horse and buggy days. This is the Quebec Central Line. In French we call it "Quebec Centrale" and sometimes "Quebec Sans Coeur". There is good reason to call it that in view of the service given on this train.
I believe the company is presenting arguments to the board in favour of abandoning the service because they have no passengers using the trains. They want to maintain the trains carrying merchandise and abolish the passenger train service. They are making money on the carriage of merchandise. In my opinion they should introduce policies which would attract the public to use these trains. This could be done by fixing reasonable fares and offering a decent service. If they were to do this maybe they would get more passengers. If the Quebec Central declines to do this, I should like the minister to take the necessary action to ensure that there is a train service such as the people of Sherbrooke and Quebec have a right to expect.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I would remind the minister that there are over three quarters of a million people in the area served by this train but all the company has provided is a dayliner, one car. The minister should make strong representations to the company to have this train service maintained and improved. The company should not be permitted to invoke the argument that it cannot attract passengers. The reason it does not get passengers is that it has raised the fares. If the fares are reduced there will be plenty of passengers. The company should also provide better sandwiches. At present a traveler is better off in a box car which carries cattle because at least the cattle are given water.
I believe this is the place to make representations in this matter. The minister should consider it seriously and request the company to maintain the service. It should also be speeded up. A speed of 37 miles an hour is not realistic in this day and age. It makes the journey too long. If the minister has any statement to make on this matter I should like to hear him now.
[Translation1


Mr. Gauthier:: My position is about the same as that of the member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois). I had observations to make to the Minister of Transport on Item No. 1 and I

February 17, 1966
Supply-Transport
thank him for giving me the opportunity of making them now.
My case is almost identical to that of the member for Megantic with regard to Canadian National trains. I do not mean the Quebec Central, or "Quebec-sans-coeur", although I have known it for a long time, having travelled for nine years on the C.N. which runs in Roberval county.
I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to three points: the matter of security, the new plan for integration and the employees' protection.
With regard to security, the minister is undoubtedly aware of the situation, since I wrote him and since it is only a matter of changing locomotives during the two or three winter months. The letter I wrote the then minister of transport was returned to the board and, after that, I had to deal with fifteen offices before reaching the parties concerned. I was driven from pillar to post and ended up with the assistant superintendent and the superintendent. I was referred to Mr. Brunet about that matter and here is what I told him: I do not know if you are aware of this but I noticed a serious danger for the engineer and all the passengers.
Locomotive No. 3883 now being used is not suitable at all in the winter because of weather conditions. As a matter of fact, because of the snow, the engineer cannot see a thing for two or three miles. If there was an accident, the engineer would not even know about it, precisely because the snow covers the windows completely and the engineer is going ahead blindly.
Just think if an accident should happen in these circumstances? The engineer might be held responsible, but I assure you that I would be there, evidence in hand, because I always get the evidence-and the best way is to find out on the spot what is going on-and I would blame the C.N.R.
I am sure that the minister was not aware of the danger to which the passengers themselves were exposed when taking such a train. I made the trip myself with the engineers and the visibility was nil for four or five miles, and the train was going through level crossings. If an accident had happened, do you sincerely believe that you could have sworn in court that they had done all they could to avoid the accident?
We only asked to replace the first model with locomotive models 9300 or 9400 which take freight to Chibougamau.

I think that the passengers deserve much more attention than the freight trains. Those trains are used to get the logs down to Chibougamau, and all we asked was that they be used for the protection of the public.
Here is Mr. Brunet's answer on January 21, 1966:
Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of January 18 concerning the locomotives in use on our trains between Chambord and Dolbeau.
In order to use the type of locomotive you suggest, we would have to make changes in the schedule of these trains and also change our operation in Dolbeau on certain days.
This may be one or two days. There are two locomotives of this type making the trip to Chibougamau. I quote:
For the above reasons, I had to refer your request to our transportation superintendent, Mr. J. A. Boutin of Quebec.
Here is the answer of the superintendent. Apparently, it is the superintendent who rules on everything.
I have your letter dated January 18, together with the enclosed copy of your letter to our representative Mr. Brunet, in Jonquiere.
I can assure you, Mr. Gauthier, that all the locomotives used on our system were approved by the Board of Transport Commissioners and meet all safety requirements.
Imagine such a statement by an office employee who does not go to check for himself. I saw for myself, accompanied by engineers.
Locomotives of the type mentioned in your letter are used indifferently on our passenger or freight trains, from coast to coast-
It is obvious, if you go east, the weather is not the same as in Lake St. John. We have four feet of snow, while in Ottawa there are only seven or eight inches. It is quite another picture; they would not send those locomotives to Chibougamau. And Mr. Poitevin continued:
-and in weather conditions which are sometimes very unfavourable, and every effort is made to guarantee the safety of those we have the pleasure to serve.
I do want to assure you once again that safety is in no way endangered when our passenger trains are operated by the locomotives now in service between Chambord and Dolbeau.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I tell you sir, not on the basis of my figures but after making the run more than once with engineers, that Mr. Poitevin of Quebec City is wrong, that he said something he cannot prove, because he did not go and see for himself. In fact, we travelled more than five or six miles and we encountered two grade crossings; we realized that there was a car stuck in a snow bank and we nearly hit it.
February 17, 1966

This is to tell you that those people often make statements without checking first. That is really bad not only for the engineer but for all the passsengers who are not aware of the situation.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I draw the minister's attention to this state of affairs. I am not going to ask you to inquire from Mr. Poitevin or Mr. Brunet, who both sit in their offices in Quebec and Jonquiere, but check with the engineers who operate those locomotives. I cannot give their names because they would be fired. That is what is annoying at the C.N.R.; as soon as you try to identify the person who is responsible he is thrown out. That is why I shall give no names but I repeat that if ever an accident happens in winter on our track, I shall appear in court myself-and Parliament is now advised of this-to accuse the C.N.R. in a criminal action because what is taking place in our region is irresponsible.
The Transport Act is very clear on this: whenever an engineer cannot see, whenever visibility is nil or obstructed, he must stop. Well, there would be no traffic during three winter months, Mr. Chairman. That is why it was requested that, 9300 and 9400 locomotives, which offer perfect visibility, be provided for at least two or three months this winter.
Now-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion to the hon. member? Here it is: when the committee on transport and communications is convened, members will have the management of the C.N.R. before them and, as far as questions of internal administration of the company are concerned, I believe it would be preferable to have a confrontation with Mr. Gordon and other officials of the company instead of sending me lots of letters. In that case, if I promise-and I do-to speak to Mr. Gordon about it, can the other items be allowed to stand so that consideration of my estimates can be completed today?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Very well, Mr. Chairman. That is exactly what I wanted to know, because after writing to you, I was referred to the Board of Transport Commissioners. Later I wrote to the Board and to Mr. Donald Gordon, who referred me to the assistant superintendent, as I just told you. And the decision is made by a junior official. I maintain that the decision is wrong. That is why I come to Parliament. I would even go to the Board but it is the Board which ordered Mr. Supp ly-Transport
Poitevin to make the final decision, and settled the matter inadequately.
That is why I must take the matter up again and I do it with the encouragement of all the organizations in my riding; chambers of commerce, municipal councils and other public bodies. That is why I call your attention to the fact that Parliament will have to take the matter in its own hands because strange things are going on in our riding with regard to the C.N.R.
The second point with which I want to deal-and I will try to be as brief as possible-is the new integration plan. The minister must be aware of that because I told him also about their new integration plan. The railway in the riding of Roberval is slowly disappearing. It took us 35 years to get a railway line to serve us, and now that the population is five times what it was then, they are trying to take it away. They are trying to remove everything to such an extent that we now have the integration plan.
I have it written down in detail. For instance, where there was a station master and three clerks, freight is no longer handled. There are only three clerks left at the station at Dolbeau; under the new plan, there will be a station master and a telegraph operator, that is all there will be at Dolbeau.
At Albanel there is a station master. They managed to get the staff down to one station master. And now, the station at Albanel, a farming center, will be closed.
At Normandin, the station has been closed although two large lumber companies are shipping lumber the year round.
At St. Felicien, the connection between Chibougamau and St. Felicien, there was a stationmaster, two telegraph operators and two clerks. Now, there are one stationmaster and two telegraph operators. Imagine what this will lead to. The express will be transferred, then removed. The express will stay at Chambord, to be distributed throughout the county by truck.
I wrote to Mr. Gordon in this connection on January 19. All he said in reply was this: "I have asked for information on this matter."
This proves that he does not know much about it either. That is what you get when you look for the responsible party.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I wrote to the minister in this connection and then, finally, to Mr. Poitevin. I do not want to read the whole letter, but I quoted an article

February 17, 1966
Supply-Transport
entitled "C.N.R. to centralize Lake services". They are not doing it only in Roberval county, because Lake St. John and Lapointe counties are next in line.
After reading about the new integration in the press and seeing it was the talk of the town, what did Mr. Poitevin have to say? This:
I thank you. Although I am the manager of this particular sector, it seems, on the face of it, that you know more about alleged changes to be made in our service . . . than I do".
Imagine, he starts by trying to make us look silly, because we know everything that is going to happen; he also wants to convince us that we know nothing and refuses to disclose anything.
At that time, I wrote to him about the express for Chambord. Tenders had already been called for from trucking companies for the transport of express, to pick it up in Chambord and deliver it in the whole Roberval county.
What will result from this, while we strive here to create employment? Eleven station employees will be laid off, more particularly the C.N.R. deliverymen who have been providing us with excellent service for 30 years at no cost to the railway. All those employees will no longer be serving the population. Mr. Chairman, after the express car is removed, the passenger service will simply be discontinued.
That is what they are aiming at they want to get a bus to transport us throughout the riding, by bus, by car, by anything.
After that, Mr. Poitevin came up to me and said that that was not the reason. He replied:
Those improvements were appreciated by the public as evidenced by our revenues.
Before that he said:
Let me however, bring a slight correction concerning the unfavourable remarks you formulated on the "service" item at the C.N.
I will have a word to say about the "service" item in a minute. He thought the service was perfect and to prove it he said:
For instance, our passenger revenues from the Saguenay-Lake St. John area have increased by 28 per cent-
There is talk of a 28 per cent increase and taking off the express car and cancelling the passenger service next summer or perhaps next autumn. They say there has been a 28 per cent increase in spite of the poor service and I repeat, in spite of the poor service provided. A service very much like that of the Quebec Central mentioned earlier by the

member for Megantic; we cannot go above 35 or 40 miles per hour on our line.
I remember one time when a somewhat too eager mechanic decided to arrive on time, because on our line we used to say: C.N.R. means let's be late. Because we are always late. But that mechanic wanted to be on time and he went over 40 miles an hour. Mr. Chairman, we almost left the track. That goes to show the improvements in our region.
And they complain that people do not travel. People travel, trains are full of them, but when you want a coach or a sleeping-car, there are none. And due to the fact that there are no cars, people are packed like sardines; when the passengers get off the train on the platform at the Dolbeau station many of them, and ladies in particular, say: "They caught me this time but they will never catch me again".
Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to call your attention to that matter of service. There was a service at the Chambord station, a few years ago. You remember, Mr. Chairman, that a beautiful new station was built, with a spacious waiting room, and a restaurant-lunch counter separated from the waiting room.
Do you know what has been done? During winter, they closed the lunch counter. And there you have the whole waiting room, but the two large beautiful glazed doors are locked and the seats are still at the counter; everything is there, but the place is empty, it is locked.
Three small Quebec inspectors came because down our way they do not come one by one, they come three at once, not just one inspector, a man alone but three inspectors from Quebec or Montreal to close the lunch counter.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Canlelon:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. We are now supposed to be discussing item 15b and I confess that this discussion of meals and difficulties in running a railway passenger service seem to me to be a long way from the topic at hand. I think we are all agreed that we would like to see these estimates finally passed and I confess that I find it difficult to understand how we are ever going to get them through if such small matters as these are brought to the attention of the committee.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I might say that the hon. member who just raised a point
February 17, 1966

of order should admit that the members of his group are the ones responsible for the lengthening of this debate on the Department of Transport estimates.
It had been understood yesterday, when we agreed to pass item No. 1, that some of our people would have an opportunity to make some remarks on certain items, and that is exactly what the hon. member for Roberval did just now. Since this hon. member has only a few more seconds to go, I believe we should recognize the agreement that was reached yesterday after the minister himself had suggested it, that is to allow the member for Megantic and the member for Roberval to make their comments.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I will not be long now. Besides, there is no basis to the point of order, because I was given permission by the chair.
Therefore, I simply come back for a second on the subject of that famous lunch counter. Everything was locked. And because passengers must often wait two to three hours in the station, the attendant has to come and sell coffee, sandwiches, cigarettes, and everything is spread in the waiting room; instead of eating at the counter, people eat on benches and on window sills. Believe me, it looks bright indeed.
I ask the minister to order that a telephone call be made to Mr. Poitevin so that at least that room is opened and people can eat. It is simply ridiculous because nothing is served on the train. Passengers must eat there before leaving because sometimes they spend two and a half, three and even four hours aboard the train and they would at least have a chance of having their breakfast. But there is nothing at this time, not even a counter. Passengers must manage as they can. What we want is that the doors be opened. The doors are there, let them be opened and let everybody have a chance to eat.
Now a word about the safety of employees. Everything is done to discourage the staff; there seems to be an agreement in that connection. Where two men would be needed, they place only one. In Ontario the contrary is true. I was talking with people from On-tirao and they told me; "As far as we are concerned, the C.N.R. place two men where one is needed in Ontario". While in our case, where two men are needed they place only one. But instead of sending only one inspector, they send three. There are many inspectors in my constituency; three for each man.
Supply-Transport
Everything was done to discourage the employees. There was the famous manager's commission on the express, which encouraged him to open the station, even on Sunday. That commission made it up to him somewhat, but now he does not get anything; everything was taken from him and he is paid a very low salary.
What happens now? The stations are closed on Sunday morning. Can you imagine stepping down onto the platform at Dolbeau, for instance, in a snow-storm, when everything is closed. You stay on the platform. The nearest taxi stand is three quarters of a mile away and the train is an hour and a half late. That is not interesting. It is not because we live in a remote area that we should be given that kind of service; the C.N.R. gets enough revenue from our region. If only they lost money.
For instance, about the shipping of freight, there is all the shipping from Chibougamau, which comes down from Chibougamau; there is the Domtar company, at Dolbeau, which supplies five or six cars full of newsprint each worth $400.
There are all those secondary industries at Dolbeau, Normandin and St. Felicien de Roberval which ship lumber. Go around our region and you will see that the C.N.R. gets more than a million dollars a year out of it. And, in spite of all that, we cannot even get a little train to travel comfortably at least.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the house any longer. I hope that those remarks will enable the minister to meet the parties concerned and to discuss everything frankly with them, because he will soon be knee-deep in requests; they are coming from all the chambers of commerce, municipal councils, city councils, companies and I hope he will consider their representations and give us justice.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote No. 15 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to ask a question of the hon. minister. I am not going to make a speech at this time, as it would not be very appropriate
We would like the estimates to be passed as soon as possible. I would like to know whether it would be possible for the minister to make representations with the authorities concerned so that we may get a sleeper and a diner as soon as possible on the Montreal, Ottawa, North Bay, Rouyn, Noranda line?
Supp ly-Transport

February 17, 1966


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will make inquiries.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister whether he is going to take into consideration the matter concerning the Quebec Central Railway that I mentioned a while ago. Is the minister going to look into the matter and discuss with the company whether it is possible to maintain the train service to which I referred?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be glad to make representations, Mr. Chairman, although if the matter is now before the board I probably could not intervene while it is before them. But the hon. member will have an opportunity as a member of the house, whether or not he is a member of the committee, when the C.P.R. management are before the committee, because I believe the Quebec Central is owned by the C.P.R., to ask questions directly of the management. I think that would be a wise thing for him to do.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for
Compton-Frontenac.


Mr, Latulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the Minister and make some remarks concerning my constituency. My constituency is just about in the same position as that of Megantic with respect to fares and level crossings.
In connection with fares, for instance, the return trip from Megantic to Montreal cost $9.80 in 1963, whereas it amounts to $17.60 today. Now, the company intends to curtail the train service, alleging that it is not profitable, that deficits are incurred. The one-way railway fare to Montreal is terribly expensive, that is $8.80 as compared to $5.75 for bus fare.
This difference is considerable and my constituents have made many representations to me in that connection. They want to know from the minister if it would not be possible to adjust those rates, so that the people can use railways, because trains are very useful in my county.
In my riding, the C.P.R. branch line crosses the national highway six times within two miles. This occasions many delays for the citizens of Megantic and there are many accidents at those railway crossings.
The city of Megantic has several projects to submit to the Board of Transport Commissioners. I ask the minister whether it would

not be possible for him, since Megantic has a population of 8,000 inhabitants, to come to an understanding with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith), so that the city might remove those level crossings under the winter works program.
I think that carrying out winter works involves unnecessary expenditures. There is a waste of money. From 75 to 95 per cent of the expenditures are made on useless projects, when there are so many worthwhile things to be done. A study should be made of those level crossings. Overpasses should be built above the railways. If the minister would make arrangements with the Minister of Public Works, such works could be carried out in my riding and throughout Canada under the winter works program.
That is what I had to say to the hon. minister on this question.
Now, Mr. Chairman, these level crossings are a source of inconvenience for our area. We need the trains. We need the C.P.R. We need transportation. On the other hand, serious inconveniences to our municipality and surrounding municipalities result from the C.P.R. and C.N.R. level crossings.
I ask the hon. minister if there is not some way to vote an appropriation to eliminate level crossings.
I wish to point out to the minister that, according to statistics published in the newspaper he Devoir, from 1909 to 1962 the province of Quebec only received $8,777,326, or 14 per cent of the budget, while Ontario received $31,959,068, or 50.8 per cent of the national budget for level crossings. The province of Quebec did not receive its share of the subsidies allocated for level crossings.
I ask the minister to examine these statistics and to show more fairness towards the province of Quebec. That is what I wanted to say on this subject.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to talk this matter over with the hon. gentleman and see what we can do if he will come to see me after we completed these estimates.
[Translation1


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I wish to put only one question about a subject I raised during the study of item 1. The minister should give me an answer.
Is it the intention of the Minister of Transport to look into the possibility of improving the railroad between Montreal, Jonquiere and Chicoutimi as soon as possible?
February 17, 1966


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will do my very best to make the most favourable representations I can.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
20. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works and land, dock and terminal facilities, and of vessels and related equipment as listed in the details of the estimates provided that Treasury Board may increase or decrease the amounts within the vote to be expended on individually listed projects, $20,065,600.
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put one question only concerning item 20 with regard to construction of buildings, terminal facilities, etc.
The minister is aware that we have in Rouyn-Noranda three railway stations: an O.N.R. station in Rouyn-Noranda, an O.N.R. station in Noranda, and a Canadian National station in Noranda. Is the department considering a project to set up a union station which might be called "Rouyn-Noranda"? There would be one station only to serve the people over there. This station would eliminate grade crossings in Rouyn and in Noranda.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to look into that question right away.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
25b. Payments in respect of Maritime Freight Rates Act and for supplemental pension allowances to railway employees-To extend the purposes of Transport Vote 25 of the Main Estimates for 1965-66 to include payments to provinces as contributions, as detailed in the estimates, to assist highway construction related to the abandonment of railway branch lines, $1,250,000.
Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: This vote relates to the construction or rebuilding of the Moncton-Buctouche highway which is related to the abandonment of the Canadian National Buctouche branch line. I should like to know, first of all, if special circumstances obtained which enabled the government to make this particular grant toward the building of a highway to take the place of the railway. Second, is it general policy and will this policy be applied to other abandonments? These are rather general questions but I hope the minister has some answers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could give a very brief answer now and then undertake to discuss the matter at greater length on my estimates for the coming year or at any other time? The brief answer is that this particular
Supply-Transport
branch line was losing a lot of money annually but it was serving a community. It seemed to the government that rather than throw away a lot of money in annual losses, if we could capitalize the losses and allow part of the saving for the building of the road and take part of the saving for the treasury, everybody would be better off. I should like to elaborate a bit on that on another occasion because I think the principle can be applied elsewhere and I am happy to say my colleagues agree with me.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air Services-.
30. Administration, operation and maintenance including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, the administration of the Radio Act and regulations issued thereunder, Canada's share of the costs of the international radio, telegraph and telephone organizations listed in the details of the estimates, Canada's assessment for membership in the World Meteorological Organization, $110,000 for grants in aid of meteorological research in Canadian universities and Canada's share of the cost of the World meteorological Organization symposium on design of hydrometeorological networks, $97,637,700.
Mr. MacRae:: I should like to draw the attention of the minister to a matter pertaining to a class of employees in his department known as radio operators. Perhaps the minister, or his deputy who is advising him, is familiar with this category so I will not need to go into too much detail. Briefly, the situation is that in 1962-63 the Civil Service Association of Canada submitted to the Department of Transport and the Civil Service Commission reasons for a better and more realistic career program for radio operators.
The minister will be glad to know that the fault from this point on does not lie with his department. Following the normal procedure the Department of Transport submitted their recommendation to the Civil Service Commission, but unfortunately the Commission did not agree. Nothing has been done for this particular class of employee since that time, as I understand it. The end result, Mr. Chairman, has been that the department has experienced an acute shortage of this type of employee.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Because of inadequate wages and lack of opportunity for promotion and advancement too many radio operators, I understand, are leaving the department and it is difficult to recruit and train people in this particular category. Promotions have been held back

February 17. 1966
Supply-Transport
because of the shortage, and even the vacation schedules have been cancelled. As I understand it, the morale of this group is very low.
The total salary paid this class of employee reaches a peak of $408 a month, which seems to me to be too low at this particular time. The recommendation that these people have made to me as their representative, and I am sure it has been made to others, is that the minister should look at the matter and see whether something can be done for this particular type of employee. I have every confidence that the minister will do so at the earliest opportunity.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is one speech I am really grateful for, Mr. Chairman, and I think it is going to help the minister.


