1966-12-21

TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE ENCOURAGING EXPORTS

['Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the undertaking I gave on November 8 in response to a question by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather), I should like to make a further statement regarding the trial and execution of the German sailors, Dorfer and Beck, in Amsterdam in 1945. Hon. members will recall that on October 11 last I dealt with this matter in the house. Since that time I have had further investigations made. Those investigations are now complete and I wish to assure the house that nothing has come to\nlight which would in any way modify the statements I previously made on this subject.\nIn sum, any suggestion that any Canadian officer or soldier acted illegally or that the executions of Dorfer and Beck were Canadian inspired or encouraged by the Canadians is absolutely false.\nThe suggestions that have been made have, I think, been based on some misconception as to what actually occurred and the context in which events took place. The Germans, by the terms of surrender, were made responsible for the discipline of their troops who were awaiting return to and disbandment in Germany. The surrender terms made no mention of any change to be effected in the German disciplinary processes available to them for the maintenance of discipline. As I said in an earlier statement on this subject, restrictions on German disciplinary procedures were contained in military law No. 153. This was not received by the headquarters 1st Canadian army until the afternoon of May 14, the day after the execution took place.\nThere is no information that Dorfer or Beck deserted because of any appeal from the allies and indeed the evidence as set out in the article in Der Spiegel is to the contrary. Similarly, there is no evidence to support any suggestion that either of the two men had been engaged in collaboration with the allies during the time of their desertion from the German forces, and indeed all available evidence is to the contrary.\nWhile the local Canadian military authorities furnish captured German rifles and ammunition for the execution, and provided transport, these two matters have been completely misinterpreted. The Germans had been disarmed and, if the sentence was to be carried out, rifles had to be returned to them for that purpose. When these were given to the Germans, the German authorities stated that they were going to carry out the execution on the spot in full view of their own troops, which would also have been in view of Canadian personnel. The Canadian officer present refused to allow this and was accordingly requested by the Germans to furnish transportation so that the executions might be carried out elsewhere. This was the only reason that a Canadian truck was made\n11446\tCOMMONS\nIncome Tax Act Amendment available for the condemned men ana the firing party.\nThe suggestion that Canadian authorities instigated the trials and the executions is, as I have previously said, absolutely false. After the court martial the Canadian officer at the scene refused to allow the execution to take place until the matter had been referred for direction, even though the German officer in charge of the camp repeatedly made representations that unless the executions were carried out before nightfall that officer would no longer be responsible for the discipline of the German troops. The Canadian officer maintained his refusal to permit the executions until he was informed through Canadian authorities that approval for the carrying out of the sentence had been given by the chief of staff of German 30 Corps.\nNo approach has as yet been made to us by the German authorities for assistance in their investigations of this matter. Should such an approach be made the government will, of course, afford all appropriate cooperation.\nI am sure all hon. members will agree with me when I say that the whole incident was most regrettable, but I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the fact it is now over 20 years since the war ended, nothing is to be gained by our carrying this matter further.']
Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters), I wish to table copies in English and French of two letters designed to give further effect to the intensified trade promotion program which the minister announced in October, 1966.
One letter is directed to companies which are deemed to have export potential, but which are not active in the export field to date. The other is written to companies which already export.
The purpose of the letters is to encourage Canadian companies in their export programs and to make the facilities of the Department of Trade and Commerce available to them.
I therefore ask leave to table those letters.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to table the letters to which he has just referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the undertaking I gave on November 8 in response to a question by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather), I should like to make a further statement regarding the trial and execution of the German sailors, Dorfer and Beck, in Amsterdam in 1945. Hon. members will recall that on October 11 last I dealt with this matter in the house. Since that time I have had further investigations made. Those investigations are now complete and I wish to assure the house that nothing has come to
light which would in any way modify the statements I previously made on this subject.
In sum, any suggestion that any Canadian officer or soldier acted illegally or that the executions of Dorfer and Beck were Canadian inspired or encouraged by the Canadians is absolutely false.
The suggestions that have been made have, I think, been based on some misconception as to what actually occurred and the context in which events took place. The Germans, by the terms of surrender, were made responsible for the discipline of their troops who were awaiting return to and disbandment in Germany. The surrender terms made no mention of any change to be effected in the German disciplinary processes available to them for the maintenance of discipline. As I said in an earlier statement on this subject, restrictions on German disciplinary procedures were contained in military law No. 153. This was not received by the headquarters 1st Canadian army until the afternoon of May 14, the day after the execution took place.
There is no information that Dorfer or Beck deserted because of any appeal from the allies and indeed the evidence as set out in the article in Der Spiegel is to the contrary. Similarly, there is no evidence to support any suggestion that either of the two men had been engaged in collaboration with the allies during the time of their desertion from the German forces, and indeed all available evidence is to the contrary.
While the local Canadian military authorities furnish captured German rifles and ammunition for the execution, and provided transport, these two matters have been completely misinterpreted. The Germans had been disarmed and, if the sentence was to be carried out, rifles had to be returned to them for that purpose. When these were given to the Germans, the German authorities stated that they were going to carry out the execution on the spot in full view of their own troops, which would also have been in view of Canadian personnel. The Canadian officer present refused to allow this and was accordingly requested by the Germans to furnish transportation so that the executions might be carried out elsewhere. This was the only reason that a Canadian truck was made
11446	COMMONS
Income Tax Act Amendment available for the condemned men ana the firing party.
The suggestion that Canadian authorities instigated the trials and the executions is, as I have previously said, absolutely false. After the court martial the Canadian officer at the scene refused to allow the execution to take place until the matter had been referred for direction, even though the German officer in charge of the camp repeatedly made representations that unless the executions were carried out before nightfall that officer would no longer be responsible for the discipline of the German troops. The Canadian officer maintained his refusal to permit the executions until he was informed through Canadian authorities that approval for the carrying out of the sentence had been given by the chief of staff of German 30 Corps.
No approach has as yet been made to us by the German authorities for assistance in their investigations of this matter. Should such an approach be made the government will, of course, afford all appropriate cooperation.
I am sure all hon. members will agree with me when I say that the whole incident was most regrettable, but I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the fact it is now over 20 years since the war ended, nothing is to be gained by our carrying this matter further.