Mr. Walker:: 
Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: I should like to draw the attention of the minister to a situation at Winnipeg airport. I think the minister arrives at Winnipeg often enough to know that when you deplane from an arriving aircraft you have to proceed to the second floor by staircase. This makes things particularly difficult for older people. If you are arriving at the airport to catch a plane you can take an escalator up but when you arrive at Winnipeg you have to walk up the stairs carrying bags and so forth.
I hope the minister will take a look at this and see whether it is possible to instal escalators for the use of people arriving at the airport. Naturally this is one of the airports I use quite often and I have noticed on several occasions elderly people particularly, who perhaps have heart conditions or other ailments, having to climb these steep stairs to get to the second floor so that they can get down to the ground level on the other side. This seems a ridiculous sort of situation. I hope the minister will give careful consideration to the installation of at least one escalator which can be used by people who are not supposed to climb stairs.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, I might say that this would repair in part the damage the
February 17, 1966

minister has done to Winnipeg by his faulty commitment with regard to the Winnipeg-Chicago route and he might even make one or two friends.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I should like to know if it is section 30 which deals with broadcasting. This concerns necessarily section 30, and if the minister is agreeable, I am going to discuss it at once.

I want to speak on the subject of radio broadcasting, Mr. Chairman, and I was just asking the minister whether that subject would come under item 30.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not unless the hon. gentleman wants to speak only about the technical side of licensing. If it is any other aspect of broadcasting he should speak on the estimates of the Secretary of State, not on mine.


Raymond Langlois: Licensing is under the minister's jurisdiction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It depends on the particular aspect of licensing. On licensing in general the B.B.G. reports to the Secretary of State, so I would think that what the hon. member wants to bring up would be more appropriate to that department.


Raymond Langlois: It will not take me very long to deal with this matter. If the minister judges that it is a matter for the Secretary of State to answer I will leave it at that and bring up the problem again before the Secretary of State. What I have in mind is this peculiar situation which exists in regard to small, local radio broadcasting stations. They have a permit to operate during the daytime on, say, 1,000 watts but at sundown they reduce their power to a lower wattage.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman will permit me, I think that is definitely a matter which would be within the purview of the Board of Broadcast Governors. If the hon. gentleman would agree, I think it would be preferable to bring that matter up when the hon. lady's estimates are before the committee.


Raymond Langlois: I will do that.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a few observations to make to the minister. May I first ask him if the department has made any progress toward setting up an examination board under
Supply-Transport
the Aeronautics Act, similar to that set up in the United States whereby a pilot who has suffered some physical ailment and has recovered has to undergo a doctor's examination and be O.K.'d by him. That has to be done before he receives his pilot's licence again. Second, may I ask a question having to do with community antenna television. I do not know whether to address it to the minister at this time but I should like to know what steps he proposes to take and whether this will be placed under the control of the Board of Broadcast Governors.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The answer to the first question is yes. Steps have been taken and I understand that the appropriate body should meet tomorrow. The answer to the second question, if the hon. gentleman would grant us his indulgence, is that I do not think that the situation is going to be changed, but he will have an opportunity to inquire into it under my next set of estimates.


Mr. Danforlh:: I should like to seek from the minister some suggestions or advice. I am not sure whether he can be of direct assistance in this matter. If he cannot assist us, then I hope that he or the members of his department can direct me to the appropriate channels. My inquiry has to do with weather reports and weather broadcasting. In our area we receive weather reports from the airports at London and Windsor. Under the direction of the local Federation of Agriculture and of Mr. Harold Smith of the radio station, who is also farm editor, a drive has been inaugurated because of the intensive farming in that area to have much more complete and comprehensive weather coverage. Because of that farming we need comprehensive weather coverage. My purpose in interceding on this particular vote is to request from the minister information as to what approaches may be made to have weather broadcasts with respect to the particular areas involved and as to what facilities may be sought along this line. The minister need not answer me now. If he wishes to take note of what I have said and let me know at an appropriate time it will be appreciated.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to write to the hon. gentleman, if I may, after I have made inquiries.


Mr. Schreyer:: May I put to the minister a question relating to the construction and hard surfacing of airport runways at the Winnipeg satellite airport of St. Andrew's. I should like to ask the minister if that question would

February 17, 1966
Supply-Transport
arise under this item or would he prefer that I put the question under another item?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It should be, I believe, under the next item.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask one short question of the minister. I am not sure whether this is the appropriate vote on which to ask the minister this question but I am concerned with the problem of the definition of an air-cushion vehicle. It is my understanding that in recent weeks a decision has been given by, I am told, the Department of Justice with regard to air-cushion vehicles which are known to the general public as hovercraft.
The Department of Justice has designated it as an aircraft. The definition poses some difficulties because this vessel, if one may call it a vessel, is completely new in conception. It is a completely new form of transportation. It is neither ship nor aircraft but something in between which requires a solid surface two or three feet beneath it in order to operate. I am given to understand that by categorizing this craft as an aircraft considerable difficulties will be caused in the development of this particular type of machinery, if I may call it that, or this particular method of transportation which could have very great benefits for our country.
I am wondering if the minister is planning to take up this matter with the Department of Justice? I think that this type of vessel could be better designated by the Deparment of Transport marine services if it were classified as a hover craft or an air-cushion vehicle with characteristics more akin to those of a ship than those of an aircraft.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are discussing this matter with the Department of Justice but I am afraid that we have not reached any conclusion yet.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Chairman, I notice under an item in vote 30 mention of the operation and maintenance of airports and other ground services. We have an airport in the constituency I have the honour to represent, the constituency of Saskatoon, and it is a large airport with a jet runway. For several years now we have been assured that, since we have the runway and the facilities, and certainly we have the passengers, jet aircraft would be stopping at our city. However, I was disappointed to notice in Hansard yesterday, as I mentioned in my question today, that the short range DC-9 jet aircraft are not
[Mr. Schreyer.i
going to be stopping in the province of Saskatchewan. I should like from the minister some assurance-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure that the hon. member will have noticed that that only applies to the period up to July 1.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: I believe, sir, that if I read the announcement correctly it was to the effect that this would be so for this year but that it might be changed in subsequent years when further aircraft become available. It did not say up to July 1 as I read it in Hansard of yesterday.
I should like some assurance, sir, that efforts will be made very soon indeed to see that DC-9 service is provided to our province and to our city because we are becoming more industrialized. Mineral developments are certainly beginning to expand, and in that regard I refer to potash. We have tremendous numbers of people coming into the province. We do not have the facilities there that we think we should have. I think it is essential, since we have been promised a short range jet service for three years, to have that service. Frankly, sir, I should like your assurance that as soon as possible you will see that we in Saskatchewan will no longer be a have-not province. I assure you, sir, that we are not the poor country cousins we were a few years ago.
May I call it six o'clock?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will give that representation the most "liberal" consideration that I can, sir.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Thank you, sir.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to. tTranslation]
Mr. Laiulippe:: I should like to say a few
words with regard to airports. Is it the minister's intention to set up a regional policy-


Mr.   Chairman@: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it is now six o'clock. [English]



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty in conformity with standing order 39A, to inform the house that the following questions will be discussed on the adjournment motion tonight: The hon. member for Okanagan-
February 17, 1966

Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston), Immigration -reported increase in applications from Rumania; the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman), Post Office Department-steps to overcome loss on second class mail; the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), municipal development loan fund-inquiry as to extension of period.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motion for papers, private bills and public bills.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 3 consideration of the motion of Mr. Bell (Carleton):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all reports, briefs or other documents of communications received by the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor-General or the Department of Justice from the Law Society of Upper Canada relating to Mr. Justice Leo Landreville; all replies made to any such reports, briefs or other documents or communications; all letters or other communications addressed by the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor-General or any officer of the Department of Justice, since the 1st day of January 1964 to Mr. Justice Leo Landreville; all replies made by Mr. Justice Leo Landreville or by any solicitor or agent on his behalf to any such letters or other communications.
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the motion of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) I should like to preface my remarks by stating that I am a little anxious as to how to proceed. I notice that those who have opposed the motion of the hon. member for Carleton have used a ploy commonly adopted by those who have a weak case. They have referred to matters outside the scope of the question.
I have in my hand the debates of the House of Commons for February 3. I notice that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) referred to the fact that the hon. member for Carleton speaks loudly and fast. I hope I am not speaking too loudly or too fast for members of the house. Then the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme), supporting the Minister of Justice, said he did not like the tone of voice used by the hon. member for Carleton. Again, on page 675, we find the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) objecting to the belligerency of the hon. member for Carleton. Mr. Speaker, if I go too fast or speak too loudly or appear
Motion for Papers
too belligerent, or if members do not like the tone of my voice, please let me know and I will try to accommodate myself so as to meet the wishes of those who would otherwise raise objections so as to try to deny to other members of the House of Commons the privileges which are their right.
I have strong feelings on this question of the cabinet laying this message from the benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada on the table. I have been elected to this house on three occasions. On the first and second occasions of entering parliament I was not sworn in until the day parliament opened. But on the third occasion, after the election of November, 1965, I made a special trip to Ottawa early in December because I felt then, as I feel now, that the cabinet is making a mistake in refusing to table for the benefit of members of the House of Commons a letter they have received from the benchers of the Upper Canada Law Society. I was sworn in by the Clerk of the House on December 6 and the moment I had signed the roll I asked him how I could make a motion for the production of this paper from the benchers of the law society. He directed me to another official. I went to his office and prepared the necessary papers. That was in December.
I should like to advise hon. members that when I came to the house on January 18 I found that my motion for the production of the benchers' missive had not been placed in Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day. I immediately went to an official of this house and asked him what had happened with regard to my action of December 6. It was explained to me that there was some thought of withholding my request because if a foreign government writes to this government and expresses some opinions such missives are not tabled in the house without the consent of the foreign government concerned being received in advance.
Comparing the benchers of the Upper Canada Law Society with a foreign government may well be flattering to the benchers, but I stated that in my view they were nothing but a private group of lawyers who had no public authority, and I did not see any reason why my request was being delayed. If hon. members will look in Votes and Proceedings they will find it listed under the date January 19, though I filed it on December 6.
On February 3 the hon. member for Carleton speaking to his motion, one to which I give wholehearted support, went out of his

February 17, 1966
Motion for Papers
way to make a remark with which I cannot agree. I wish to correct the impression he may have created. The hon. member made this comment:
I want to point out that even in respect oi this motion the Minister of Justice could not refrain from playing politics. The hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) had a notice of motion on the order paper dealing with this subject and covering the first part of my motion. It was listed as No. 21 and therefore was on the order paper preceding mine, which is No. 39. But yesterday there was arranged the standing of the motion of the hon. member for York-Humber who is a supporter . . . of the minister's party, in order to deal with this later motion by an opposition member. Is there anybody anywhere in this chamber who has any doubt of the reasons for this?
I was amazed to hear the hon. member make that statement because he must be the only member of the House of Commons who did not realize that on February 2 there were 1,600 Liberals in metropolitan Toronto attending a dinner given for the Prime Minister of Canada and Mrs. Pearson. I had made arrangements weeks in advance to have dinner with the Prime Minister's brother who sat at my table. I rode to Toronto on February 2 on the same train with the Prime Minister. Yet the hon. member for Carle ton asks: "Is there anybody anywhere in this chamber who has any doubt of the reasons for this?" He is referring to the standing of my motion. He must be the only member of the house who did not know that every Toronto Liberal member was out of the house on that day attending this dinner at the Royal York.
In rising to support the present motion I would add this statement: If the motion should be voted down, and I hope it will not be, in order to save a further black mark against the record of this cabinet, I will press ahead with my own motion because the members of this parliament are being denied the right of examining a document which has been forwarded to the cabinet as the executive arm of the government and we are getting into a position where members of the cabinet are telling each and every one of us: It is not good for you to see these things; you are not smart enough to comprehend the meaning of such a missive; leave it to those of us who are in the cabinet; we are the smart boys and we can give you the answers.
There has been a lot of fluff during this discussion about the independance of the judiciary being called into question. Speakers have said we were criticizing the actions of Mr. Justice Landreville. They have said we

are blackening the record of a man who has no means of defending himself.
On February 3 the Deputy Speaker-he is now in the Chair-had to make a ruling during the course of the discussion. He said: "The issue before the house is whether or not certain documents should be tabled." He repeated that statement. "The only issue before the house in this debate is whether or not the papers mentioned in the motion should be tabled."
I am in favour of the tabling of these papers. An interesting angle in connection with this discussion has been the assertion developed on the side that we have no right to discuss this matter because it has been referred to a commission-a commission consisting of Mr. Justice Rand, a retired judge from Moncton, New Brunswick. Now this problem arises: Cannot the highest court in the land discuss a matter which has been referred to a commission, a body which in the last resort is obviously junior to parliament as the highest court?
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
On October 15, 1957, the government of the day by order in council appointed a committee to inquire into the natural energy resources of this country. That was on October 15. On the 17th of October Mr. M. J. Cold-well, the then hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, rose in his place and, during the course of his remarks with regard to the affairs of the day, stated:
Naturally, I welcome the appointment of the royal commission to study the question of the use of Canadian energy resources and to ensure the most effective use of such resources in the public interest, but I am not unmindful of this, that the present party in power is faced with a problem in this regard because of its attitude in the house during the pipe line debate. I could not put my finger on it today but I know it is in Hansard where a former prime minister said that the establishment of a royal commission was often an excellent way of shelving a difficult problem. I hope that the setting up of this royal commission to deal with energy, oil, gas, pipe lines, and so on, is not being undertaken in order to shelve a very important problem. I think such a study is entirely desirable and, indeed, overdue.
However, there are a number of matters on which it is necessary that action should be taken before the report of any royal commission is available. Indeed, they are questions of policy that should not be shelved. I am thinking particularly of the reference of the matter of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to the royal commission. I note that the question is referred in this way and I am quoting it:
"Whether in view of this special relationship to the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation and the nature of its financing and control any
February 17, 1966

special measures need to be undertaken in relation to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited in order to safeguard the interests of Canadian producers or consumers of gas."
Upon which Hon. Howard Green, who I presume was acting government house leader, rose up and objected to Mr. Coldwell making any comments on a matter that had been referred to a royal commission. Mr. Coldwell then stated that in his opinion he had every right to refer to a royal commission appointed two days previously because, after all, this was the highest court in the land.
It is quite interesting to note that the hon. Lionel Chevrier was sitting in oppposition in October, 1957, and he took part in the debate. He supported Mr. Coldwell and in answer to Mr. Green he said:
There is nothing sub judice. In the circumstances I submit to you, sir, with deference, that the hon. member has every right to do what he is doing.
That is, that the hon. member had every right to discuss the matter referred to a royal commission appointed two days previously.
The Speaker gave a ruling on the matter and the Speaker was Hon. Roland Mich-ener. He was a roommate of the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada at Oxford and I presume some of the brilliance of our leader rubbed off on him, because on October 17, 1957, as recorded at page 119 of Hansard, he stated:
I think I have heard enough to determine the matter. There is nothing on the order paper which would preclude a discussion of this matter. The royal commission is not a court of record and matters before it are not sub judice. Therefore I see no reason why the hon. member should not discuss it.
Then the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), who is supposed to know everything about the rules of this house, and who was leader for the official opposition, when I was in opposition, shouted across toward Mr. Green:
Closure by order in council.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that when we are told we cannot look at this missive from the Law Society of Upper Canada because the matter has been referred to a royal commission we are having closure by order in council in this day and age, in 1966.
I have here a copy of the order in council, dated January 19, 1966, appointing Mr. Justice Rand. My submission is that this letter could have been produced on January 18 if members of parliament had asked for it in the ordinary way. But on January 19, just as Mr. Coldwell stated in 1957, a royal commission was appointed and now we are given 23033-89
Motion for Papers
closure by order in council. I am simply quoting the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who knows a great deal more about parliamentary practice than I do, and I am willing to accept his leadership on the matter of the rules covering the conduct of the house.
This matter of whether or not we can ask for these papers before the decision of the royal commission comes down is enlightened by a report in the Toronto Daily Star of Tuesday, February 8. Mr. Jack Biddell, president of the Clarkson Company, had spoken at a meeting of the Empire Club in Toronto and made some uncomplementary remarks with regard to officials of the Atlantic Acceptance Corporation which collapsed in the biggest financial scandal in Ontario in many years.
The Ontario government has appointed a royal commission consisting of Mr. Justice Hughes to inquire into the Atlantic Acceptance debacle. The day after Mr. Biddell made his speech before the Empire Club in Toronto, in which he referred to "arrogant scoundrels"-incidentally, Mr. Speaker, did you ever hear that word "arrogant" used in any other place than before the Empire Club in Toronto-Mr. J. E. E'berle, lawyer for C. Powell Morgan, former president of Atlantic Acceptance, argued before Mr. Justice Hughes that Mr. Biddell should be cited and censured for his action since the matter was before the royal commission.
But Mr. Justice Hughes, a member of the Supreme Court of the Province of Ontario, a gentleman appointed to the bench by the government in Ottawa, said the royal commission was not conducting a trial but an inquiry. I point out that this commission of Mr. Rand is not conducting a trial. It is conducting an inquiry. The order in council specifies:
The committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, advise that the Honourable Ivan Cleveland Rand, of Moncton, in the province of New Brunswick, be appointed a commissioner under Part 1 of the Inquiries Act to inquire into the dealings of the Honourable Mr. Justice Leo A. Landreville with Northern Ontario Natural Gas Limited or any of its officers, employees or representatives, or in the shares of the said company, and to advise whether, in the opinion of the commissioner, anything done by Mr. Justice Landreville in the course of such dealings constituted misbehaviour in his official capacity as a judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario, or whether the honourable Mr. Justice Landreville has by such dealings proved himself unfit for the proper exercise of his judicial duties.
That is the foreword to the appointment of that commission of inquiry. It is not a court

February 17, 1966
Motion for Papers
of trial. We are not trying Mr. Landreville here. We are not making any accusations. We are not making any innuendoes. As members of parliament we are asking the cabinet to lay on the table the communication received from the benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada.
In the discussions that have taken place already the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has asked, "What have you got to say about the action of the law society keeping it a secret document?" The law society is a private body. They can do what they like with their own property, but when the law society writes to a public body like the House of Commons then the members of the house are entitled to see what the contents of that communication are.
One of the speakers in this debate, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), in a direct reference to Mr. Justice Landreville used this phrase, "whom we must presume innocent." Nobody who has spoken in support of the motion moved by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) has made any statement about the innocence or guilt of Mr. Justice Landreville. All we want is for the cabinet to table the letter received from the benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada.
The hon. member for Verdun made several references in the course of his remarks to the doubt in his mind as to the action of the cabinet in withholding communications from members of the house. It is interesting when you find a man defending the actions of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin), but still expressing doubt as to what he is doing. I simply ask the members of this house to make certain that the cabinet produces this letter.
I admire the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) who the other day, quoted Professor Chapman's book, "British Government observed", in particular the following passage:
This passion tor secrecy has . . . psychological and sociological origins. Secrecy in public life panders to a craving for a sentiment of self-importance. of belonging to an inner circle.
I say that is the attitude that members of the cabinet are adopting on many questions. For instance, I asked how much money was paid to Mrs. Baskin, an employee of the civil service, wife of a former member of this house, and how much was paid to Mrs. Sauve. The government told me the amount of money they paid Mrs. Baskin but what Mrs. Sauve gets is entirely a secret matter.

How self-important and arrogant can members of the cabinet get? I say we are the highest court in the land and I ask for the production of these papers as requested by the hon. member for Carleton.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, having just heard the eloquent (Mr. Cowan), I am almost nervous about words of the hon. member for York-Humber becoming involved with those who are accused of having a passion for secrecy; yet I do believe that this motion ought to be turned down by this house. I must say that I do so with some trepidation for the reason that my colleague, the deputy leader of this party, has spoken in favour of the motion. 1 have always found him persuasive and frequently sound but I regret to say that on this motion I found him to be neither.
I am particularly interested in this matter because, like the deputy leader of this party, I am a member of the bar. I should say that my courage is bolstered by the fact that another learned colleague of mine, the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), also spoke against the motion. I am particularly interested in this matter as a member of the bar in the province of Ontario. I think I can claim a special interest because I was the first member of this house to urge upon the previous minister of justice the necessity, in the interests both of the administration of justice and of fairness to Mr. Justice Landreville, whose conduct has been widely criticized in the press, that action be taken.
I am not claiming that it was because of my suggestion that the course of action taken was taken, but I did suggest to the minister that one of the proper preliminaries in dealing with this matter was an investigation by a person of high standing such as the present commissioner, Mr. Justice Rand. I should like to point out to members of this house that this matter is rather serious because, according to the information supplied to me by Dr. Eugene Forsey, whose studies of matters of this sort are well known to most of us-


Ralph Bronson Cowan: That is a matter of opinion, as you suggested to me a moment ago.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am not quoting Dr. Forsey as an expert on every conceivable subject.


Mr. Lewis:: Only in respect of those with which you agree.


Francis Andrew Brewin: That is right. On this particular occasion Dr. Forsey supplied me and perhaps other members of the house with a memorandum on the subject of the removal
February 17, 1966

of Superior Court judges. He pointed out that this was unique and that there has been no occasion in Canadian history when this matter has been dealt with, but there have been one or two abortive attempts to deal with this matter: On no occasion before has it reached the point the present case has reached. Let me remind members of this house that the only authority with power to remove a Supreme Court judge is the Governor General on an address of the Senate and House of Commons. Before the Senate and House of Commons deal with such a matter it is entirely appropriate that there be a preliminary inquiry.
By whom should a preliminary inquiry be carried out, Mr. Speaker? I suggest that the course chosen by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) is perfectly sound. He selected as a preliminary course an inquiry by an eminent retired justice of the Supreme Court of Canada who could not be accused in any sense of being biased or prejudiced in this matter in any shape or form. This inquiry is now to take place. What possible justification is there, in view of that fact, for this house to demand that some opinion expressed by, as the hon. member for York-Humber has said, a private body of lawyers be made a public document at this time? Why should their opinion, simply because it has been sent to the Minister of Justice in the nature of a complaint, as has been rumoured, by the majority of the benchers of the Law Society, and correspondence between the Minister of Justice, Mr. Justice Landreville and the Law Society, be made public?
Of course publicity is an important thing at certain times, but I suggest if we have a genuine respect for the independence of the judiciary we should not want to set a precedent as a result of which a complaint, at any time one is received by the minister of justice regarding the conduct of a judge, would as the property of this house be made a public document. I suggest this would not only interfere with the independence of the judiciary but would restrict the freedom of an individual to criticize the judiciary at the right times and in the right places. I believe that if I have a complaint about the conduct of a judge, and those of us who lose cases do sometimes feel disturbed about a judge's conduct, I should be permitted to voice that complaint in confidence. Sometimes there are serious complaints about judges. I am not suggesting for one moment that they occupy 23033-89J
Motion for Papers
a sacrosanct position but, if every time some disappointed or dissatisfied litigant writes to the minister of justice that correspondence may be made public, a dangerous situation would be created.
I agree with what the hon. member for York-Humber said about how arrogant cabinets formed from parties on both sides of this house and throughout the world are in using the excuse of secrecy to conceal documents. No doubt that will be improved when this party finds itself in that position over there but until that time we will always have the spectacle of arrogant cabinets. I agree with those arguments but they have no application to this case.
There are situations in which there is no public benefit served by the production of documents. We know, because Mr. Justice Rand has made this statement, that there is to be a public inquiry into this matter. That is why I found the argument of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) so completely non-persuasive. He said he was concerned about the independence of the judiciary and no doubt he is, but then he proceeded to say that in this case if we did not make the documents public immediately in this house, even though there is to be a public inquiry, the public would become suspicious and we must not feed their suspicions. It may be that we must not feed the suspicions of the public, but I think we would do so far more by making public the results of inconclusive and ex parte inquiries than by waiting for the results of the public inquiry that is to be made.
A proper inquiry has been instituted in accordance with perfectly proper and legitimate practice. Why do we need further documents and correspondence put before this house? We may have to deal at a later date with this matter in the form of a joint address but we do not know that at this stage. We may never have to deal with it. The commissioner may report that there is nothing to be dealt with and neither the government nor any other member needs bring it to the attention of this house. Until then what need have we for this correspondence and these documents? I do not care what the Law Society of Upper Canada says. The hon. member for York South suggested that this information should be made available because the Law Society has complained but he knows, as I do, that the Law Society is a completely oligarchic institution.

February 17, 1966
Motion for Papers
If the hon. member complains about the actions of the Law Society of Upper Canada, why does he not go to that Law Society and ask for the documents instead of supporting this motion in the house as a means of producing these documents? If the production of these documents would serve the administration of justice or would serve the cause of fairness in dealing with the serious problem that has been raised in regard to this particular judge, if I could see any use for it at all then I would support the motion. I can see no useful purpose but I can see a very dangerous precedent being set which would undermine, whether we like it or not, the independence of the judiciary. Whether the originator of the motion saw that danger or not I do not know, but I am sure he would disclaim that intent.
We are not just dealing with one case and one individual judge; we are dealing with a precedent that would affect the whole administration of justice. If no action had been taken by the Minister of Justice perhaps what the motion suggests would be good, but why should we now in this house, when action has been in fact taken to provide a full public inquiry, insist upon seeing these documents and this correspondence?
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
I submit to hon. members that the production of these documents would serve no useful purpose and would in fact establish a dangerous precedent. I support the arguments put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Danforth. Despite my great sympathy for some of the things said by the hon. member for York-Humber I hope we will defeat this motion.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of some serious consequence. Following the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), I am not going to refer to the issue of the independence of the judiciary and whether or not the alleged misbehaviour of Mr. Justice Landrevillle took place before or after he was appointed because I do not think it is a matter of serious consequence. But it is a matter of some consequence that we are really arguing about the qualification of judges, or at least the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) is in putting forward the motion.


Thomas Miller Bell: No, not at all.


Steven Otto: I want the hon. member for Carleton to hear me out so that I may

impress upon him the seriousness of this type of motion. There is one point that is very important and it is this. There has been a report from the benchers of the Upper Canada Law Society. Who are these benchers? They are not sanctified in any way whatsoever. They do not come down to us from Mount Olympus with any sort of aura. They are the elected executive of a very tight trade union. They are elected by the members of the legal profession of Ontario to protect the legal profession to a great extent.
These benchers rule on whether or not members of the legal profession from other provinces may practise in Ontario. They have a heavy hand in deciding, for the good of the profession, how many graduates are going to leave Osgoode Hall. They have something to say about minimum fees and tariffs. In other words, they are no more or no less than the executive of the plumbers' association. The service station association has an executive, as has the medical profession and the legal profession. These benchers are the people who sent this letter. It is not a report from the Law Society because the Law Society is composed of all the lawyers in the province. I do not recall at any time authority being given to the benchers to take this type of action, so it it really a report which the minister should not have accepted.
Now we are asked to put the stamp of approval of the house on this report.


David Lewis: Nobody is asking that.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Steven Otto: Well, Mr. Speaker, the motion asks this house to examine a copy of this statement, which is the same thing.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: All we want is to see
it; we do not want to approve it.


Steven Otto: Perhaps the hon. member for Carleton will listen to me for a moment. We have now sanctified these benchers. The benchers are practising solicitors and lawyers and on occasion they appear before the bench. As the hon. gentleman for Greenwood pointed out, the bench is also composed of human beings with certain feelings. If one of the benchers appears before the judge, pleads a case and loses or is about to lose, will there not be some pressure on the judge to say to himself, "What is going to happen? This man is a bencher. He will go back to the benchers and they will find out that when I was 15, 16 or 14 I stole some apples". Who knows what the alleged crime might be? Will the judge
February 17, 1966



not take into consideration this motion and say, "The benchers may send another report to the minister and I will be"-


Thomas Miller Bell: That is an insult to the whole judiciary of Canada.


David Lewis: Hear, hear.


Steven Otto: It is not an insult. In dealing with this matter we should be not only pragmatic but truthful to ourselves and realize that we are providing the benchers with an aura they do not have. They are no different, as the hon. member for Greenwood pointed out, from any other individual. Surely a report or letter from any other organization, any common or average citizen or businessman would not be demanded by the house for tabling. That is the real issue, Mr. Speaker. Are we going to provide these benchers of the Upper Canada Law Society with some great sanctity and say they deserve it? That is what the motion calls for. I say we must consider this question very carefully. We might set a precedent and that would not be right; it would not help anyone. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I think the motion should be defeated.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate in this debate not for the purpose of adding any arithmetical weight to the opinions of the lawyers of the New Democratic party but rather to study with you the problems that are attendant on the tabling of these documents. I firmly believe that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) took the proper course in setting up a judicial inquiry and I commend him for that action. It was a very difficult problem to deal with and his actions were right in the circumstances. I feel that this problem is a judicial rather than a political one and it is very difficult to separate the two. If this document were tabled you would create a political climate which would greatly prejudice the fair trial of Mr. Justice Landreville.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: It is not a trial; it is an inquiry.


John Gilbert: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I mean that it would greatly prejudice the inquiry with regard to Mr. Justice Landreville. May I point out that the report prepared by the law society was one in which the justice played no part in the giving of any evidence, and I imagine that the rules of evidence applied to judicial cases were not closely followed. The report prepared by the benchers was merely an opinion of the
Motion for Papers
benchers with regard to the conduct of the particular judge. Therefore, to lay the report open at this time by tabling it would give particular members an opportunity to express opinions on a report which was obtained in a very limited way.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
My hon. friend from York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) is very disturbed that the highest court of the land is not going to deal with this problem. I would remind him that we will eventually deal with the problem after the report of the commissioner has been made. The hon. member also referred to the inquiry with regard to Atlantic Acceptance Corporation. I point out, Mr. Speaker, that was an inquiry with regard to a limited company whereas the inquiry that has been set up here is with regard to a particular person. I do not believe it has any particular application.
I respectfully submit to you, sir, that after listening to the speech of the hon. member for Carleton who moved this motion and the speeches of other members it is clear that the purpose of the motion seems to be political rather than judicial. I feel that no purpose would be served by creating a political climate prior to the inquiry.
The hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) thinks there is an aura of secrecy attached to this report. I respectfully submit there is no secrecy. At the moment there is a temporary delay and that delay is caused by the desire for a fair hearing. For these reasons I do not support the notice of motion but support the Minister of Justice.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, when I was listening to the presentation of this notice of motion by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) I found aspects which frankly troubled me when I attempted to follow his argument why this particular report should be produced. While waiting for my turn in this debate, I took the liberty of looking up Hansard for February 3 and reading again the words of the hon. member for Carleton when he presented his motion with his usual fire and eloquence. Let me draw the attention of the house to a few excerpts from his remarks. On page 669 of Hansard in the second column, he is reported as saying:
It is not the conduct of Mr. Justice Landreville with which this motion deals. Let me make that abundantly clear.

February 17, 1966
Motion for Papers
A few lines lower down on the page, I find this:
What I am interested in is the conduct of the Minister of Justice and of his predecessor, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau)-
On page 670, the third paragraph, he is reported as saying:
No, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that this motion is not designed in any way to relate to the hearing now abdicated by this parliament to a retired judge. It is designed-
I draw the attention of this house to these words:
___to get to immediate grips with the incompetence and inconsistency with which the Minister of Justice and his predecessor, the President of the Privy Council, have handled a vital matter affecting so delicately the whole principle of the independence of the judiciary-
At the conclusion of his remarks on page 670 I find this:
But I am determined to hold the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, who is now Minister of Justice, accountable for his conduct of the whole affair. For that reason I am asking hon. members in all parts of the house to support this motion, to strike a blow against the arrogance-I use that word deliberately-of the Minister of Justice-
In other words, he is not asking this house to approve the notice of motion to have this report put on the table of this house to permit parliament to decide on some action to protect against possible injury to the integrity of our judiciary; he is not asking this house to approve his notice of motion so that the house can be informed of some situation of which hon. members have had no knowledge at all. He is using this report to strike a political blow against the reputation of the Minister of Justice. In other words, in order to strike at the Minister of Justice he is willing to trample underfoot the rights of a Canadian citizen who happens to be a judge of one of our higher courts.
I suggest to hon. members that this is a very serious thing. Surely a judge as an individual has a right to be treated fairly. One of the great problems of our modern society is to what extent the rights of an individual have to be made subservient to the over-all rights of the state. We see this when we have debates on the rights of the press and the right of the individual to privacy, when we have discussions about the rights of the press to inform the public concerning judicial proceedings, even though this may be at the cost of a fair and impartial trial of the individual accused. I feel that this notice of motion by the hon. member for Carleton is an illustration of this problem of public policy

which we are facing in many avenues of our national life today.
Another aspect of this problem has been referred to in this house which I am not going to dead with here, namely, the very difficult problem involving a former civil servant and his rights which have come into conflict with a basic question of the over-all security of the state. This question has been referred to in the house during the question period and I would not be surprised if it is discussed again at some other time.
Returning to the subject matter of this motion, we have a situation in which the chief aim is a political attack leading to the embarrassment of the Minister of Justice. To do this, the hon. member for Carleton is willing to disregard completely, or so it appears to me, the ordinary civil rights of a Canadian citizen who in this case happens to be a judge of one of our superior courts.


Richard Albert Bell: This is simply ridiculous.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The hon. member says this is simply ridiculous. If that is the only criticism the hon. member can bring to bear on my argument, then my argument must have a lot more strength than he is willing to admit.
What are some of the basic things which someone who stands accused of a course of conduct, which if proven could lead to serious consequences, could expect as a matter of right as a Canadian citizen in our society today? Surely if the accusation is of the seriousness of that which is being brought by some at least in the public print against Mr. Justice Landreville, he has a right to expect that any report passing judgment on his conduct should be made after he has had a public hearing, after he has had a right to have counsel present arguments, after he has had the right to call witnesses and to have his counsel cross-examine witnesses. In short, there should be what might be called an adversary proceeding.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
If I may put it another way, he has the right to have the basic principles of British and Canadian justice followed. I recall Dean Smalley-Baker saying some years ago, when he was Dean of the Law School at Osgoode Hall, audi alterem partem, which I would gather means, "hear the other side." Surely this is a basic principle of British and Canadian justice which does not appear, so far as I am aware, to have been followed by those representatives of the Law Society who
February 17, 1966

prepared and submitted the report in question. I think that because this was not done this report in the form it has been presented to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) should not be presented to the house at this time.
If, Mr. Speaker, the question "How could this report be described or categorized" were put, the answer would be that it would be analogous to reports that are the result of preliminary investigations which are used for the purpose of deciding whether charges should be laid. I think those of my hon. friends who are perhaps more experienced and learned in the law than I happen to be at this time will agree that generally speaking such reports cannot be produced in courts where charges arising out of these preliminary investigations are brought.
One obvious reason for this is the one-sided nature of the preliminary report on which the decision to lay a charge has been based in the particular case. Often these reports contain what might be referred to as raw data, data which have not been completely checked out by the most detailed form of investigation, indeed, data which may not have been properly checked at all.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I think that those members of the house who have had more years experience at the bar than I have had will agree that it would be a very unfair and harmful thing if these confidential preliminary reports, on which investigations which lead to a decision to lay charges are often based, should be made available as documents of serious probitive consequence in the trial of the charges in question.
The question may be raised whether or not the person who has been charged with carrying out an inquiry into this judge's conduct will be deprived of some useful or valuable information because this report is not produced before this house at this time. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Law Society will be able to be represented by counsel at the public hearing or at the private hearing, for that matter. It will be able through its counsel to make any sort of inquiry or argument it wishes. At the inquiry I am sure the Law Society will be able to request that witnesses be called to be heard by the person who will be conducting the inquiry if it appears that counsel for the inquiry will not be taking this step of his own accord. In fact, 1 would suspect that the Law Society will be able to present its report to the inquiry so that the judge can take such cognizance of it as would be relevant at the time.
Motion for Papers
If the report is presented to Mr. Justice Rand when he conducts his inquiry, it will be presented in a way which will open it to scrutiny by the representatives of Mr. Justice Landrevile. Inconsistencies or omissions in this report can be questioned and can be put on the public record.
If the motion that this report be now tabled is received and accepted by the house and if this report should be critical of the judge and his conduct, then I would suggest that this judgment in the report will become fixed in the public mind-it often appears that the public mind works this way-in a way which cannot be removed no matter what the decision of the inquiry held by Mr. Justice Rand. I suggest that members of the public will not be in a position to draw distinctions or raise criticisms of the type made so eloquently in this chamber today and on previous occasions by members from both sides of the house, pointing out the way this report has been prepared and presented.
For example, I am sure the public will not know that Mr. Justice Landreville was not heard before the report was produced; at least, that is the case as far as we are aware. They will not know that he did not have counsel appear for him before those who prepared the report and that there was not, even in the more limited sense of a public inquiry, a form of adversary proceeding in which his side was fully, fairly and effectively put before any decision was taken.
No, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if this report is critical of the judge, and there seems to be some suspicion on the part of many that that may be the case, then there will be left in the public mind a form of taint on the reputation of the judge in question which no decision of Mr. Justice Rand's inquiry or even of this house may ever completely remove.
The result of this, I suggest, will be harmful not only to the reputation and general integrity of our judiciary itself; it will have done a form of irreparable harm to the reputation of Mr. Justice Landreville as an individual. It would be serious enough, Mr. Speaker, if the result of producing this report would be to harm unjustly in the public mind the reputation or integrity and high standards of our judieiary. It would be even worse if, to achieve a narrow, partisan, political purpose, the hon. member for Carleton were put in the position of harming a Canadian citizen who in this case may happen to be a judge of our Supreme Court.

February 17, 1966
Supply-Transport
May I call it seven o'clock?


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

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Air Services-
30. Administration, operation and maintenance including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, the administration of the Radio Act and regulations issued thereunder. Canada's share of the cost of the international radio, telegraph and telephone organizations listed in the details of the estimates, Canada's assessment for membership in the World Meteorological Organization, $110,000 for grants in aid of meteorological research in Canadian universities and Canada's share of the cost of the World Meteorological Organization symposium on design of hydrometeorological networks, $97,637,700.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall vote 30 carry?
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, even if the minister is absent I should like to make some remarks which he might look up when he reads Hansard.
It is about the airport in Megantic. This airport was built by the Federal Government but it is not maintained. Owners of private planes who would like to use that airport, cannot do it in the fall or during the spring thaw. Even during winter the airport cannot be used.
I ask the minister whether he intends to set up a regional policy based on the needs of small airports?
The Megantic airport is modern enough, but the landing strips have not yet been paved.
I repeat this because the minister has just come into the house, privately owned planes cannot use it all year round.
In addition, when the summer is as wet as it was last year, even the provincial planes whose job is to protect the forests from fires often cannot land at this airport.
I know there is an agreement between the city and the federal government with regard to this airport; the city of Megantic rented the airport, but it cannot maintain it. I am quite convinced that at this particular time of the year planes cannot land there. The other day, private plane owners told us they

could neither take off nor land there because the runways were too deep in snow. In spring and in autumn, those landing strips are too soft, the ground is too soft to enable aircraft to take off or to land.
I would therefore ask the minister what he intends to do is such circumstances. Should the town of Megantic surrender the airport to the federal government, because it is unable to look after its maintenance. The citizens would like to be in a position to use it. The provincial government which also uses it for forest protection, would be interested in using it the year round.
I would ask the minister whether it would be possible to have in Megantic a profitable airport maintained by the federal government which would make sure that it is usable at all times.
Now I know of the representations the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) made regarding the Sherbrooke airport.
That airport is 45 miles from lake Megantic. It was built 4, 5 or 6 years ago, I think, and cost over $3 million, but it has never been used. The people of Megantic like those of the Sherbrooke area and of all the eastern townships would be anxious to use it.
I strongly support the hon. member for Sherbrooke in his request to have Air Canada establish an air route to serve Sherbrooke and the vicinity. That would be most helpful to us. The people of Lake Megantic and the eastern townships are in great need of this airport.
I would ask the minister to consider the situation. As this airport is already built, the only thing to do would be to authorize Air Canada to reinstate the services which this airport used to give. In my opinion, there would be enough passengers to make the line useful and profitable.
Those are the remarks I wanted to express to the minister; I ask him to take into consideration the matter of Megantic and Sherbrooke airports.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air Services-
35. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including national airports (as determined by the Minister of Transport) and related facilities, contributions towards construction done by local or private authorities with respect to such airports, amounts to be paid in settlement of claims for compensation by persons whose property is injuriously affected by the operation of a zoning regulation made under author-
February 17, 1966
[Stage Direction]
ity of paragraph (j) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Aeronautics Act, and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current fiscal year not to exceed, for airports and other ground services a total amount of $30,878,100, for radio aids to air and marine navigation a total amount of $14,854,000, and for meteorological services a total amount of $2,745,300, $41,906,000.
[Translation1
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I have only one question tor the minister concerning the construction of an air terminal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In Val d'Or?