FINANCE


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today copies in English and in French of the Tariff Board report on reference No. 133 relating to machinery, apparatus, printing plates and related products for the printing and allied industries. I am also tabling a transcript of the evidence presented to the board at its public hearings.
I assure the house that the Tariff Board's recommendations contained in this report will receive most careful consideration by the government. I should also like to take this opportunity to invite interested parties to let me have promptly any comments they may wish to make on this report.



INCOME TAX ACT AMENDMENT


Mitchell William Sharp: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-259,
tMr. Hellyer.]
DEBATES	December 21, 1966
entitled an act to amend the Income Tax Act and to repeal the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN DEVELOPMENT ACT


Mr. Steven Otto (York East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-260, to incorporate the Canadian Development Corporation.


Mr. Knowles:: Explain.


Steven Otto: The purpose for this legislation is to establish a crown corporation which would enable Canadians to buy back our national industrial future from foreign hands. This is a matter which seems to have been removed from the government's urgent list, but a matter which most Canadians consider to be of national importance. The bill would establish a crown corporation to ensure to Canadians the purchase price of approved shares. In my opinion, since Canadians have been skinned so often by our stock market manipulators, the only thing which will convince them they are getting a fair deal is a government guaranty for the equity shares they purchase. I am absolutely confident that if the subject matter of this bill is acted upon, Canadians will buy back control of their industrial potential within a short time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



POSTAL SERVICES INTERRUPTION RELIEF ACT


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-55, (from the Senate) to provide relief in certain cases against loss or hardship suffered as a result of interruptions of normal postal services.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Dinsdale: 1. Is land on the Oka Reservation in Quebec being surveyed as a part of a highway project?
December 21, 1966

2.	If so, who is carrying out the survey and on whose behalf is it being done?
3.	Have the Indians concerned been consulted?
4.	If so, have they approved of the survey, and what agreement has been drawn up?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. A preengineering survey of the existing 2.8 miles of road, known as the Middle road, in the Oka settlement has been completed.
2.	The location survey of the road was carried out under the direction of the division engineer of the provincial highways department on behalf of the Indian residents, and at the request of the Indian affairs branch.
3.	Yes, the survey has been authorized by resolution of the elected band council representing the Oka Indians.
4.	Written agreements have been concluded with all Indian property owners whose lands are required for road purposes. Each property owner will receive compensation after reconstruction has been completed and a legal survey undertaken to establish the precise land areas involved.


MONTREAL, P.Q.-ENGLISH SPEAKING EMPLOYEES IN POST OFFICE
Mr. Irvine: 1.	How many English-speaking people are employed in the Windsor Street post office in Montreal?
2.	How many French-speaking people are employed in this same post office?
3.	How many people of other ethnic origins are employed in this same post office?
4.	What is the total number of employees in this same post office and how many of such number are bilingual (speaking English and French)?


Hon. Jean-Pierre  Cole@Posimasier General: 1.	67 employees speak English only.
2.	770 employees speak French only.
3.	83.
4.	3,221 (total)-2,384 (bilingual).
Note: This reply is for postal employees in the Montreal post office and the Montreal postal district which are both located in the Windsor Street post office.