David Réal Caouette: And in Rouyn. As far as Val
d'Or is concerned, the matter seems to have been settled temporarily since it has been decided that the construction will start before fall.
Rouyn needs an air terminal, because Rouyn-Noranda, to put things simply, is the hub of northwestern Quebec. I would like to have the assurance from the minister that his department is considering the possibility of building in Rouyn-Noranda an air terminal as substantial as the one which will be built in Val d'Or.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can give the hon. gentleman the assurance that the matter will be looked into at once.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
40. Contributions to assist in the establishment or improvement of local airports and related facilities, payments to the other governments or international agencies that are detailed in the estimates for the operation and maintenance of airports, air navigation and airways facilities, including authority to pay assessments in the amounts and in the currencies in which they are levied, notwithstanding that the total of such payments may exceed the estimated equivalent in Canadian dollars, grants as detailed in the estimates for the development of civil aviation and payments to the Canadian National Railway Company of the difference between revenues and expenses in the operation and maintenance of telecommunication facilities as detailed in the estimates in accordance with agreements entered into with the company with the approval of the governor in council, $1,370,300.
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, may I express my appreciation to the Minister of Transport for the contributions the department made to the Wellington-Waterloo airport situated in my community. These contributions made it possible to enlarge the runways and add aprons to this very popular airport which serves Kitchener, Guelph, Hespeler, and areas adjacent. The airport is used to a large extent by incoming and outgoing aircraft, serving what we call the golden triangle of Ontario.
Supply-Transport
I know that the people of that community would want me to express their appreciation to the minister for the allotment of funds that has made these improvements possible.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Chairman, may I ask another question of the Minister of Transport and an assurance from him in connection with the matter I am about to raise. A few months ago I had a meeting with many of those who hold private pilot licences in my constituency. At that time those people were expressing a great deal of concern about their ability to use the facilities at our airport, and at other airports across Canada. The facilities they referred to had to do with instrument approaches, and with the practising of instrument approaches in some airports which were not busy at the time. Those pilots were not allowed to do this by the towers on this side of the border, whereas if they flew to an airport in the United States they were more than welcome to use the instrument facilities, whether the airport was busy or not. The pilots concerned felt that it would be preferable if they had greater opportunity to make use of facilities, particularly of those in airports that are not busy and therefore not being used, and they felt it would be to the advantage of those in control towers thus to improve their own skills. May I ask the minister if he would be good enough to look into this matter for the sake of those who hold private pilot licences, perhaps with a view to doing something eventually to improve this situation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be very glad to review the situation, and if the hon. gentleman would let me know about the particular case he has in mind, I will look into that as well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add just a word to the remarks of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand), and ask the minister not to consider only the case of the flying enthusiasts of the Saskatoon area. I should like to make the following suggestion. At least once a year the minister or his officials should find it possible to meet with the people in charge of the private flying clubs throughout Canada, because it is those flying clubs that are the source of future pilots.
I fully understand the problem mentioned by the hon. member for Saskatoon, because I

February 17, 1966
Supply-Transport
was once a member of a private flying club. There are other problems upon which the minister could, at very little cost, exert a rather significant influence in order to promote private aviation and to be of assistance to those flying clubs.
Then, I suggest that at least once a year the officials of his department should manage to call a conference with the bona fide officials of the private flying clubs, in order to talk over their problems.
Before resuming my seat, I also should like on behalf of the whole area of Trois-Rivieres, to thank the minister for what we have received in the field of private aviation, and 1 think we can say we were gratified to the full.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That seems a very good idea and I will look into the matter.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: I should like to express my interest in the announcement, made by the minister last March 29, that there was to be a vote of funds to assist local airports. That, I think, is a very worth-while plan, particularly because it is my feeling that since the public supports the roads for automobile travel, the federal government ought to support the local airports for those who want to travel by air.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
I wish to pose some questions to the minister in regard to that, because it is my understanding that there was to be $1 million voted for this purpose. According to the information that we have here only some $591,300 was used, although I notice in the new estimates that it is expected that $850,000 will be used by the end of the year. I should like to know, what reason if any there is for only a proportion of the $1 million being used? Can the minister give me an idea as to how many applications were received? I am very interested in knowing how many of these came from Saskatchewan and, of course, I should like to know how many came from my own constituency.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As to the first question, I think the answer is very simple. The policy has not yet been in operation for a whole year. I have no doubt that after it has been in operation for a full year the situation will be very different. As for the list of places, I am not sure I have it here. If I do not, and if I give the hon. member an assurance that I will provide him with it, I wonder if he would be satisfied.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: That would be agreeable, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Nasserden:: I believe that at the present time the department does not assume any responsibility for the purchase of land for local airports. This has become a problem today in many areas where the price of land is increasing. Would the minister give consideration to paying part of the cost of acquiring land intended for local airstrips?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be glad to look into that matter again but there are some difficulties as I am sure the hon. gentleman well understands.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, only one more question. From the information I gave to the minister the other night during the debate on Item No. 1, is he prepared to consider again the case of Fecteau Transport Company of Senneterre who wish to operate as far as Rupert House and Mattagami, not Moosonee, not in Ontario, but Mattagami, so that this company may be fairly dealt with?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am looking into that matter and I intend to write to the hon. gentleman just as soon as I get a little information.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I wanted to put a question to the Minister of Transport having to do with the construction program for the satellite airport at St. Ambroise on the outskirts of Winnipeg. It is my understanding that the Department of Transport intends to proceed this summer-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman, who is an experienced parliamentarian though he is a new member here, would look at the estimates for 1966-67. Provision is made for these developments in those estimates, and perhaps in the circumstances it could be discussed on them.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I understand. But by the time we get to the estimates for the next fiscal year it will be too late. So I should like to draw the minister's attention to this matter now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is already in the estimates which were distributed on Monday.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I understand that, but I wonder whether the minister would hear me out, because this has to do with work which is contemplated. It is my understanding that
February 17, 1966



the department intends to proceed with the hard-surfacing of the runways of this satellite airport and I am told by people who I believe are in a position to know that it would be most unfortunate if the department were to proceed to surface these 2,500 foot runways because in a few years the economic development of northeast Manitoba will demand longer runways. I hope the minister will look into this question with a view to providing longer runways at this airport. There are many entrepreneurs and businessmen in this area who would regret it very much if the department were to proceed with the hard-surfacing of runways which are much too short.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will look into that matter before any action is taken.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air Transport Board-
75. Air Transport Board salaries and other expenses, $777,200.
David James Walker: This vote has to do with the Air Transport Board. I should like to bring to the attention of the minister and of the board a situation which has developed in connection with international charter licences. I am innocent enough to believe that the motives and the aims of those who hold air carrier licences should be to take people where they want to go at times when they want to go. But in this field-and I am referring to international charter licences in the class 9-4A-a situation has come into being which could have unfortunate results. At the moment a number of operators are in possession of licences which are not being used. I am speaking particularly of Ontario. I should like to bring it to the attention of the minister and, through him, to the transport board that in May, June and July of 1965, 124 foreign carrier flights departed from Ontario alone.
No less than 45 per cent of Ontario charters was carried out by foreign carriers. This is typical. It has been pointed out that Ontario does not have an active air carrier in the 9-4A category and the province is losing some $13 million a year to other Canadian companies and to foreign-owned companies. Though Ontario provides more than half the Canadian market, at present worth about $35 million, it does not have an active licensed carrier and therefore it does not share in this market.
I presume the licensees have equipment But the problem which may develop is this: These licences may shortly have a greater
Supply-Transport
dollar asset value than the businesses themselves, and I think this would make for a poor situation if it did develop.
Should not the transport board make an annual review of the use to which these licences are being put and consider revoking the licence of any international charter carrier operating in Canada who has not carried anybody in the previous year? I know that Air Canada is in the air charter flight business and they are booked up until way into next year. I understand, too, that there are thousands of Canadians who would very much like to go on charter flights this summer but are unable to do so because the necessary equipment is not available.
This could arise from the fact that there are eight or nine unused inactive licences in being at the present time. And I think the board should take steps to deal with this situation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to assure the hon. gentleman that this matter is already under very active consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada-
80. Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,477,000.
Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, I intended to give a rather lengthy dissertation on this subject, but owing to the fact that we are anxious to get the estimates through, I shall only refer to two brief matters which for obvious reasons I should bring to the minister's attention at this time. The first one directly concerns the Board of Transport Commissioners.
So far as I am concerned I have always had most excellent relations with that board. From what I have seen of their hearings they are held very fairly, and any reasonable person could rely on the judgment they produce from the facts presented to them. However, having said that I would like to say that justice must not only be done but it must appear to be done as well.
Last year I attended a board hearing concerned with a C.N.R. request to abandon a small railway line in my riding. I do not quarrel with the judgment given by the board, but having watched things carefully at the hearing I can say an impression was given to lay personnel that the officials of the board present and the officials of the C.N.R.

February 17, 1966
Supply-Transport
were, as they say, playing footsie, and constant references were made to the valuable information provided to the board by the C.N.R. I realize this is probably a normal procedure, but to an outsider it gave the impression that the board, to say the least, was being very sympathetic to the C.N.R. application, thus creating an unfortunate impression. It may not have occurred to the board that this kind of thing can happen, but again I repeat justice must not only be done but it must appear to be done.
I agree with the minister in what he said yesterday, that railway services must be paid for either by the general public or by the users of the railways. But I point out that the accounting methods used by the railways are quite different from the usual accounting methods used in other forms of business. This may or may not be a good thing, but since a committee of this house will shortly be hearing representations concerning C.P.R. passenger service, and since further hearings will be heard by the Board of Transport Commissioners on railway line abandonment, I ask that the government appoint a one-man royal commission, an expert chartered accountant, to review quickly the methods of accounting used by the railways so that they may be understood by members of the committee and the public at large.
In this connection I refer briefly to a judgment handed down by Mr. Griffin, with reference to the hearing I attended. I quote from page 15 as follows:
It became apparent, during further cross-examination of Mr. White, and when Mr. Winlaw later gave evidence for the respondents, that there was some misapprehension about railway accounting for track elements because of differences between the more usual accounting practices and those employed by railways. I
I have had experience in accounting by training and some brief work, and I can say railway accounting, because of the nature of the business, is indeed different. When members of this house or of the other place attend board hearings, or committees dealing with passenger service, it should be made very clear to them what are the differences in the accounting methods used by railways and those used in ordinary business practice. Therefore I suggest someone be appointed to translate railway accounting methods into ordinary accounting parlance so that people may know what is happening.
Under the accounting methods used by railways they can certainly give the appearance that operations are costing more than if

they were accounted for by ordinary methods. This provides the railways with a good excuse for seeking to abandon passenger service, railway lines and other things. If ordinary accounting methods were used I am quite sure the railways would not have so many arguments to make in favour of getting rid of passenger service, and abandoning lines. This is a point that has been overlooked so far in debates in this chamber and should be considered before the next estimates are discussed.
I now wish to speak about a grade crossing in the town of Ingersoll, Ontario, in my riding. It crosses the main lines of the C.N.R. running between Montreal and Chicago. It is a subject which has been before the house on various occasions, and also before the Board of Transport Commissioners. Just recently a second fatality occurred there. A small child was killed at the crossing. This line crosses No. 2 highway, a main traffic artery in Ontario, in the middle of the town of Ingersoll. There is a children's swimming pool on one side, and a large Roman Catholic school on the other. Hundreds of children are constantly in the vicinity of the railway crossing.
Some types of gates provide protection but, as hon. members know, railways constitute an allurement to children. The gates may protect adults, but that does not apply to children. During the recent election I suggested at my nomination meeting that I would be glad to look into the matter and bring it before parliament. Later, when the Liberal party had its convention, the Liberal candidate said he would do so too. But for some reason during the course of the election campaign it became a political issue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How surprising.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am surprised the minister says he is surprised at this. I am not suggesting the minister had anything to do with it; I have no evidence that he did. I know he would not do things like this, but during the campaign the Liberal candidate came to Ottawa to get something done quickly about it. That is fair game at election time. Those of us who have been here quite a while are not thin skinned about these things, but I want to remind the minister, and his colleague the Minister of Public Works, of what was held out to the people of the town of Ingersoll.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
At that time the Liberal candidate had his picture taken for the press showing him
February 17, 1966

seated by the then acting prime minister, the present Minister of Public Works, who had a smile like the great white father and his arm around that gentleman. The caption stated that this matter would be looked into and attended to at once. Apparently the people of Ingersoll did not take the promise too seriously-at least the election results would indicate that. In any event, I wanted to give the background.
This is what I am really complaining about and it is a very serious complaint. On December 14 last the Board of Transport Commissioners held a meeting in the town of Ingersoll regarding this railway crossing. I was delighted to note, when I read the account of that meeting, that the minister and the board were able to provide such a prompt hearing.
Despite the fact that I have been the member for Oxford for six parliaments covering approximately 13 years I received no notice of this hearing whatsoever. That is the first time to my knowledge since I have been a member I have not received a notice of a hearing of the Board of Transport Commissioners held in my area, whether or not I expressed any interest in this particular proceeding. I thought that rather peculiar in view of the fact I had some correspondence with the board regarding this matter.
I wrote the Board of Transport Commissioners about this matter and received a reply dated December 28, 1965 from a Mr. Rump, secretary of the board, which stated in part:
It is not usual to send notices to members of parliament unless they have indicated an interest to the Board. In this case, no letter from you appears on our file. I
I am sure the minister does not know anything about this situation, but I should like to point out that in volume IV of Hansard for 1955 there is recorded at pages 3988 and 3989 two pages of my remarks about this crossing. Even though the board might lose its files or destroy them after a few years we have this record in Hansard of my remarks about this crossing.
In addition to those remarks I had correspondence with the board about it. I do not have that correspondence in front of me but it is in my file. Early last September I telephoned the board concerning this correspondence and the latest fatality which had occurred there. Mr. Rump was away because of illness but I spoke to the acting secretary who noted the matter and said he would refer it to the board.
Supply-Transport
Again in reference to the letter I received from the board dated Deceber 28 I was informed that the board had no record of correspondence from me concerning tihs crossing and that if they did it must have been lost during a move from one office to another. I am prepared to accept that statement, but I find it difficult to understand why the board would not know that this crossing matter had been the subject of considerable political controversy during the last election campaign.
I should like to read further from the letter and draw this statement to the attention of the minister, because I feel he perhaps does not know what some of his personnel are doing. On the second page we find this statement:
In so far as the notification of the defeated candidate in your constituency is concerned I would advise that, because of representations which were transmitted to the Board through the office of the Minister of Transport, a copy of the Board's formal notice of hearing was forwared to Mr. H. Arbique, Special Assistant to the Minister. It is understood that Mr. Arbique in turn, because of the representations made to the Minister, advised the local Liberal Association in Ingersoll. Therefore, I presume in this matter their representative became informed of the hearing.
In that regard it seems that almost the whole Liberal Party in Oxford turned out for the hearing. I think perhaps I should read the next paragraph which states:
I can assure you that a copy of the notice of the hearing was not sent by this Board to either your political opponent or his association in Ingersoll. However, I might say that a few days prior to the hearing I received a telephone call on behalf of the local Liberal Association asking whether or not the Board would receive representations from that organization if it wished to submit same. They were, of course, verbally advised that this was their privilege if they so desired.
The secretary then set down a number of officials' names in the town of Ingersoll to whom notice had been sent. The bottom name is Mr. Kenneth F. Riehl, 913 Warwick Street, Woodstock. I understand that he is a high school teacher at Woodstock and a very active member of the Liberal party.
This kind of action is all good fun and horseplay during election campaigns, but I do think this lack of notification is the responsibility of the officials of the minister's department, and I draw this to his attention. The Board of Transport Commissioners is a quasijudicial body and it should not be made, through pressure from the minister's office, the target of political partisanship. This whole thing must be very embarrassing to the members of that board and it is with

February 17, 1966
Supply-Transport
regret that I refer to it at all. This type of thing is something that should be stopped. We have not heard of it before and I hope it will not occur again.
In this same regard, in view of the promises that were made-perhaps I should not use the word "promises" because the Minister of Public Works who was in the house a moment ago, and I am sorry he has left, has had enough experience in public life to know not to make direct promises, at least gave the impression that this dangerous railway crossing was going to be attended to at once, I hope the Minister of Public Works will refer the matter to his colleague the Minister of Transport so that something can be done.
When the board did hold its hearing on December 14, to which I was not invited, the London Free Press reported that the commissioner had said a very prompt decision would be made. That was last December and no decision has been made yet. The town of Ingersoll is very anxious to know when something will be done and whether it will have to pay a share of the cost because it is drawing up its budget for this year at the present time.
I ask the Minister of Transport to take this matter up with the Board of Transport Commissioners and impress upon that board that it must bear in mind the "promises" that were outlined and held out to the people of Ingersoll by the Minister of Public Works. Incidentally, the former minister of mines and technical surveys was in Ingersoll for a couple of days at that time. Perhaps it would have been better had he spent more time in his own riding in Prince Edward Island. I just mention that in passing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question. Did I understand him correctly to say that he made representations about this matter in 1955?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes, and on various occasions since then.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman could tell us what happened in respect of this crossing during the six years he was an influential member on this side of the house?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, that is a very interesting observation. During those six years there were no requests from the town of Ingersoll to make the changes that were suggested at the recent hearing. Changes of another kind relating to this crossing were

requested in 1955 and on other occasions. The-request at the recent hearing for changes related to the increased number of small, children using the crossing, a swimming pool nearby and greatly increased traffic. In addition, there were no fatal accidents in 1955. If the minister cares to review the matter I am sure he will obtain these facts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be very happy to-review it.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make one brief observation concerning the Board of Transport Commissioners. I would preface my remarks by saying that I, too, have always received from the board the finest co-operation. However, I believe it should be brought to the attention of the minister that the Board of Transport Commissioners was guilty of a lack of judgment in the way they went about removing the night train from Ottawa to Toronto. I realize that this train has since been reinstated, but taking off a night train service from the capital of Canada to the capital of Ontario was certainly, in my estimation, exhibiting a lack of good judgment. The board knew the pool service arrangement would expire last October. They had known this for years and knew it would expire on this particular date, but nothing was done except to drop the train as of October, 1965. Then there was a public outcry all across Canada, particularly in the areas of Toronto and Ottawa, public opinion was aroused and objections were put before the Board of Transport Commissioners. The Board then said, "Well, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific must get together and see what they can do".
Then the two railways got together and finally decided that C.P.R. would drop out of this passenger service and the C.N.R. would take over, with the result that we now have an overnight train service on Canadian National from the capital of Canada to the capital of Ontario.
I think it behooves the minister and the Board of Transport Commissioners to operate in a more efficient manner in a country such as Canada. They should not act in this backward, left-handed way. The removal of the overnight train made the railways the laughingstock of the country because the capital of Canada did not have this service. I thought this was the time to bring this matter to the attention of the minister and I hope he
February 17, 1966

and the board will in the future use better judgment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope the train will be well patronized.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, on this vote which provides funds to the Board of Transport Commissioners I wish to say a few words, for two reasons. First I should like to support the argument advanced by the hon. member for Oxford who suggested that the Board of Transport Commissioners or at least someone in the Department of Transport require a cost accounting or a cost analysis system far better than the one used at the present time. I say this because we know, or at least some of us suspect, that the costs advanced by the C.P.R. when they filed their application to abandon the Dominion were not satisfactory in comparison with usual accounting methods.
The hon. member for Oxford is a distinguished member of the accounting profession and he advanced the opinion that the accounting methods used by the railway company are substantially different than those used in any other business in Canada. I am not a member of the accounting profession, but I should like to add that the accounting methods used in the railway's affairs are not even comprehensible to most other accountants in Canada.
The part that is disturbing about all this is that no serious attempt was made to challenge these costs when the C.P.R. filed figures of variable costs before before the Board of Transport Commissioners. I notice from the judgment handed down that apparently no attempt was made by the Board of Transport Commissioners to really seriously and in detail study these costs in order to ascertain whether they were justifiable, particularly from the point of view of the public interest.
Some amounts covering the cost of money were disallowed by the Board of Transport Commissioners and I give them full credit for this. They disallowed costs in other cases also. But there is the matter of depreciation charged to the Dominion amounting to $303,000 for locomotives and $1,033,000 for passenger cars which was not disallowed. I believe we are justified in suggesting that all this depreciation, particularly for passenger cars, will continue whether or not that train runs; therefore it is certainly not a cost that can be saved with the abandoning of the train.
Supply-Transport
One other thing that disturbs me greatly about these so-called variable costs advanced by the C.P.R. in support of their argument for the abandonment of the Dominion is that the amount of $628,000 is charged to this train under the heading "other general expenses"; yet when Mr. Nepveu, the C.P.R. witness called at the hearings of the Board of Transport Commissioners to explain these costs, was asked about this particular item he could not even answer a question on how they arrived at that figure. He was unable to give the details of the various components which added up to $628,000. I have read the judgment of the Board of Transport Commissioners very carefully and there is no questioning of this figure.
I do not want to be too critical of the board in this respect if they did not have the facilities and the personnel to carry out the kind of detailed analysis of these variable costs that was necessary. They say this is the case. I should like to quote from page 83 of file No. 27563.479 which is the judgment of the Board of Transport Commissioners in respect of the Dominion:
The detailed expense items for the year 1964, when the train had head-end traffic, and for the projected year 1965-66, for the train with its present consist, were shown in Exhibits 4 and 5.
Those exhibits were filed by Canadian Pacific Railway. Then it says:
All categories of expense are lower for the projected year, the total variable cost being reduced from $20.8 million to $7.7 million.
Of course, the difference here is in the consist of the train. Then on page 84 of the judgment the Board of Transport Commissioners go on to say in the second paragraph:
As to the revenues and costs, as shown in Exhibit 5, for a 12-month operation of the train with its present consist, I would not include as a saveable expense the $628,100 claimed by the company as cost of money. I would also, for the purposes of this judgment, make disallowances in other items, including road maintenance, traffic and general expenses.
I do not need to read the rest of this paragraph, but then it is said:
I am in agreement with their estimate that the saveable expenses on that basis would be in the neighbourhood of $6 million and the deficit about $3 million.
I presume this is for the consist of the train with one locomotive, a buffet car and two day coaches. Then further down it says:
-I have not considered tt necessary to require the board's staff or myself to make the further detailed study that would be necessary in order to determine more precisely the items and total of allowable expenses, revenues and deficit.