FEDERAL GRANTS TO FACULTIES OF MEDICINE
Mr. Isabelle: Does the government make grants to faculties of medicine of various universities in Canada and, if so, are there any minimum standards demanded by the government of those faculties and, what are the standards set for the admission of students to
Questions
the faculties of medicine at (a) Laval University, (b) Montreal University, (c) McGill University, (d) Toronto University, (e) University of British Columbia (f) Saskatchewan University?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Department of National Health and Welfare as follows: Under the health grants federal assistance is provided for projects submitted by the provinces for provincial health programs which may include the support of training, research and clinical services provided by or under the supervision of the faculties of medicine of Canadian universities. Under the new health resources fund, federal assistance will also be provided to projects submitted by the provinces for the construction and renovation of buildings for teaching and research in faculties of medicine. (a) to (f) Faculties of medicine are developed and operated under the authority of the provinces. Federal standards have not been established for the admission of students.


OWNERSHIP OF PERPETUAL BONDS
Mr. Rynard: 1.	Has an analysis been made of the present ownerships of the government of Canada perpetual bonds issued in 1936 in the amount of $55,000,000?
2.	Has an estimate been made of the capital gains which would accrue to present holders of these bonds who are not the original purchasers or heirs or trustees of the original bonds if they were redeemed at their par value?
3.	What is the estimate of capital gains which would accrue to present holders of these bonds who were not the original purchasers or heirs or trustees if the interest rate was raised above 3 percent?


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance and Receiver General):: On September 15, 1966 there were 4,698 registered holders of perpetual bonds, of whom 330 were original registrations. The total registered holdings accounted for about $27,500,000 par value of which the 330 original registrations accounted for approximately $700,000 par value. It is not known how many bearer bonds totalling approximately $27,-
500,000	are still in the hands of original purchasers. Since the date of issue, September 15, 1936, the perpetual bonds have changed hands at many prices within the range of about $50.00 and $104.00 per $100.00 par value. The various prices at which present perpetual bond holders, other than original purchasers, purchased their bonds cannot be determined. Consequently, it is not possible to estimate the amount of capital gains which

December 21, 1966
Questions
would accrue if the perpetual bonds were redeemed at par or if the coupon rate of 3 per cent were raised. However, as noted by the Minister of Finance in the house on October 5 purchases of perpetual bonds in recent years have been made at market prices which were substantially below the original issue price of $96.50 per $100,000 par value.


CAUSEWAY STAGE OF NORTHUMBERLAND CROSSING
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	When is it intended to call for tenders for causeway stage of the Northumberland crossing between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick?
2.	What is the estimated time for completion of
this phase?
3.	What is its total length?
4.	Has there been a delay in the estimated time or call of tenders and, if so, what are the reasons for such delay?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: 1. January, 1967.
2.	Two years.
3.	About 11,700 feet.
4.	There has been no delaying; however, tenders cannot be invited before an agreement on sales taxes has been made with the provinces.


HOUSING STARTS IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Bell (Saint John-: Alberi):
What was the total of housing starts in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island in each year since 1960 with separate figures on urban construction, particularly NBA. direct, indirect (insured), and conventional financing?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Data on housing starts in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island since 1960, showing housing starts in urban areas separately, are given in Table 1 below.
Data on housing starts by source of financing for individual provinces are not available, but data for the Atlantic region are given in Table 2 below. Data on N.H.A. financing of housing in the four provinces since 1960, showing loans approved by lenders and the corporation separately, are given in Table 3 below.

December 21, 1966

Questions


TABLE 1 DWELLING STARTS, ATLANTIC PROVINCES, 1960-SEPTEMBER, 1966 (DWELLING UNITS)
[Stage Direction]
Period	Urban Centres of 5,000 Population and Over	Other Areas	Total	
			Newfoundland		
1960						
1961						
1962						
1963						
1964						
1965						
Jan.-Sept. 1965					1,339 1,492	
1966						
					
		Prince Edward Island			
1960						
1961						
1962						
1963						
1964					o29	
1965						
Jan.-Sept. 1965						
1966						
				325	
			Nova Scotia		
1960					1 Dll	
1961						
1962						
1963						
1964						
1965						
Jan.-Sept. 1965						
1966					2,138	
					
			New Brunswick		
1960					1,780 2,078 2,307 1,669 3,044 2,829	
1961						
1962						
1963						
1964						
1965						
Jan.-Sept. 1965						
1966					2,143 1,893	
					