February 17, 1966
Supply-Transport
I would suggest to the Minister of Transport that perhaps one reason the Board of Transport Commissioners did not go into these matters in more detail was that they *did not have a sufficiently modern or efficient accounting branch to do a good job. It is a tremendous task, a formidable undertaking to go over all these things and arrive at these figures from the records of the C.P.R.
It appears that the Board of Transport Commissioners in handing down their decision respecting the Dominion were willing to accept the variable costs advanced by Canadian Pacific Railway. There have been some changes, as is pointed out, but there is no explanation in the judgment as to the extent and allocation of the disallowances in respect of other items.
(7:50 p.m.)
It seems to me that if the public interest is to be served, then surely when the railway eompany advances costs of this kind, there should be someone or a group of men in the offices of the Board of Transport Commissioners or the Department of Transport, who could undertake a thorough, detailed examination of these figures in order to insure that we do not simply accept this kind of thing from the Canadian Pacific. When the Canadian Pacific was examined at the public hearing, they could not even give details as to how they arrived at these costs. There were other items, such as the $1,932,000 claimed as road maintenance. However, when Mr. Nepveu, a Canadian Pacific witness, was asked to give an explanation of how he arrived at this cost, he admitted this was something the railway could not do. There had been a proportion of the total cost allocated to this train. When asked how long it may be before the Canadian Pacific could actually save this amount claimed in 1964, he said it might take 15 or 18 years.
I should like the minister to realize that this simply is not good enough if the public interest is to be served. I feel that we have to prove these items. In 1958, the Canadian Pacific came before the Board of Transport Commissioners and claimed an annual loss of $17 million on hauling grain out of western Canada into export position at Vancouver or the head of the lakes. Well, to the credit of the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba, they went to the trouble and expense of engaging the services of a cost accounting firm which went into the details of the variable costs of hauling grain. They came back to the Board

of Transport Commisssioners, so I am told, and showed that there was a $500,000 net profit instead of a $17 million deficit. All this information was taken from the Canadian Pacific records.
Now, in fairness to the board and to the Canadian Pacific, the board did not accept this $500,000 net profit. I understand, however, that they did accept a figure of something like $2 million loss instead of the $17 million. If that same proportion of difference could be applied to these variable costs that are charged against the Dominion, probably there would not be a deficit at all. By having a different group of accountants go over these figures, they were able to show that there were $15 million that were not lost, so the $17 million was cut down to $2 million. I understand these figures were accepted by the Board of Transport Commissioners. I could go into a lot of detail about the obligation of the Canadian Pacific to the public because of public investment, but I am not going to do that at this time. Before we allow the company to withdraw services on the basis of figures of this kind that are supplied by the company and are not challenged, we should at least have the services of competent accountants who will do a creditable job of examining these figures.
Before I leave the subject of the Board of Transport Commissioners, I should like to suggest this to the minister: Now that this matter of railway passenger service in Canada has been referred to a parliamentary committee, I hope the minister is going to give approval to this committee's hiring the services of a competent cost accounting firm so that the committee can study these variable costs and do a respectable job in the interests of the public. One more thing, Mr. Chairman, is that there was absolutely no attempt made by the Canadian Pacific, at least I see no reference to it in the judgment, to find out what percentage of these variable costs attributable to the Dominion are, in fact, costs that can be saved by abandoning this train. What percentage of them would be continuing costs whether or not the company runs this train? Certainly a number of them, such as road maintenance, will continue even though this train is no longer running.
The question that immediately arises of course is, who is going to pay? Is it going to be the captive freight shipper who will be caught again in this squeeze if the company is able to show an increase in costs in
February 17, 1966

relation to revenues? There is one thing that is certain and that is that when the train is abandoned, the revenue is gone, the $10 million or $11 million in revenue which was claimed for 1964 operation, that is all gone. We do not know what proportion of these costs is going to be a continuing cost and charged to the captive freight shipper. I hope that the committee will be asking for assistance from experts. There will be some expenditure involved no doubt, but I hope the minister is going to respond favourably to this request so that the members of the committee will have these services available to them which will enable them to do a good job.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is one other point I want to mention in which I believe the Board of Transport Commissioners have an obligation. I feel they have tried to meet this obligation by attempting to determine what the public interest requires in the way of service. I am speaking now particularly of passenger services. However, prior to August, 1965, I do not believe the Board of Transport Commissioners had any statistics or other information available to them from either the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific as to the demand for railway passenger services. My reason for referring to this matter is that every member in this house, particularly those from western Canada, has received complaints, not by the dozens but by the hundreds, from people who were turned down week after week when they made requests for railway passenger service.
However, there is no information on this aspect of the matter in the statements filed by the railway company. They claim they do not keep such records. Unfortunately the Canadian Pacific continued to destroy what little evidence they had on this point, namely the waiting lists. Even after the Board of Transport Commissioners asked them to provide evidence as to the number of requests for services that were not filled, as outlined in the order issued September 8, the information was not supplied. If the Board is to do justice to the public interest, they must know how many people were turned down when they made requests for service. If the railways are going to equate the demand for service with what is available, then it is not good enough for them to come before the Board of Transport Commissioners and say that on a certain day the train was only 50 per cent or 60 per cent full because people have been making requests for this space and
Supply-Transport
have been turned down. This situation has not changed since the Board issued its order for the railways to provide this information. There has been no great improvement in the reservation system to insure that trains are reasonably full.
[DOT] (8:00 pan.)
I hope that the minister and the Board of Transport Commissioners will make an even greater attempt to find out reasonably accurately how many requests are being made for railway passenger service, quite apart from the number of passengers who are actually carried. It is not good enough to say that because a particular train was only 50 per cent full, that was all the demand for service there was; there may have been several dozen people telephone, write or otherwise contact the railway, only to be informed there was no space available. Each one of us here who has found it necessary to ride in one of these trains recently knows very well that your request for space can be turned down days before you want to go, yet when you do get on the train you find all kinds of space.
As a matter of fact, I have had a number of experiences where I applied for space, and right up till the last hour before the train left the station my application had been turned down. Because I happened to have a pass I boarded the train anyway, and on walking through the train found all kinds of space, both in the day coaches and in the sleepers. So I think there needs to be a far more detailed study of this question to make an accurate survey of what is the public demand for railway service.
I am sure the minister knows that a great deal more time could be spent on the subject of railway passenger service, but since the matter has been referred to the committee and the estimates for the ensuing year will be coming up very soon, I will leave it at that. However, I repeat that I hope the minister matter has been referred to the committee on Transport and Communications to ask for sufficient expense money, and so on, so that they can use the services of competent people in examining these statements of variable costs which are advanced by the C.P.R.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could just say a word with respect to the demand made first by the hon. member for Oxford and repeated by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. I think a review should be made without any delay of the facilities we

February 17, 1966
Supply-Transport
have, both in the Board of Transport Commissioners and in other branches of the government, for the checking of railway accounting in an independent way. I intend to have that matter looked into without any delay whatever.
If I could just say a word with respect to the other point raised by the hon. member- though I am not a member of the committee and he is-it is not customary for ministers to try to prejudge these questions. I feel quite sure that once the committee has embarked upon its study-I hope it will be done in this way-of the passenger service, if they then find that they need extra assistance-and I think it would be easier for Treasury Board, in providing this kind of service, if there had been a clearly demonstrated need-I cannot conceive that the government would be at all hesitant about seeing that it is provided. But I hope there will be a few meetings first just to see precisely what kind of assistance would be most appropriate.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I should like to reinforce the arguments which have been put forward by the hon. member for Oxford and also for Medicine Hat regarding a secretariat of some kind for the Board of Transport Commissioners and their rail line rationalization program to look after the applications which may be put forward. I think this would be a very important part of such a program if it is to meet the objective that this parliament and the people of this country feel is most wanted in view of the recommendations made regarding rail line rationalization.
There is one other matter I should like to bring up, and I will be brief. It concerns the growing need for more overpasses along our railway system than we have at the present time. With these large diesel units we have trains consisting of 150 to 220 freight cars. At points like Warman, north of Saskatoon, a junction where one line goes west, one line goes east and another goes north, the track is blocked by trains crossing for sometimes as long as 80 minutes, often for 50 minutes. This is quite an inconvenience for people who want to cross the track and have to find another crossing some two or three miles away.
I should like the minister to try to bring forward a program which will provide more money for this purpose than is provided at the present time. As a matter of fact, almost every station along the way from Saskatoon

to Humboldt and also up to the Battlefords has a real problem in this regard, and it should be looked into.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to add my support to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Oxford and the hon. member for Medicine Hat that the minister not only take whatever steps are necessary to see that the Committee on Transport and Communications have the staff to do the job, but also that he give serious study to the urgent problem of supplying the Board of Transport Commissioners with the type of staff, both in numbers and in training, which, by statute will do the job they are required to do. Because if they do not do the job which has been given them, no one can do it.
I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Medicine Hat, who spoke of the fact that members of parliament, among others, have had the experience of being told, when they have tried to get accommodations on a train, that there are none, yet when they get on the train find it half empty.
Some two years ago I remember talking to the chairman of the Board of Transport Commissioners. I suggested to him that the C.P.R.'s removal of the dining car and sleeping accommodations from the Dominion could mean only one thing, and that was that the train would carry so little traffic that in a very short period of time the C.P.R. would go to the board and argue that they should have permission to discontinue the train for lack of passengers. Of course the train had no passengers. The C.P.R. set out deliberately to kill the Dominion. The Board of Transport Commissioners were warned but did nothing about it. The C.P.R. then asked for permission to discontinue the Dominion, and they were given that permission.
I spoke last week to one of the commissioners about the Canadian, because I have been told of people in Winnipeg who have already had some experiences apropos this train. People have phoned to make a reservation for sleeping accommodations and have been told there are no accommodations for that particular day. Nevertheless they have boarded the train and have found it half empty.
What did the commissioner tell me in this respect, Mr. Chairman? He said: "You supply us with the evidence and we will take action". Members of parliament are not a regulatory society or private detectives. Surely this matter is the responsibility of the Board of Transport Commissioners. I suggest
February 17, 1966

to the minister that the Board of Transport Commissioners be given the job of making sure that the C.P.R. does not do with the Canadian what it did with the Dominion.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I think I should express the views of many people across Canada who have already said with apprehension that it is the intention of the C.P.R., one way or another to get out of the passenger business. Many people do not think that that is proper. I have said before, and I will not go into great detail about it now, that it is my opinion that the Canadian Pacific made a contract with the people of Canada, and with the Government of Canada, when that company was established, which it ought not be allowed to break. It ought not to be permitted to discard that part of the business which is unprofitable and to keep that part of the business which is profitable.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to spend much time on the Canadian Pacific and its railway operations as governed by the Board of Transport Commissioners. That has already been admirably done. I wish to speak of another matter under the jurisdiction of the Board of Transport Commissioners. Many speak about telephone rates. In the month of September, 1964, the Board of Transport Commissioners decided that it would be in the public interest to review, through public hearings, the whole question of telephone rates and costs of operating telephone systems in Ontario and Quebec. Public hearings were held.
Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities together with the Association of Ontario Mayors and Reeves, the Ontario Municipal Association, and the Union of Quebec Municipalities acting for a long list of local cities and municipal governments, made a submission to the Board of Transport Commissioners. I believe it was on February 5, that the board heard from them, and from various other interested parties. The findings of the board were to be made in December, 1965. We are now approaching the latter part of February, 1966, and there is little indication when the board will actually bring down its findings. It may be, Mr. Chairman, that the board has not been able to do the job because it was busy with hearings in connection with the Dominion which was operated by the Canadian Pacific. This, however, only proves the point raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat,
Supply-Transport
to the effect that the board has not the kind and quality of staff to do the job it is required by law to do. Millions of dollars are involved in these hearings.
In 1958, after hearing submissions from the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, in the judgment which it handed down the board said:
By its judgment of 1958 the board allowed as reasonable a permissible level of earnings per share of $2.43, sufficient to maintain the historic $2 per share dividend and an additional 43 cents per share surplus.
This was confirmed in 1958, despite Bell's request for $2.65 per share.
Despite this judgment, however, in every year since 1958 Bell Telephone earnings have been substantially higher than the $2.53 permitted by the Board. In 1959 they had earnings of $2.48 a share, in 1960, $2.52 a share, in 1961, $2.50 a share, in 1962, $2.66 per share, and in 1963, $2.58 a share. It has been estimated in 1964 that earnings have been at $2.69 a share.
Despite the fact that the Board of Transport Commissioners in its 1958 hearings had ruled that the earnings should be 5.9 per cent on the share capital, Bell Telephone's earnings have been anywhere from one half of 1 per cent to 1 per cent over that, every year since then. Mr. Chairman, this has meant that the telephone users in Ontario and Quebec have been paying somewhere between $10 million and $20 million a year more than the board ruled in 1958 should have been paid to the telephone company. The Board of Transport Commissioners to my knowledge has done nothing about this overpayment. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the Bell Telephone Company has had the gall, despite the fact that it has earned more than the board authorized in 1958, to ask that their earnings be permitted to be calculated on the basis of 7 per cent of their share capital.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the Board of Transport Commissioners has a responsibilty not only to find what the proper rate for a public utility such as Bell Telephone should be, but it has a responsibility to see that having issued an order, the order will be complied with. Otherwise, there is little purpose in the board's issuing an order, and there is little purpose in the government of Canada giving to the board the responsibility to do the job.
May I suggest to the minister and to the members of this house that when the committee on transportation meets, that we not only

February 17, 1966'
Supply-Transport
hear from the Canadian Pacific, but also from the members of the Board of Transport Commissioners. I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, that we know why the things that the law requires the Board of Transport Commissioners to do are not being done. If laws as they are drafted do not give the authority to the Board of Transport Commissioners to issue orders, which are supposed to regulate companies such as Bell Telephone, then I think that parliament should give to the board powers to do that. If the reason for the dilatory actions of the board is that it does not have sufficient staff, then I think that the committee of the house and the government should see that sufficient members of staff are appointed to do the job. Let us give to the board the tools to do the job, because the complaints which I express are very legitimate.
May I suggest to the house and to the minister that if the board needs another dozen economists, in order to do its job, or another 15 statisticians, that the cost to the people of Canada would be a very small one compared with the benefits that would be derived if the board could do the job which the law and the government of this country has given to it. So far that job, in my opinion, is one that the Board of Transport Commissioners has not done. I think that the members of this house ought to find out from the Board what it thinks it has been doing, and what it thinks it needs to get on with the job which it has been instructed to do, so that the Board can look into questions of railway costs, railway profits, railway services, telephone costs, and telecommunication and other industrial services which come under its jurisdiction.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister will not only give to the committee authority to carry out what I have suggested, but will himself take the responsibility which I think is his to take a new and very severe look at the Board of Transport Commissioners and its operations, with a view to ascertaining that it do the regulatory job it ought to be doing.
I would commend to the minister the case of the California Public Utilities Commission which, in order to hold the line when it came to telephone costs, ordered a refund of $60 million to the consumers of California, because it had come to the conclusion after conducting studies that the telephone company of California had overcharged its consumers by that amount. I would suggest, Mr. 
Chairman, that the minister look at this, so-that we may really come to grips with the Board of Transport Commissioners, and allow it to do the job which it is required to do.


Mr. Pascoe:: Under the items connected with the Board of Transport Commissioners I think I should make a brief explanation, or clarification. In Hansard on February 15, on page 1287 the Minister of Transport stated, and I quote:
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.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
This is a correct statement, but it may carry the implication that the eight cities from Calgary to Winnipeg which were mentioned are not concerned about the sudden cancellation of the Dominion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. member does not think I intended to convey such an impression.


James Ernest Pascoe: In any case there is little desire to have the Dominion reinstated along the lines of the service operated in the past year without diners or sleeping car accommodation. I just wish to emphasize that there will be a strong demand from this delegation for adequate rail passenger services on the prairies.
I think it is my duty to bring this matter up because I have had calls already from Moose Jaw arising from the statement made by the minister. I know he did not mean to imply that we were not concerned about the Dominion, but I thought I would mention it anyway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am grateful to the hon. member for doing that.


David Orlikow: I do not wish to hold up the passage of these estimates: The discussion has certainly gone on long enough. But would the minister find out and tell the house, possibly during the question period in the next couple of days, when it is likely the Board of Transport Commissioners will be issuing a finding on this question involving the Bell Telephone Company. The municipalities affected are very concerned about the delay.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will try to get more precise information in the course of the next little while. The chief commissioner tells me the period is not expected to be very long but he does not wish to be precise without consulting his colleagues.
February 17, 1966

[Translation1


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I shall not take very much time. I see that the minister is quite rested. I should only like to say how edifying it was for me to hear the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) mention a few minutes ago a letter he has received from the board of transport commissioners in connection with a level crossing in the town of Ingersoll, Ontario.
I believe the only reason for the existence of the board is not to serve a political party in preference to another, an individual instead of another, but rather to act in the general interest of the country, instead of the personal interests of an individual or a politician, regardless of who he is.
However, in many counties, some people tried to influence and fool the board of transport commissioners. Some even sought to have the commissioners render judgments which were not in the best interests of the public in general.
Mr. Chairman, a request concerning improvements in Rouyn-Noranda is now before the board. As the hon. member for Oxford said a while ago, whenever a project is before the board, the member representing the county concerned is usually the last one to hear about it. Why? I believe it is because intrigants and election organizers are taking every possible means, normal or otherwise, to leave the member of parliament in the dark as to what is going on in his own riding, especially if he sits in the opposition.
Now, in my constituency, it is easy to find out what happens. Nevertheless, some people try to disregard it. When the commissioner or his secretary or the Commission writes, they should not assume that the member of Parliament is only remotely interested in these developments or in any change which might affect his constituency. It seems to me that the Commission, or the secretary or the organization should know that the member of Parliament is primarily interested in what goes on in his constituency, as he represents the people of the constituency.
Let the Commission forget about politics and let it get on with its job. I believe the minister should insist that in connection with applications made in a constituency the Commission should inform first of all the member for that constituency who is not the representative of a party, but the representative of the electorate generally.
Supply-Transport
fEnglish]


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian Maritime Commission-
95. Capital subsidies for the construction of commercial and fishing vessels in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $25,000,000.
Mr. Barnett:: This item concerns capital subsidies for the construction of commercial and fishing vessels. I shall not ask the Minister of Transport to define or redefine what he has in mind when he talks about commercial vessels; we had considerable discussion on that point at an earlier stage during the consideration of these estimates. However, I should like to inquire of the minister at this point, bearing in mind some remarks he made on February 15 as reported at page 1286 of Hansard, concerning a visit by the Premier of British Columbia to Japan-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that those remarks related to proposals for new subsidies which are not before the committee at all? This item refers only to transactions under the subsidies which were previously in effect and I think that in view of the tremendous latitude allowed under clause 1 it is not unreasonable to suggest that on the other items we remain within the scope of the estimates.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister may be technically correct on that point but I hasten to assure him it is not my intention either to make a speech or to ask him to make a speech at this stage. I referred to his earlier remarks merely to recall the previous discussion to his mind.
[DOT] (8 .30 p.m.)
I wish to ask him merely whether since that discussion took place in the house he has had another communication directly or indirectly from the Premier of British Columbia with regard to the question we had under discussion which involved a reference concerning the Premier of British Columbia going to Japan, and a reference to the fact that the minister's heart would not be broken under certain conditions, or if he were forced to change his mind in certain respects. Since that time has the minister had any communication with B.C. on subsidies for the construction of commercial vessels?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I can answer that question without provoking further discussion I would say the minister himself has not had any communication, but I understand the

February 17, 1966
Supply-Transport
Prime Minister has received a communication from the Premier of B.C. and it is now under consideration.


Mr. Crouse:: I know the minister will agree with me that the policy of subsidies for the construction of commercial fishing vessels has been most helpful in re-establishing the fishing industry in the maritime provinces. At present the subsidy payment is 50 per cent on steel construction and 35 per cent on wooden construction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not absolutely sure about wooden construction, which is administered by the Minister of Fisheries.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: When the various authorities are so divided it adds to our confusion. Has any consideration been given to increasing the wooden subsidy from 35 per cent to the 50 per cent rate?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the Minister of Fisheries is present and has heard the question I suggest he be allowed to answer it on his estimates.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I note the minister's request and I will acquiesce.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very grateful to the hon. member. Item agreed to.
St. Lawrence seaway authority-
105. Operating deficit and capital requirements of canals and works entrusted to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority with the approval of the Governor in Council, and to authorize, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act or any other act, the disbursement by the authority of revenues derived from the operation and management of such canals and works, $2,698,000.
[Translation1


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, while we are on vote No. 105, I wonder if the minister has tried to get the government out of the blind alley in which it is now so far as the St. Lawrence Seaway is concerned.
Looking over the report of the St. Lawrence seaway authority for 1964-I am sorry I do not have the 1965 report because it has not been tabled yet-I see that the authority had a net operation revenue of $4,582,385 but that, due to loan interest payments amounting to $18,064,000, the net loss for the year amounted to $13,481,842. So, in spite of a revenue of $4.5 million, it showed a deficit of $13 million because of the interest on the debt.
When I consider what happened since the beginning of the St. Lawrence Seaway, I note that the Authority has incurred a deficit of $78 million, due to the interest on the
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
debt. The development of the seaway, which should have been an asset for Canada, has become a financial burden for Canadians, because of the way the project has been financed.
I ask the minister what he intends to do to solve this problem. My curiosity was aroused when under item No. 105, I saw an operating deficit of $2,446,000, and when under item L90 concerning loans and advances, I noticed a loan of $19 million to the Authority.
I ask the minister to tell us how he intends to find a way to finance the seaway without it being a burden on the Canadian people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since to answer the hon. member's question would require quite a long time, would he be agreeable if I undertook to deal fully with this subject on my 1966-67 estimates, at which time I hope the negotiations with the United States would be advanced to a stage where I could say something more illuminating about them than now?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, we quite agree, as the minister asked, to wait for the 1966-67 estimates to raise all these points again and receive an answer from the minister.
We are ready to co-operate because he is tired. For seven days now he has been asked questions which he must answer for hours on end, day after day. However, I wish to warn him that the 1966-67 estimates will perhaps be voted less easily if we do not have by then the answers we are waiting for.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will do my very best to give them, and give them completely and accurately.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I would like to ask the minister, since the run-off into the Great Lakes and down the St. Lawrence is now starting to swing into the spring of 1966, who sets the water level in the St. Lawrence Seaway? Does the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority have to do it, or is it subject to the St. Lawrence River Board of Control? Is it not possible to set the minimum level in lake Ontario at 244.78 feet? It is now nine inches lower than the 94-year average.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority has no control over the levels. It is the other body to which the hon. gentleman refers.
February 17, 1966


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Then may I ask what does that come under-the St. Lawrence River Board of Control?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand, the commission-the I.J.C.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Atlantic Development Board-
112. To authorize expenditures, in the current and subsequent fiscal years, not exceeding in the aggregate $30,000,000 as the federal share of costs of a trunk highway program for the provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick in accordance with agreements entered into by the Atlantic Development Board and the respective provinces; estimated expenditures in 1965-66, $10,000,000.
Frank Howard: This provides for an amount of $30 million over an unknown number of years, as a contribution by the federal government to a highway system for the provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. This is being done under the aegis of the Atlantic Development Board, but nevertheless is still a federal contribution to a highways system in the four Atlantic provinces, in addition to the trans-Canada highway system. I assume these two highway systems would not be overlapping, although they may interconnect at some point. Can the minister tell us what percentage this $30 million represents of the total cost?
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is 50-50.


Frank Howard: It could be 50-50.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is 50 per cent.


Frank Howard: Fifty per cent is the figure which applied to the orginal agreements un-det the Trans-Canada Highway Act which was subsequently amended, as we know, to provide that on certain mileages the contribution could be 90 per cent. However, in the long run it is the same principle that was established when that act initially came into force.
The point I want to make is this. Ever since it was known that portions of the Trans-Canada highway in the western provinces were going to be completed before portions in other provinces, there developed pressure for the building of what we might loosely call a second trans-Canada highway in the western provinces. There was some dispute as to the route this proposed highway should take, but that is a mere technical aspect that could easily have been ironed out
Supply-Transport
had there been authorization at the federal level for federal contribution to this second highway.
At one stage when a former member of this house, Hon. Jean Paul Deschatelets was the minister of public works, there was a plan in existence to call a national highways building conference. Those of us from the western provinces had hopes that there might have been an agreement worked out at that conference under which we could build a second trans-Canada highway system in the western provinces with federal money being contributed on a basis similar to that used for the present trans-Canada highway. We did not have that hope with the idea that the needs and desires of the Atlantic provinces and the two central provinces should not be met, but merely because we were interested in the west and our thoughts were directed toward highway building programs in those provinces.
That proposed national highway building conference was cancelled almost on the eve of its first meeting after a federal-provincial fiscal conference in Quebec City because of pressure by Premier Jean Lesage to increase the amount of federal payments in the corporate and personal income tax field. The announcement made by Mr. Deschatelets was to the effect that the federal government could not provide any further money for additional highway building programs beyond what it had committed itself to, namely the trans-Canada highway and the roads to resources program because it was giving additional amounts of money under the federal-provincial tax sharing arrangements. Everyone accepted that statement, with some disgruntle-ment, as being logical. This is the first opportunity we have had to deal with the estimates relating to this matter, but more than a year ago an announcement was made to the effect that under the Atlantic Development Board structure the federal government intended to contribute $30 million to a highway building program in the four Atlantic provinces.
It seems strange, Mr. Chairman, that the government could not find a single solitary cent for any highway building program with national implications other than the trans-Canada highway, yet nine months later it found $30 million for the Atlantic provinces. Surely we are now being asked to vote for something being done on a discriminatory basis even though it is being done through the Atlantic Development Board. I submit that is a minor technicality. If the federal

February 17, 1966
Supply-Transport
government can dig up $30 million over the next few years to contribute to an additional highway building system embracing the four Atlantic provinces, it could dig up a certain amount of money for a similar program for the four western provinces.
That is only fair and equitable. I do not Intend my remarks to exclude Ontario and Quebec but I do not know what their highway building requirements are. I am only referring to the western provinces, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba because various oragnizations promoting a second trans-Canada highway have existed there for some time.
Again I suggest that by authorizing the expenditure of this additional $30 million the government is authorizing discrimination. I know this statement will be received unhappily by the Atlantic provinces, and I am sure the statement will be made that I am against highway building programs. I certainly am not against this type of program, but I am not in favour of the kind of discrimination on the part of the federal government that existed in the cancellation of the national highways building conference, on the basis that the government could not find any money for this purpose because it acceded to the demands of Premier Jean Lesage. This action is outright geographic discrimination and not worthy of a government that supposedly thinks in terms of national unity.
I hope the minister can inform the house at this time that there are plans in existence to give some sort of fair treatment to the western provinces in so far as national highway building contributions are concerned. If the minister can indicate that this is in the hopper, perhaps I will change my view, but at the moment I am not favourably disposed to voting for this item now before us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not expect to change the hon. gentleman's opinion but I think I ought to point out two facts. In the program which the party now forming the government of Canada placed before the electorate in 1958, 1962 and 1963 we specifically and publicly undertook, in addition to paying 90 per cent of the cost of completing the trans-Canada highway in the Atlantic provinces, to make a contribution to a trunk road program in those provinces. We advocated this from coast to coast in all our literature. I think we could have been accused of bad faith had we not carried out -that undertaking.

[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
While it is true that the $30 million to which the hon. gentleman referred was not in itself referred to in the announcement by the former minister of public works, the first instalment of $10 million which came directly out of the Atlantic development fund had already been allotted before that time. In other words, this policy was under way before that highway conference was postponed. It was postponed, as I think the hon. gentleman rightly stated, because the government increased very substantially the unconditional payments and abatements allowed the provinces. The government at that time did not feel it could pay these very large additional sums of money to these provinces, or allow them to collect them without double taxation, and at the same time embark upon another trans-Canada highway program. That was the situation. The situation also is that the trunk road program was part of the program on which the present government was elected, and part of the reason we are now sitting here. I think it would have been a shocking thing for us to have put this program before the people-and it was put before the people all over Canada-and then not carry it out.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the minister for carrying out the promises of his party. This is a new look, really, which we do not usually notice. It is a commendable course. I only wish he had put it fully into effect, because in 1958 his party, and his leader also, campaigned-maybe he does not know this-on the basis of building a second trans-Canada highway in western Canada. As far as British Columbia was concerned, he even had a map and he had the road drawn on the map and what he was going to do. I have not the map here, but if the minister wants to hold up this item I will run up to my office, take it out of the file-I still have it-and bring it back to him. The minister's name is attached to that particular piece of Liberal propaganda. The same situation existed in 1962 and 1963.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


Frank Howard: Now the minister says he changed his policy; in 1958 he spoke about a trans-Canada highway in the four western provinces, but he now says he did not have that policy in 1962.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is quite right; it was in the program of 1958, but if the hon. gentleman
February 17, 1966

remembers, the program of the Liberal party in 1958 did not commend itself very much to the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was not in the program of 1962, 1963 or 1965, and it was not there, I think in the main, because it was concluded that a better way of dealing with this problem on a nation-wide basis was to increase the amount of revenue available to the provinces and increase the amount of equalization so they could do this job by themselves.


Mr. McIntosh:: Just like $2 wheat.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We were supported in this house very strongly by the predecessor of the party to which the hon. gentleman now belongs-and the hon. gentleman was in the house then-when we were in opposition between 1958 and 1963, by the then C.C.F. party, who said we should do something special for the Atlantic provinces. We said we would do it; we said it from one coast to the other, and we are doing it. We have no apology to make for carrying out our undertaking.


Frank Howard: There are two or three, not facts but truths which have to be mentioned here, Mr. Chairman. 1 should like to deal with this matter. The minister rose and announced that this was a Liberal election promise they were carrying out. He was the one who mentioned that it was part of the election program in 1958; I merely followed suit and said this was so. This second trans-Canada highway was promised to western Canada and, as I say, I have the map, documents and literature to show the minister if he wants them.
The other thing that was most revealing was that in 1958, when his party had no expectation or hope of forming the government, they put this in the program for western Canada. The minister now admits that in 1962, when they did have a hope of forming the government, they took it out. This is absolutely shameful. Again let me point out to the minister, and I say this regardless of what he contends was the situation in 1962 and 1963, that in the election campaigns of 1962 and 1963 the Liberal party went out to western Canada and promised to build a second trans-Canada highway. The minister and the parliamentary secretary can shake their heads until the marbles roll around in them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Supply-Transport


Frank Howard: That is the fact. It is not only a fact, it is a truth and no shaking of your head will erase it. I think it is a shameful disgrace for the minister to stand up here and beat his chest about living up to election campaign promises in one part of the country, and then try to shuffle out of his responsibility in another part of the nation. And he talks about national unity.
The minister reminds me of one of the ancient Roman gods, Janus, after whom January was named. He was called Janus because he had two faces; he could look both fore and aft. This is the situation here exactly. If the minister wants to hold up this item I will go up to my office and get the campaign literature for 1962 and 1963, bring it down and show it to him so he can repudiate again in public that which is the truth.
I say to the minister quite bluntly, you either do not know what you are talking about or you know what you are talking about and you are covering up. It is discrimination against the western provinces. You know it, I know it and the people out in western Canada know it, too.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, on the item concerning the Atlantic Development Board I am sure quite a few members would like to ask questions. However, I think we would be satisfied if the minister would make it his business to make certain that the new estimates were in a particular way referred to a committee where the members from the Atlantic provinces could question the officials of the board. The expenditures used to be of a technical nature but now they are becoming quite direct. Although information has been tabled in the house in this regard, I am sure we all want to get closer to our pet projects and have the information that is available.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact I will be very glad to propose that and I hope the committee will agree to my proposal.


Thomas Miller Bell: I second that.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the proposal carried?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Frank Howard: It doesn't carry with my vote, Mr. Chairman; I just want to indicate that again.
Mr. Fair weather: You are a great national fellow, a great nation builder.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote 112 carry?
1416	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Just before the vote carries, Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word which I would have preferred to say after the vote had carried. Although the minister may find this hard to believe, there are a great many members who have practised great restraint over the last few days and have not asked any questions or made any speeches on his estimates because they recognize that these estimates are eleven twelfths voted already by virtue of interim supply, and are pretty well redundant.
However, there is a whole Pandora's box of questions which relate to his department and to which we shall require answers when the current estimates are before the committee. I hope by that time the minister will have found some way of packing a lot of facts into a few words, instead of packing so many words into so few facts as he has been doing for the last few days.
I think we can assume that the minister's estimates are now completed-I hope they are-and I want to congratulate him on having achieved the passage of his estimates. I do not think there is a single member of the committee who, were he in the minister's place, could have achieved this in much less than about a quarter of the time.


Thomas Miller Bell: To put it
succinctly, Mr. Chairman, the minister really talked out his own estimates.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote 112 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the Department of Transport. The committee-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, if you would allow me I should like to thank all hon. members for their restraint. I realize that if only the minister had not spoken on these estimates the amount of time taken by all the other members would have been so short that they would have passed on a Wednesday afternoon.


An hon. Member:: That's right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now proceed to the consideration of the estimates of the Department of National Defence, item No. 1, which is to be found on page 252.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants to military associations, institutes and other organizations as detailed in the estimates and authority,
fThe Chairman.]
DEBATES	February 17. 196$
notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to allotment by the Treasury Board, for total commitments of $2,560,546,715 for the purposes of votes 1, 5, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 of this department regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,044,262,000 will come due for payment in future years) and authority to make recoverable advances under any of the said votes and, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year in respect of assistance rendered to the United Nations, any party of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or any provincial or municipal government, $5,204,855.
Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Chairman, it is almost two years since the White Paper on Defence was tabled in this house. During those two years, the Department of National Defence has been busily engaged in implementing the policies set out in the White Paper, including sweeping changes in its organization forecast at that time.
In introducing the 1964-65 estimates, I summarized my remarks by stating:
-that notwithstanding the reduction in expenditures, we will have achieved, within two years, a significant qualitative improvement and operational capability of our armed forces.
That improvement is being achieved as I shall outline for you in the course of my remarks today.
First, I should like to take this opportunity, on behalf of my associate and myself, to pay tribute to all those in the department whose diligent work has contributed so much to the success of this immense project. As hon. members are aware, each new step has to be carefully studied and evaluated in relation to the whole and in relation to the final objective. The fact that our progress towards a completely unified functional force is well in advance of what we might reasonably have hoped for reflects the spirit and enthusiasm with which the task has been undertaken.
I should like also to publicly thank my Associate Minister for his wonderful co-operation. He carries the bulk of the administrative load in the department and performs his tasks in a most efficient manner. Without his help it would be impossible to cope with the extraordinarily heavy work load in the department, particularly during this period of intense activity.
As hon. members are well aware, the probability of a major war arising directly between the NATO powers on the one hand and the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact powers on the other is remote and would be disastrous for east and west alike. Nevertheless we must recognize that the political
February 17, 1966

problems of central Europe are not yet resolved and the Soviet military capability is not only being maintained but steadily enhanced. We continue to regard our membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and our military support to it as being important to our security.
It is clear that instability in other parts of the world has, and will continue to result in conflicts which can endanger our security. Canada has been able to contribute military forces in some of these potentially dangerous situations to provide the stability for the political actions necessary for a peaceful solution to proceed unfettered by the bitterness and passions of active hostilities. No one, I believe, can be certain that circumstances will not arise in the future where active participation of Canadian forces would be in the interests of our national security. The military forces of today must have the capability of responding quickly, and the flexibility to meet a wide variety of demands that may be placed upon them to protect the security of this country. This, among other things, means first class personnel, appropriate equipment to provide the required flexibility, means of rapid transport and an organizational structure from the headquarters down which can provide clear and decisive direction. There is still much to be done to achieve the military posture that we have set out to achieve, but I am satisfied that we are well along the road and I propose to give you some of the facts that substantiate this conclusion.
In order that Canada's armed forces might make the maximum contribution in terms of effectiveness to the deterrents of war and the maintenance of peace, it was announced in the White Paper in March, 1964, that the headquarters of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force would be integrated on a functional basis as a first step toward a single unified defence force for Canada. This functional integration began on August 1, 1964 and has been going forward continuously since that date. Integration of the staffs at Canadian forces headquarters is now largely complete. Already the total number of persons employed at headquarters has been reduced by more that 1,000 and the work is continuing as efficiently and, in the opinion of the most senior departmental officers, more effectively than ever before. When the one time work load due to the changes related to the integration process itself have been performed, a

Supply-National Defence total reduction in staff of approximately 30 per cent will have been achieved.
The second step in the integration process was the development of a new command structure for the Canadian armed forces. This structure had to be efficient in design, consistent in pattern, require a minimum of overhead, and responsive and effective from a military point of view. On June 7, 1965, fully three months ahead of schedule, a new functional command structure, in which the former eleven commands were reduced to six, was announced. These were, mobile command, maritime command, air defence command, air transport command, materiel command and training command. The No. 1 air division in Europe and the No. 4 Canadian Infantry Brigade group in Europe were left to continue to report directly to the Chief of the Defence Staff in order to maintain maximum operational effectiveness during the transitional period. Now, six months later, all the command headquarters have been created and either have assumed or are in the process of assuming their new responsibilities.
The formation of mobile command is basic to the philosophy of Canada's new defence policy. The largest of the new functional commands, its task is to operationally train and maintain the land elements of the Canadian force and its tactical air support, and to keep this force in a state of combat readiness which will enable it to be deployed in units of the required size to meet Canadian commitments and undertakings anywhere in the world. These commitments range from reinforcing the European sector as a contribution to the deterrence of general war, to United Nations peace keeping operations. The prime ingredients in the force are quick reaction-time, the ability to go where required with dispatch, and to perform its tasks with maximum effectiveness. The decision to introduce into this command, which was formed officially October 19, 1965, tactical air squadrons equipped with the new CF-5 will increase to a marked extent both the capability and flexibility of the mobile force. Tactics and doctrines will be developed as the squadrons are formed and are able to exercise with the land elements they are required to support.
The acquisition of the Voyageur helicopter and the de Havilland Buffalo, short take-off and landing military transport will give the mobile command a greatly enhanced tactical capability. Strategic transport for mobile command will be provided by air transport
February 17, 1966

Supply-National Defence command, and the sea element by maritime command.
The special service force concept, announced in the White Paper to apply to one brigade, has now been expanded and current plans call for two brigades to be converted, on a planned basis, to this concept of air transportability, with an additional airborne battalion group for added flexibility and quick response to domestic needs and overseas commitments as they arise.
The primary mission of maritime command continues to be the anti-submarine role. Its secondary role, as stated in the White Paper, is the provision of sealift and other related naval capability to mobile command. Maritime command was officially formed on January 19, 1966, and the integration of the naval and air elements under one commander will provide an even closer relationship between the various units engaged in the same basic mission. Headquarters, maritime command, is at Halifax, while the deputy commander, maritime commander Pacific, will have his headquarters at Esquimalt, British Columbia.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The fleet modernization program announced last year is continuing. The post second world war destroyer escorts, refitted with modern equipment, have an antisubmarine surveillance and operational capability far greater than ever before. The introduction of helicopters as part of the weapons system has contributed markedly to this increased capability from the standpoint of range, speed, area of coverage, and general effectiveness. The introduction of ASROC, a long-range, rocket-assisted torpedo delivery system, will provide an additional substantial increase in target-destruction capability.
The most recent addition to maritime command has been H.M.C.S. Ojibwa, the first of three "O" class submarines. These submarines have the dual capability of providing the rest of the antisubmarine forces with antisubmarine warfare training and at the same time being additional operational units. In April, the First Canadian Submarine Squadron will be formed to operate out of Halifax. The Argus, Neptune and Tracker aircraft assigned to maritime command are also receiving mid-life re-equipment which will provide them with an improved capability.
Materiel Command, with headquarters at Rockcliffe, is being organized to provide logistic support of the Canadian armed forces. It
[Mr. Hellyer.l

will be charged with the responsibility of providing faster, more efficient service and at the same time of eliminating the duplication and triplication which exists with three separate supply systems. By making full use of electronic data processing equipment, it will eventually be possible to provide better service, maintain smaller inventories and at the same time to operate with substantially fewer personnel, thus freeing more of the armed forces establishment for operational requirements.
Training command, with headquarters in Winnipeg, will provide the individual training, including flying training and trades training, for all service personnel required by the Canadian armed forces. On January 1 this command assumed command and control of the R.C.A.F. units which formerly composed Air Force Training Command and functional control of the Royal Canadian Navy and army individual training schools. In April of this year it will assume full responsibility for the R.C.N. and army training schools.
The Canadian Services Colleges, army and air force staff colleges and the National Defence College will continue under the control of Canadian forces headquarters for the time being, but plans to operate an integrated staff college course are well advanced.
The introduction of the M.113 armoured personnel carrier to our NATO brigade group in Europe is now nearly complete. This has given the brigade group a greatly enhanced operational capability and, for the first time, the armoured protection it would need in the face of a fully mechanized opponent. The delivery of the ENT AC and SS.ll anti-tank guided missiles will be augmented by the introduction of the Carl Gustav medium antitank weapon now coming into service. The fire power of the brigade will be further improved by the introduction of the new British 81 millimetre mortar to replace current holdings. This mortar has an appreciably greater range than the one it replaces. In further support of the brigade and field forces, a variety of major and minor equipment is being purchased. For example, bridge-layer tanks, which permit the rapid crossing of small water or dry gaps, will be delivered to the 4th Canadian Infantry Brigade Group this summer.
The introduction of the dual capability for our strike attack squadrons in Europe is continuing and will be complete later this year. At that time our six squadrons in Germany
February 17, 196G	COMMONS
will be fully operational in the non-nuclear attack role as well as in the nuclear strike role. This will greatly increase the flexibility of these squadrons in support of NATO requirements.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You once said that could not be done.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Frankly, I do not remember but it is possible.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will give you the reference.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Even my hon. friend might have said that at some time.
The two reconnaissance squadrons stationed at Marville in France are now fully operational. Each wing of the air division has its full complement of aircraft and is holding an alert status.
I would like to say a word here about the expertise of our airmen who are serving with the air division in Europe. This professionalism has been evident from the very first days of our air division in Europe; first flying Sabre jets and then the CF-lOO's, our fliers consistently won the Guynmeyer trophy which is emblematic of air combat supremacy.
This excellent airmanship is still evident today when each year the Allied Forces Central Europe gather together to compete in an air tactical weapons meet. The Canadian component at a recent meet in France won, virtually single-handed, the biggest weapons meet of the year.
When the final results were tabulated our Canadian airmen had won several impressive victories, including the top national team of the meet and the top strike pilot. Out of the seven top scoring pilots, R.C.A.F. fliers placed first, second, third, fifth, sixth and seventh; and to top this off, the Canadian team set a new record by flying an ideal day of four perfect missions.
Canada continues to contribute to continental air defence in accordance with its partnership with the United States in NORAD. Our main contribution continues to be three interceptor squadrons, two Bomarc squadrons and the operation of extensive ground environment radars and communication facilities. As indicated in the White Paper in March 1964, a number of questions depend upon a decision by the United States as to whether it will or will not deploy an anti-missile missile system. This decision has not yet been taken
DEBATES	1419
Supply-National Defence by the United States, although considerable funds are being spent on continued development.
The capability of the ground environment for air defence against the manned bomber is being enhanced despite the fact that a decreasing amount of our resources are going into this area. This is being done by the introduction of a back-up system which will provide the continuous air surveillance and control of air defence weapons. This system, called B.U.I.C. for "Back-Up Interceptor Control", will be introduced into SAGE, the computerized semi-automatic ground environment system of the North American Air Defence Command. Like SAGE, the B.U.I.C. system can receive, store, retrieve, calculate and supply in thousandths of a second information vital for the effective control of defensive weapons. When a SAGE centre stops functioning for any reason, a B.U.I.C. centre will assume its function.
The cost of the two B.U.I.C. sites to be located in Canada will be shared by Canada and the United States. The estimated costs for Canada are $600,000 for the initial capital outlay and $250,000 annually for maintenance. Installation of the B.U.I.C. systems, including the Canadian sites, is expected to be completed by early 1969.
The functions of Air Transport Command remain largely as they were prior to integration. The capability of this command, however, has been increased dramatically by the purchase of 20 additional C.130 Hercules aircraft to provide strategic airlift for the Canadian armed forces. The capability of this command must be further augmented in the years ahead in order to meet adequately the philosophy of mobility as set out in the White Paper. Studies on the best cost-effective equipment for this expansion are under way.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
As I mentioned earlier, we have continued to perform a wide spectrum of defence and peace keeping operations. Two additional requests for United Nations support were received in September and December of last year. On September 22, the Secretary General asked us to supply a number of officers to participate in the United Nations India Pakistan Observer Mission. Highly qualified officers were soon on their way to take up their new duties. At the same time, our contribution to the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan was increased from nine to 19 by the despatch of ten officers. This group now consists of two
February 17, 1966

Supply-National Defence naval, 13 army and 4 air force officers. In addition, we increased our contribution of aircraft by two Caribou and three Otter aeroplanes, manned and maintained by approximately 100 air force personnel located at Lahore, Pakistan. This unit provides air transport service both for the United Nations Military Observer Group, India and Pakistan, and the United Nations India Pakistan Observer Mission.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a question. What purpose do navy officers serve there? It is a land locked mission.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They serve in exactly the same way as the other officers. This is another manifestation of the advantages of having an integrated service.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They serve as naval personnel, surely?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On the contrary, it gives to those officers the chance to broaden their experience and to participate in a wider area of activity.
In December, Canada was asked to provide air units for the Zambian oil airlift. On December 22, an advanced party left Canada, and on the 30th the first oil airlift was effectively carried out. The response to this request and the quick reaction capability clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of the Canadian armed forces to meet contingencies.
The ground forces too are continually exercising their quick-reaction capability. The 1st Battalion Black Watch battalion group, currently designated as Canada's contribution to the Allied Command Europe mobile force, has recently undergone a strenuous training program, designated Exercise White Caribou, in Newfoundland. On February 27 this battalion group will participate in Exercise Winter Express, scheduled for northern Norway. This will provide an opportunity to practise its role along with the five other NATO nations participating. It will be the first time that the Canadian armed forces have attempted to airlift a battalion group over a considerable distance in a realistic time frame. This exercise, therefore, plays a most important part in the continued development of the strategic mobile force concept.
It may interest hon. members to know that 18 or 19 Air Transport Command heavy aircraft will be employed in this airlift, and that in addition HMCS Provider, our operational support ship on the east coast, will participate in the deployment and re-deployment phases of the exercise.

One of the most important developments in respect to the reserve forces has been the appointment to Canadian Forces Headquarters of Major-General W. A. B. Anderson as Deputy Chief, Reserves. General Anderson will, in fact, be the commander of the reserve forces in Canada and have the responsibility for their organization and training in support of the regular forces as well as in aid of the civil power, and their supplementary role in national survival. The Deputy Chief, Reserves, heads a sub-branch at headquarters which is being organized on an integrated basis and which will have full responsibility for the reserve components and cadets of the navy, army and air force.
The first task to be undertaken by this section is the re-organization of its field command structure for reserve units following the termination of the existing army regional and district commands. The appointment of an officer of the rank of major-general underlines the continued importance of the reserve forces in support of the regular forces.
With the re-organization of the Canadian Army Militia last year and the re-introduction of corps training, a new vigour and effectiveness is developing. It is intended to increase the momentum by improved training opportunities in the coming year. Where possible, militia units will be given an opportunity to visit regular units at home stations for the purpose of obtaining instruction and practice in using the latest items of operational equipment. Recently militiamen of several eastern Canadian armoured regiments were flown into Camp Gagetown where the Royal Canadian Dragoons conducted a program of week end training for them. The experiment was extremely successful and will be used as a pattern for similar exercises of this nature in the future.
The reserves in their new posture are being counted upon to make an important contribution to Canada's security. The volunteers to whom this task has been entrusted are worthy of our highest respect and admiration.
I would like now to discuss briefly some of the changes in management techniques which have been introduced into the department since 1963 in conjunction with the reorganization.
Two of the most important problems in defence management were the reconciliation of the programs of the three services, that is, the setting of the real priorities between the programs of each and gauging the effects of
February 17, 1966

each program not just in terms of capital cost, but also in terms of support requirements, personnel and annual recurring costs.
The integration of navy, army and air force headquarters aided materially in the solution of the first of these problems. An integrated defence program has been established. This displays all approved National Defence activities and forecasts spending over the current year and the following five-year period. The program data relates the various military functions and missions to resource requirements of manpower, money and materiel. With this information available, it is possible to determine at once the implications both on a particular mission and on the integrated defence program as a whole, of any new requirement.
The defence programming system includes a program change procedure which keeps the IDP current as it reflects changing national and international conditions and the adoption of advantageous technological advances.
The development of this comprehensive system has been taking place for some months. To assist in its implementation, we have retained a consultant group familiar with the process, to advise us. Our present integrated defence plan should be programmed and the system in full operation in 1966. This will enormously simplify the preparation of the estimates for 1967-68. The operation of this system insists on the solution of the two management problems raised: First, as it includes all missions and the elements of all missions, it displays each of these in a way which facilitates the consideration of priorities and demands their solution. Second, the data required for the system includes capital costs, personnel and support requirements, and operating costs, and therefore the total effect of each new program change is known at the outset and available for review at any time. Thus all of the information necessary for management to make decisions is readily available and the system itself ensures that the data is presented in a manner that leads to realistic decisions.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Another improvement in management techniques has been the granting of authority to use the proceeds of the sale of surplus equipment by the department for the purchase of new equipment. This year, on an experimental basis, this system has also been applied to real properties up to the limit of $5 million. This policy was suggested by the Royal
Supply-National Defence Commission on Government Organization. The reasoning behind it is obvious. It provides an incentive to management to make decisions. If there is no advantage in selling surplus materials and properties, there is a natural tendency to postpone serious consideration. When the proceeds are available for new high priority projects, however, there is a strong motivation to take a hard look at inventories and to make realistic decisions. In the fiscal year 1964-65 approximately $7 million revenue was obtained from the sale of surplus materials, supplies and equipment, and $4,744,000 has been realized from this source for 1965-66 to the end of December. During the current fiscal year as of December 31, real estate sales have totalled $1,589,000. These sales reduce the cost of maintenance of the inventories.
Another important area which has been subject to re-organization is that of development. Each service had its own development vote, and in each case the administration and screening was carried out by the Defence Research Board, following receipt of submissions from the services. The system tended to be inflexible and slow. Program changes had to go through the whole system and the amount of time consumed was so great that the project momentum was often lost and the initial Canadian advantage overtaken by development projects in other countries.
The classic case is the armoured personnel carrier, the Bobcat-V.C. This project was out front at the outset but, due to the rigidities of the system and the decision-making process, all the initial advantage was lost and the project overtaken by developments elsewhere.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The simulator is another recent example.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In order to develop a more flexible system, a number of important changes have been put into effect. The service development votes have been built into a single development vote in consonance with integration. Administration of development projects has been given to the services themselves. The Defence Research Board input and screening now takes place during the initial stage of the project definition in order to determine at that stage if the proposal is scientifically feasible.
A management group has been formed called the development and associated research policy group under the chairmanship of the chief of technical services. This group
1422	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence has the responsibility for initiating new projects, reviewing projects periodicaly to determine if they should be continued, and recommending the termination of projects that have been overtaken by time, technological advance or parallel development elsewhere.
This group has been formed and has been operating for some months. It has initiated a number of new projects which will be included in next year's estimates; it has consolidated a number of existing projects and recommended the immediate termination of a number of others. The time period for decision making in the field of development has been dramatically reduced, and it appears that the new system will go a long way toward reducing to a minimum the problems inherent in the development field.
An example on the improved flexibility is in respect to the interesting development of a full-scale prototype of an ocean-going hydrofoil vessel.
A great deal of preliminary .research has been carried out in respect to the development of hydrofoils and a number of reduced scale models have been built and tested. The considerable effort to date is of little practical value, however, in the absence of complete sea trials of a full-scale ship. We have one under construction now-the hull at Marine Industries in Sorel, Quebec, the foils at de Havilland Aircraft Company, Toronto, and the weapons system at Canadian Westing-house Company Limited, Hamilton.


Maurice Rinfret: I am sorry to interrupt the minister but-


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Maurice Rinfret: I gather that the minister has unanimous consent to continue his speech.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Like most development projects, the cost has increased substantially over original estimates.


An hon. Member:: You said that before.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not since I sat down, I hope.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Page seventeen.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The new estimate is $36.2 million-a figure that covers the basic ship support services and weapons system. Under the former system of single service management, the increased funds would not have been readily available. The result, almost inevitably, would have been a stretch-out in the program which historically would have resulted in even further increases in costs.
[Mr. Hellyer.J
DEBATES	February 17. 1966
Even worse, stretched-out development programs often mean the loss of any lead we might have in concepts, thereby reducing foreign sales prospects.
A delayed program would also have made trials so late that we would not have had the information needed when considering options available for a construction program in the first half of the 1970's.
With an integrated headquarters it was possible to divert to the hydrofoil project savings we have made in other areas. As a result, both the ship and the weapons system development are proceeding and we expect that sea trials will begin late this year. It is impossible to say with certainty whether the trials will be successful or not, but all of the data on which the development is based leads us to believe that they will be.
It is, in our opinion, well worth proceeding with the development in any case, for this is an important area of knowledge in which additional data is essential. Equally, it is an important Canadian contribution to the total range of new developments being pursued by ourselves and our allies on a mutually cooperative basis.
The increased emphasis on research and development is in fulfilment of the policy laid down in the White Paper that there would be a modest but consistent increase in these activities. The Defence Research Board has the responsibility not only of providing scientific advice to the minister and to the chief of defence staff, but also of undertaking pure and applied research on behalf of the defence forces. Canada continues to enjoy a well-deserved reputation for extraordinary results in research, particularly in relation to the resources made available for that purpose.
One of the Defence Research Board's most dramatic achievements in 1965 was in the space research field. The successful launch of Alouette II in November in an elliptical orbit was the climax of months and years of painstaking research and development. As of late January it had completed 720 orbits about the earth, travelling 22,800,000 miles, and had executed 8,175 commands while operating six hours a day to produce 54,000 ionagrams.
Isis "A", the board's third satellite, is scheduled for launch next year. It will carry ten experiments and is scheduled to move in an elliptical orbit some 300 to 2,600 statute miles above the earth. As the sun's period of activity increases with more frequent and violent solar storms, this space craft should provide most useful data.
February 17, 1966

Practical application from the data provided by Alouette I, which has been analysed in combination with data obtained from sister satellites, may involve improved techniques for long-distance communications resulting from mitigation of interruptions caused to northern radio by solar storms and other phenomena.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The Defence Research Board's industrial research assistance program introduced late in 1961, to encourage industry in Canada to establish additional research facilities, has proven to be a most successful activity. Costs of projects under this program are shared by the Defence Research Board and industry. The joint commitment at present amounts to about $41,700,000 of which D.R.B. has committed more than $21 million, with $10,500,000 spent to date.
Of 145 projects covered by this program, 113 are active at the present time and are being conducted by 56 Canadian industries in a variety of fields- electronics, aviation, mechanical engineering, physics, metallurgy studies and others. A number of companies attribute a considerable increase in their business volume to the direct and indirect results of this industrial research assistance program.
As I stated at the outset, the strength of the Canadian armed forces is in the dedication, training and professionalism of its officers and men. Just as no force, no matter how well trained, can operate effectively without good equipment, similarly no amount of modern equipment, by itself, can be effective without persons skilled and trained in its use.
We have in the past enjoyed, and still enjoy, a tremendously proud and effective force, unsurpassed anywhere in the world. We fully recognize that if we are to maintain this effectiveness in the future, we must continue to provide the training, remuneration and career opportunities to attract the high calibre of person required for our demanding tasks.
Whereas it is true that re-organization of any kind raises questions in respect to the effects that it may have on individuals, the important problems relating to individuals in the armed forces today are not those resulting from integration, they are the same real problems affecting men and women in all walks of life, that is, pay, allowances, housing, career opportunities, etc. I might add that perhaps there are many Canadians who do not fully appreciate just how good the
1423
Supply-National Defence Canadian armed forces really are, and what a tremendous job they do as ambassadors for Canada as they pursue their task of contributing to the deterrence of war and helping to preserve world order.
Hon. members who have visited our armed forces units and establishments overseas, in Canada, and at sea, and who have been impressed by the superb quality and proficiency of the men and women of the forces, would be performing a most useful service if, at every opportunity, they informed their constituents and Canadians generally of the accomplishments of those who wear our country's uniform.
In respect to pay and allowances, a number of questions have been raised and these are all under active study at the present time. As I indicated in the House of Commons the other day, we fully realize that we have to compete for manpower in a booming economy, and measures will be taken-measures designed to do justice to the men and women of the armed forces and to attract new recruits to the organization.
The number of recruits required in the next four or five years will be considerably greater than has been the case for some time, simply due to the great numbers of servicemen who saw experience in world war II and who are now reaching retirement age. This problem, combined with the increased competition in the labour market, will make our task difficult. We will appreciate the co-operation of all hon. gentlemen in helping us to meet our goals.
Finally, I would like to say a word of appreciation to those hon. gentlemen who served on the special committee on defence. This committee was an experiment. It was the first time in Canada that members of the house have had the opportunity of discussing in committee, in an orderly fashion, the current expenditures and future plans of the Department of National Defence. I felt from the outset that the committee could fill a very important function and that it would be a good vehicle for making available to hon. members of this house and to the Canadian public, much more information on defence matters than had previously been available from Canadian sources.
I believe the committee was a most useful forum for discussion and that it proved the advisability of this kind of organization as a recognized part of our parliamentary system.
February 17, 1966

Supply-National Defence With the establishment of a permanent standing committee on national defence, this principle has been formalized and I am sure it will continue to do the same kind of good work performed by the members of the special committee.
In my statement today I have not included statistical information in respect of manpower, or details in respect of individual items of hardware. The estimates for 1966-67 will be referred for early consideration t>y the standing committee, and it would seem appropriate to defer consideration of detail to that occasion when witnesses can be called and when full statistical information can be made available.
I hope that this suggestion will meet general approval, and once again I would like to express my appreciation of the co-operation I have received from hon. gentlemen on both sides of the chamber.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, the first impression most members will have received from the minister's speech is that he has slowed down considerably. I think it took him twice as much time to read the same amount of material on this occasion as he did when he last presented his estimates nearly two years ago. I do not know whether that was the effect of having listened so long to the debate on the Department of Transport estimates, or perhaps it was just due to the particular hour on the clock.
The outline which the minister gave of the jobs that our servicemen are carrying out overseas, of the command structure, of the development work being carried on, and of the work of the Defence Research Board was all veij1 in teres iiiig, bui ii uiu nui gei down to the crux of the situation in the Department of National Defence. I would say the minister's speech was designed to give the committee and the country the impression that all is well in that department, whereas everyone who has any knowledge of the defence situation in Canada today knows that the reverse is the case.
I would first like to point out that we are considering these estimates at a time when all of the evidence indicates that the morale of our defence forces is the lowest it has been since before world war II, and probably the lowest it has ever been in our history. All the evidence I have had from conversations with and letters from a large number of ex-service personnel, conversations with and letters from presently serving personnel and members of their families, is to that effect. The

actual evidence in regard to recruiting, loss of men from the services, the situation in regard to the effectiveness of units, and the ability to keep units operating, all points in this direction. I shall be outlining a considerable number of these things in the course of my remarks.
I would like to put more emphasis on this matter of morale. Everyone with any military experience, particularly with experience in war, knows that the most important single requirement for efficient and effective individual fighting men, units and formations, is high morale. Without it you cannot have efficiency and effectiveness in any military organization.
An article which bears on this, and which appeared in the Victoria Colonist of January 26, is something I would like to put on the record at this time. It is headed "Confidence" and reads:
In a recent address to the directors of Victoria's Armed Service Centre one of Canada s outstanding seamen, Rear Admiral J. C. Hibbard, discussed the meaning of morale in a military organization.
To the individual serviceman-regardless of his ranks-morale is the result of a combination of many factors, the admiral said.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
But, he added, these factors could all be summed up in one word: Confidence-confidence in his leadership, confidence in his training, confidence in himself, confidence in his unit and his weapons, confidence in his support from his home, and confidence in the belief that he is necessary and that his sacrifices are of benefit to his country.
By outlining this simple definition at a time when our national defence policies present such a confused picture both at home and to the outside world, Admiral Hibbard might have done a great service to Canada.
Perhaps his carefully spelled out words might cause ueience ivimisier jraui xieilyer to pause for a moment in his politically-oriented direction of Canada's defence program to give at least some small thought to the men behind the guns.
I think one of the difficulties as far as the minister is concerned results from his thinking and talking constantly about cost effectiveness, about computerizing systems and things of that sort. He has missed the most important single factor of any effective defence organization, which is the attitude of the men, their morale and their confidence in their leadership and themselves. The actual fact is that the confidence of most servicemen in their leadership and the policies of the Minister of National Defenee has been destroyed during the past two years.
During the past two years more and more servicemen have lost the essential belief that
February 17, 1966

they are doing a necessary and worth-while job. As a result they have lost their motivation to remain in the forces: thus the very large departure of servicemen that has taken place.
This decline in morale is forcefully illustrated by the large number of personnel who have left the armed services of their own volition. I do not refer to those who were dismissed or put out for disciplinary reasons, I refer to only those who have left of their own volition. These people could not see any future in the armed forces because they have no motivation to remain. This is illustrated by a return to a question by the hon. member for Edmonton West to be found at page 781 of Hansard for February 7. The return was made in answer to question No. 4 which asked for the number of persons who were retired from the defence forces at their own request prior to normal retirement age. The answer was 13,142. Nothing like this has ever taken place in the history of the Canadian armed forces and it indicates exactly what I have just said, that a very large proportion of those people in the armed forces have lost their morale and want to get out because they feel they have no future and are not doing a necessary job.
This same return indicates that a high proportion of these 13,000 odd individuals who left at their own request were highly trained officers, N.C.O.'s and specialists who are essential to the efficient operation of any modern military force.
In answer to a question I asked, to be found in Hansard for February 9 another return was made which shows what the reduction in the strength of the armed forces has been. We find that it dropped from approximately 124,000 in 1961-62 to approximately 109,000 at the end of December, 1965. At the present time, according to press reports, the strength is now below 107,000. During that same period this report indicates that enlistments had dropped from 16,526 in 1961 to 10,415 in 1965. Last year the losses of the armed forces personnel totalled 17,696, all ranks, which is a total loss or wastage of 7,281, or a rate of wastage of some 600 men per month.
These figures show two things. First of all, they show that it has become increasingly difficult to get people to enlist in the services and second, a very large proportion of highly trained personnel are getting out. In addition to the ones who have got out there are quite a number who are trying to get out but who 23033-9U
Supply-National Defence have not been released. I have referred several of these cases to the minister and the associate minister, but I do not know how many there are. The number must be considerable today. These people would get out if they could but the department, because of the shortage of trained personnel at this time, will not allow them to do so.
The loss of so many highly trained personnel is very serious and has caused a decline in the quality and effectiveness of our defence forces. This is manifested by the situation which exists now in all three of the defence forces. Let us take the navy as a first example to see what has happened there.
When the minister was sworn in the navy had 43 anti-submarine vessels in commission and in operation including, of course, the Bonaventure, destroyer escorts and frigates. In addition we had two flotillas of mine sweepers. What ships does the navy now have? As close as I can determine we now have 34 antisubmarine vessels and no mine sweepers. Of the 34 antisubmarine vessels we have left there are five or six laid up at Halifax and two at Esquimalt because of a lack of sufficiently trained personnel to man them. This means there are seven or eight vessels which cannot go to sea. We now have some 27 operational fighting ships left in our navy. That is far below the number that we are committed to provide as part of our contribution to the NATO affiance, and far below the number required for the many other responsibilities the navy would have in the event of war. In spite of this, the minister keeps on saying and has been saying for the last two years, that the effectiveness of the armed forces has improved.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is true.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister suggests that is true, but I ask any reasonable person in this chamber how it could be true when the number of fighting ships has decreased seriously, with a large percentage of the ones left not able to go to sea because of the lack of trained personnel to man them.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Because they are old ships, now obsolete.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister suggests that the ships we now have are much more efficient and up to date than the ones we had, but that is not the case. With one or two exceptions we have the same ships. I believe one or two have been put into service in the last two or three years with slightly improved
February 17, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion radar systems. The use of helicopters is now associated with some of the ships and that is a program which was initiated before the minister became the Minister of National Defence.
In view of all these facts it is nonsense to say that the effectiveness of the navy is anything like it was before the minister was sworn in. I do not think there is a naval man in this country or anywhere in the world who would not agree with that statement.
Mr. Chairman, I see that it is ten o'clock.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I raised a question on Tuesday afternoon that I felt was of some concern. I have received representations on this matter since the election and 1 know that the question of the situation in eastern Europe has been eloquently dealt with in this house by a previous speaker. This matter was brought to my mind by an article which appeared in a magazine called The Tablet entitled "Hungarians in Transylvania." This article was written by Judith Listowel and appeared in the January 8 edition of this magazine. It was the second of two articles. Dealing with the situation of this minority group in Rumania the article contains the following passage:
"Now there are rumours of a mass emigration to Canada. Thousands of Hungarian peasants have put their names down, for they do not see any future for their children here. I do not know whether they will actually receive their emigration passports, or whether this is just a hoax, but I rather think that they might, for if they go their places can be taken by more and more settlers from Old Rumania, and gradually the Hungarian character of Transylvania will be wiped out."
It was this article that prompted my question to the minister in charge of immigration and I asked whether there had been an unusual number of applications received this year from potential emigrants from that country. I should like to ask a further question, whether the ministry has been at all aware of the situation suggested in this article, namely that people in a foreign country

may be the victims of a very elaborate hoax with regard to the possibility of their emigrating to Canada.


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the minister I have noted the remarks of the hon. member. I sympathize with his interest in this question of the Hungarian situation in Transylvania and I know how concerned are many Canadians of Hungarian descent about the fact that their populace in Transylvania seem to be somewhat victimized by the regime there, and because many of their relatives are most unhappy in that country.
I think the situation does call for an investigation by the immigration department. I am not in a position to give the hon. member any particulars as to what has been done with reference to this matter or the situation at this time. All I can give him is the assurance that the minister will look into this question and try to have a report for him in the very near future.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-STEPS TO OVERCOME LOSS ON SECOND CLASS MAIL

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the Postmaster General. The question resulted from a recommendation made in the report of the Auditor General to the House of Commons, in which he said that early consideration should be given to ways and means of covering the loss sustained by the Post Office Department in the handling of second class mail. I think this is a matter of considerable urgency, since this is not the first time the Auditor General has made this request to the Postmaster General.
In his report of last year, page 704, he pointed out that a loss had been sustained of $35 million as a result of the handling of second class mail by the Post Office Department. This sad history of losses in connection with second class mail goes back a long time. Of course I recognize that since the minister is new in his job he should not be held accountable for the serious errors and omissions of his predecessors. I suggest to the minister however, he now has an opportunity to become a hero by doing the kind of thing that should have been done a long time ago. I think it is time to plug this leak of the taxpayer's dollar. I think it is time to raise second class postage rates in this country to overcome that deficit of the Post Office Department.
February 17, 1966	COMMONS
I can go back to Hansard for 1957-I go back only to 1957 because as a relatively new member those are all the Hansards they would give me-and on March 8, 1957, I find Mr. Regier, the then member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, raised this question. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raised the same question, and asked who benefited from this particular subsidy on second class mail. Of course, the chief beneficiary, the one who is being subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer, is the giant newspaper chain in Canada, as well as magazines like Reader's Digest and Time. I do not believe, by any stretch of the imagination, that we could consider these people really need the taxpayer's help. I feel that the fellow who is working in the shop might have just cause to feel somewhat upset when he knows that some of his hard earned money is going in this particular direction.
I am always rather surprised to see that these champions of free enterprise do not come annually to the minister with a cheque in their hands and say, here, we wish to reimburse you for the subsidy you have provided us because we do believe in this free enterprise system. It is particularly galling when these newspapers add insult to injury by talking about the perils of the welfare state and the perils of subsidies in some of their editorials. This is particularly true when they refer to old age pensions. In the light of the government's concern about its inability to find money to increase old age pensions in Canada, I think this might be an excellent place for it to start. They should take a look at this particular leakage of government money and perhaps do something to correct it. I suggest the thing to do is increase the rate. As I pointed out, the minister has a great opportunity to be a hero. I would be delighted to see him become a hero. Perhaps he should close this gap, take the amount of money over to his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), and give him a down payment on increases in the old age pension.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
T Translation]


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, as so ably put by the member, this is the first recommendation of its kind the Auditor General has made since I have been appointed Postmaster General.
I might say to the hon. member that I could make in my Department many changes which
DEBATES	1427
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion might win me the title of hero in some quarters, and that of zero in others.
I must say that upon reading the recommendations in the Auditor General's report, I asked my officials report, as soon as possible, on the surveys they had already carried out or those they expected to undertake, in order that we might know what decisions should be taken and what policies should be implemented.
I understand a committee has been sitting for several months now and that officials are considering suggestions made by the committee.
As we all know, postal rates have to be approved by parliament and can be changed only by parliament.
When preferential rates were approved for newspapers over 20 years ago, one of the reasons for it was, I think, that newspapers were perhaps the only public medium of information at that time. That is why a preferential rate was established. But I do not think that reason stands today. However, there may be others.
Since the matter of increasing the second class rate was raised a few years ago, a lot of opinions were expressed and, most likely, they were contradictory opinions.
However, I believe that what we must try to set up is a policy which will ensure a sound balance. I think we should wait for suggestions before taking action.
The hon. member knows very well that this question is one of government policy and that such policy is usually announced only when the government is ready to bring the legislation before parliament for action.



MUNICIPAL LOAN DEVELOPMENT FUND- INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION OF PERIOD

Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I put a question to the Minister of Finance. I believe he is not in the house tonight but he will have a worthy representative in the person of his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien), from whom I would like to get details, or better, a statement concerning a problem which proves to be of major importance for municipalities.
One knows that in 1963, as shown in the Statutes of Canada for 1963, chapter 13, a very beneficial piece of legislation was adopted to enable the municipalities to borrow money for municipal works.
February 17, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Section 11 of the said act stipulates:
(1) Where the municipal project in respect of which a loan is made under this Act is completed to the satisfaction of the Board on or before the 31st day of March, 1966, the Board shall forgive payment by the municipality of twenty-five per cent of the principal amount of the loan.
That provision means that the municipalities which have completed their projects- undertaken with a loan contracted by the said municipalities under the said act or statute-before March 31, will get 25 per cent of the principal amount of the loan, which is quite a considerable portion of the loan which they will not have to reimburse.
The problem, since the expiry date is near -March 31, 1966, is not far off-is that several municipalities will not be able to complete their projects before that date.
That problem is of great concern to me for the very good reason that several municipalities in the riding of Lotbiniere took advantage of the provisions of that act, Mr. Speaker.
I am speaking in particular of the municipalities of St. Sophie de Levrard, St. Antoine de Tilly, St. Apollinaire and St. Pierre les Becquets.
All these municipalities located in Lotbiniere riding took advantage of this beneficial legislation, the Municipal Development Loans Act.
So, Mr. Speaker, if the expiry date for the termination of the works is March 31, 1966, should some municipalities not have time to terminate their works, I would beg and implore the indulgence and the goodwill of the minister to see whether there is a possibility of an extension.
I see the minister is not here, but I am conriaeni his parliamentary assistant will favorably receive the request I respectfully submit. I will go further. I am morally sure the minister will favour this request for the benefit not only of Lotbiniere and Quebec municipalities but of all municipalities throughout Canada which have used the provisions of this act.
Without further comment, I will yield the floor to the minister's parliamentary secretary. If he is more taciturn than he should be, I will accept his discreet comments, but I shall keep the hopes, if not the conviction, that this extension will be granted.


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Lotbiniere for his interest in the important question raised this week, that of
[Mr. Choquette.l
the expiry of the act passed in 1963 providing for $400 million in loans from the federal government to the municipalities to help them relieve acute unemployment which is less of a problem today.
As stipulated in section 11 of the act to which the hon. member referred earlier, if the works are not completed by March 31, 1966, the municipalities will not receive the extra payments which he mentioned.
However, during the week the Minister of Finance received in his office various ministers of Municipal Affairs of Canada who outlined the problems involved. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) explained to them the difficult position of the central government which must, of course, abide by the statutes as they stand.
On the other hand, I must say to the hon. member that I am not in a position to make a decision myself, but that within a few days, perhaps tomorrow, the Minister of Finance will probably be in a position to give a final answer to all members of the house interested in this problem, as well as to all mayors of municipalities in various provinces who are expecting a reply one way or the other. I assure you that a decision will be made shortly.

Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.22 p.m.
[The following Items were passed in committee of supply this day]:



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Marine services-
5. Administration, operation and maintenance including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates, pensions, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen as defined in section 306 of the Canada Shipping Act and. in respect of the Canadian coast guard service, authority to make recoverable advances for transportation, stevedoring and other shipping services performed on behalf of individuals, outside agencies and other governments and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act. to make commitments for the current fiscal year not to exceed a total amount of $24,689,500, $41,512,600.
5b. Administration, operation and maintenance to extend the purposes of transport vote 5 of the main estimates, 1965-66 to include contributions and payments, as detailed in these estimates, in connections with, or towards the costs of repairs, operation or maintenance of certain canal property and facilities transferred pursuant to the Public Lands Grants Act, $781,000.
February 17, 1966
[Stage Direction]
8b. To authorize in accordance with such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may prescribe, the transfer of the assets and administration of the pension fund of the British Columbia pilotage district established under the Canada Shipping Act, 1934 to such persons as the Governor in Council may approve, and to authorize the investment of the assets of the pension fund, subject to the terms and conditions of the transfer, in such manner as may be determined by agreement between the person to whom the transfer is made and the corporation of the British Columbia coast pilots, $1.
10. Construction or acquisition or buildings, works, land, vessels and equipment including payments to provinces or municipalities as contributions towards construction done by those bodies and to authorize, in respect to aids to navigation, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, the making of commitments for the current fiscal year not exceeding a total amount of $6,699,400. $42,155,000.
Railways and steamships-
15. Payments to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the Company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport made by the Company to the Minister of Finance, to be applied by the Company in payment of the deficits, certified by the auditors of the Company, arising in the operations in the calendar year 1965 in respect of the following services: Newfoundland Ferry and Terminals: Prince Edward Island Car Ferry and Terminals; Yarmouth, N.S.-Bar Harbor, Maine. U.S.A., Ferry Service. $14,778,400.
20. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works and land, dock and terminal facilities, and of vessels and related equipment as listed in the details of the estimates provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amounts within the vote to be expended on individually listed projects, $20,065,600.
20b. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works and land, dock and terminal facilities, and of vessels and related equipment as listed in the details of the estimates provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amounts within the vote to be expended on individually listed projects-to extend the purposes of transport vote 20 of the main estimates, 1965-66, to include repairs and improvements to terminal facilities owned by Newfoundland, $8,582,500.
25. Payments in respect of the Maritime Freight Rates Act and for supplemental pension allowances to railway employees in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of estimates, $15,140,000.
25b. Payments in respect of the Maritime Freight Rates Act and for supplemental pension allowances to railway employees-to extend the purposes of Transport Vote 25 of the main estimates for 196566 to include payments to provinces as contributions, as detailed in the estimates, to assist highway construction related to the abandonment of railway branch lines, $1,250,000.
Supply-Items Passed
25d. Payments in respect of the Maritime Freight Rates Act-To extend the purposes of Transport Vote 25 of the main estimates for 1965-66 to include the grants detailed in these estimates, $7,000.
Air services-
30. Administration, operation and maintenance including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, the administration of the Radio Act and regulations issued thereunder, Canada's share of the costs of the international radio, telegraph and telephone organizations listed in the details of the estimates, Canada's assessment for membership in the world meteorological organization, $110,000 for grants in aid of meteorological research in Canadian universities and Canada's share of the cost of the world meterological organization symposium on design of hydrometeorological networks, $97,637,700.
30b. Administration, operation and maintenance -to extend the purposes of Transport Vote 30 of the main estimates for 1965-66 to include the payment of $7,276 to the town of Peace River, Alberta, as an airport operating subsidy for the period October 23, 1963, to March 31, 1964, and the gifts detailed in the estimates and to provide a further amount of, $319,900.
30d. Administration, operation and maintenance- To extend the purposes of Transport Vote 30 of the main estimates for 1965-66 to include the grant detailed in these estimates, $1.
35. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including national airports (as determined by the Minister of Transport) and related facilities, contributions toward construction done by local or private authorities with respect to such airports, amounts to be paid in settlement of claims for compensation by persons whose property is injuriously affected by the operation of a zoning regulation made under authority of paragraph (j) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Aeronautics Act, and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current fiscal year not to exceed, for airports and other ground services a total amount of $30,878,100, for radio aids to air and marine navigation a total amount of $14,854,000 and for meteorological services a total amount of $2,745,300, $41,906,000.
35b. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including national airports (as determined by the Minister of Transport) and related facilities, including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to increase to $16,216,500 the commitments for the current fiscal year for radio aids to air and marine navigation, $1.
40b. Contributions to assist in the establishment or improvement of local airports and related facilities, $591,300.
B-Air transport board-
75. Salaries and other expenses, $777,200.
77d. Payment to Nordair Limited for operation of international charter flights undertaken but not completed by World Wide Airways Incorporated, $381,000.
[Stage Direction]
February 17, 1966
Supply-Items Passed
C-Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada-
80. Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,447,000.
82. Amount to be credited to the railway grade crossing fund, in addition to the amount to be credited to the fund under the Railway Act in the current fiscal year, for the general purposes of the fund and, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to authorize an increase to $34,967,000 in the commitments (in addition to any commitments in respect of which amounts are appropriated under this or any other act) that may be made in the current and subsequent fiscal years, S9.000.000.
83b. Notwithstanding any limitation that may be contained in section 265 of the Railway Act, to authorize the payment of an amount not exceeding $2,000,000 from the railway grade crossing fund to be applied towards the cost of any relocation of the Canadian Pacific Railway line in Sault Ste. Marie pursuant to an order of the board, $1.
84b. To provide for balance of payments to companies subject to order number 96300, dated November 17, 1958, of the board of transport commissioners for Canada in respect of the period April 1, 1964, to March 31, 1965, payable to said companies for such diminution in their aggregate gross revenues during the said period as in the opinion of the said board is attributable to such companies maintaining the rate level for freight traffic at an 8% increase instead of 17% as authorized by the said order, $600,000.
84d. To provide payments to companies subject to order number 96300, dated November 17, 1958, of the board of transport commissioners for Canada of an aggregate amount of $20,000,000 in respect of the period April 1, 1965 to March 31, 1966, to be paid in instalments at such times as may be determined by the said board for the purpose of reimbursing the said companies for such diminution in their aggregate gross revenues during the said period as in the opinion of the said board is attributable to such companies maintaining the rate level for freight traffic at an 8% increase instead of 17% as authorized by the said order; and to provide payments to the said companies of an aggregate amount in respect of the calendar year 1965 of $50,000,000 to be paid in instalments at such times and in
af'POrHanf'P with snrh mpthnHs r>f a11r*r*a'Hr*r* ac matr
be determined by the said board for the maintenance by such companies of the rates of freight traffic at the said reduced level, $70,000,000.
D-Canadian maritime commission-
85. Administration of the commission and the degaussing of Canadian government ships and Canadian-owned merchant ships, of 3,000 gross tons to 20,000 gross tons, of Canadian registry or of United Kingdom registry if subject to re-transfer to Canadian registry under special inter-governmental arrangement, $395,800.
90. Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates, $8,549,006.
90b. Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates, $299,000.
90d. Steamship subventions for coastal services, detailed in the estimates, $36,875.
95. Capital subsidies for the construction of commercial and fishing vessels in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $25,000,000.
95b. Capital subsidies for the construction of commercial and fishing vessels in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $14,000,000.
95d. Capital subsidies for the construction of commercial and fishing vessels in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $1,541,000.
E-National harbours board-
100. Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet reconstruction and capital expenditures during the calendar year 1965 as detailed in the estimates, $1,487,900.
100b. Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet reconstruction and capital expenditures during the calendar year 1965 as detailed in the estimates, $615,000.
103. To authorize expenditures by the national harbours board, either by itself or on behalf of or in cooperation with others, for certain purposes relating to the Canadian universal and international exhibition,	Montreal, 1967	and	to	provide, notwithstanding sections 28 and 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, for an absolute grant to the board for such purposes to be credited to the national harbours board special account, $3,823,000.103b. To authorize expenditures by the national harbours board, either by itself or on behalf of or in cooperation with others, for certain purposes relating to the Canadian universal and international exhibition,	Montreal, 1967,	and	to	provide, notwithstanding sections 28 and 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, for an absolute grant to the board for such purposes to be credited to the national harbours board special account, $960,000.104b. Payment to the national harbours board to be applied	in payment of	the	deficit (exclusiveof interest	on advances authorized	by parliament
and depreciation on capital structures) expected to be incurred in the calendar year 1965 in the operation of the Jacques Cartier Bridge, Montreal Harbour, $160,000.
F-St. Lawrence seaway authority-
105. Operating deficit and capital requirements of canals and works entrusted to the St. Lawrence seaway authority with the approval of the governor in council, and to authorize, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act or any other Act, the disbursement by the authority of revenues derived from the operation and management of such canals and works, $2,698,000.
G-Atlantic development board-
110. Administration and operation, $923,500.
110b. Administration and operation, $197,700.
112. To authorize expenditures, in the current and subsequent fiscal years, not exceeding in the aggregate $30,000,000 as the federal share of costs of a trunk highway program for the provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick in accordance with agreements entered into by the Atlantic development board and the respective provinces; estimated expenditures in 1965-66, $10,000,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
Canadian overseas telecommunication corporation- L80. Loan to the Canadian overseas telecommunication corporation in accordance with section 14 of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act for additions and betterments to facilities, $13,334,000.
February 17, 1963
[Stage Direction]
L80b. Loan to the Canadian overseas telecommunication corporation in accordance with section 14 of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Act for additions and betterments to facilities, $2,071,000.
General-
L81b. To increase to $10,500,000, the amount that may be charged at any time to the revolving fund mentioned in subsection (2) of section 101 of the Financial Administration Act, chap. 12. Statutes of 1951 (2nd session), and extended by vote 630 of the Appropriation Act no. 2, 1955, vote 662 of the Appropriation Act no. 5, 1958, vote 710 of the Appropriation Act no. 3, 1960, and vote 602 of the Appropriation Act no. 5, 1961; and also to extend the purpose of the revolving fund to include the operation of departmental workshops; additional amount required, $1,000,000.
Transport-
L82d. Advances to Canadian National Railways and Air Canada in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, $20,000,000.
National Harbours Board-
L85. Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National
Supply-Items Passed
Harbours Board Act. to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1965 on any or all of the following accounts:
Reconstruction and capital expenditures-
Montreal	 $8,471,800
Vancouver	 6,449,000
[Stage Direction]
Less-amount to be expended from replacement and other funds, $9,500,000; $5,420,800.
L85b. Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1965 on any or all of the following accounts:
Reconstruction and capital expenditures-
Trois Rivieres	$	48,500
Montreal	 4,980,000
[Stage Direction]
Less-amount to be expended from replacement and other funds, $48,500; $4,980,000.
St. Lawrence seaway authority-
L90. Loans to the St. Lawrence seaway authority conditions as the governor in council may approve, $19,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 18, 1966