[Stage Direction]
December 21. 1966
Questions

[Stage Direction]
National Housing Act Approved Other Lender CMHC N.H.A. Period Loans Loans Financing	Conventional Institutional Loans	Other Financing	Total1QfiO	
752	602	324	1,532	4,915	8,12519fi1	
1,071	1,183	151	1,813	4,305	8,5231Qfi2	
1,006	651	65	2,668	3,053	7,443IflfiS	
591	613	99	3,146	2,513	6,9621QP>4	
663	836	179	4,440	3,269	9,3871965....	
380	1,071	101	4,027	3,365	8,944TABLE 3	NET NHA FINANCING OF NEW HOUSING, ATLANTIC PROVINCES, 1960-1965 (DWELLING UNITS)	Mortgage Loans	Period	Approved Lenders	CMHC	NHA Financing	NHA FinancingIQfifl	
12	Newfoundland 58 -	70IQfil	
49	216	-	265
18	182	-	2001QR3	
9	279	-	288IQfvt	
2	152	-	1541965	
6	463	210	679Total 1960-1965...	
96	1,350	210	1,656Prince Edward Island	HQfiO	
6	48	10	64IQfil	
26	33	93	1521 Qfi2 	
6	16	10	32
11	12	6	291QfU	
9	55	-	641965	
3	55	-	58Total 1960-1965...	
61	219	119	399Nova Scotia	1960	
399	435	351	1,1851961	
513	556	94	1,1631962	
434	203	88	7251963	
293	160	51	5041964	
127	234	231	5921966	
84	339	87	510
Total 1960-1965...			 1,850	1,927	902	4,679
			New Brunswick		
I960	
285	292	100	6771961	
516	303	-	8191962	
588	171	94	8531963	
360	230	103	6931964	
517	436	-	9531965	
269	397	-	666Total 1960-1965...	
2,535	1,829	297	4,661

December 21, 1966

Mr. Reid: 1.	In the past 20 years, what is the yearly quantity and type of wood in cords shipped from Canada to the state of Minnesota, U.S.A.?
2.	What percentage of this wood is cut from Crown land and what percentage is cut from private land?
3.	Does the state of Minnesota export wood to Canada?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Trade and Commerce and Forestry and Rural Development as follows:
1,	2 and 3. The information requested is not available as commodity data on imports from and exports to the United States are not compiled by state.


HAY PERMITS IN RIDING MOUNTAIN PARK
Mr. Mandziuk: 1.	How many hay permits were issued by the Department of Northern Affairs in the Riding Mountain National Park during the year 1966?
2.	How many grazing permits were issued in the said park during the current year?
3.	How many head of cattle and horses were grazed in this park in 1966?


Arthur Laing: 1. 22.
2.	54.
3.	1,264 cattle under permits. At June 1st an estimated 1,000 cattle grazed without permits. This number was reduced through the enforcement of national parks regulations to 150 by September 15, and it is expected that grazing without permits will be negligible in future years.
12 horses.


CARTER-BREBOEUF PARK-REQUEST FROM PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Duquei: 1.	Did the federal government receive an official request from the government of the province of Quebec regarding the national park now known as the Cartier-Breboeuf park, and, if so, in what year?
2.	Who granted the land to the federal government for the above mentioned national park?


Arthur Laing: 1. No.
2. The area of the municipal park known as Cartier-Breboeuf park was granted to the federal government by the city of Quebec. The province of Quebec transferred a portion
Questions
of the river bed of the Lairet and the Quebec city development board has provided land on both sides of the Lairet.
Further land is in the process of transfer from the city.


GASPE, P.Q.-OPENING OF PARK
Mr. Duquet: Did the federal government receive an official request from the government of the province of Quebec for the opening of a national park in the Gaspe region and if so, in what year was the request approved or rejected?


Arthur Laing: No.


GASPE, P.Q., HISTORICAL SITE
Mr. Duquet: Has the federal government, since 1950, received an official request from the government of the province of Quebec for an historical site in the Gaspe region and if so, in what year was the request made and to commemorate what event?


Arthur Laing: No.


DEVELOPMENT OF HYBRID SALMON
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Has any action been taken by the Department of Fisheries to develop a hybrid salmon similar to the one produced by American fisheries biologists in the state of Washington and, if so, what action has been taken?
2.	Is the Department of Fisheries in touch with this development and following it actively and, if so, when may transplants be expected in Nova Scotia rivers?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1. No.
2. The department is aware of the development but there are no plans for transplants to Nova Scotia rivers.


CHILDREN RECEIVING BENEFITS FROM FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	What was the total number of children under 16 years of age who benefited from Family Allowances in (a) 1946 (b) 1966?
2.	What was the total annual cost of Family Allowances paid in (a) 1946 (b) 1966?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. (a) As at December, 1946, $3,456,503; (b) As at November, 1966 (latest figures available), $6,877,313.

December 21, 19G6
Questions
2. The figures below are by fiscal year: (a) $245,701,684, 1946-47;	(b) $551,734,824,
1965-66 (latest figures available.)


PUBLIC BUILDINGS IN QUEBEC MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Ricard: What was the total cost of the purchase of sites and of the construction of the federal buildings in (a) Saint Hyacinthe (b) Saint Pie de Bagot (c) Saint Germain de Grantham?


George James McIlraith: (a) Saint-Hyacinthe, Site $150,000, (Federal Building); Construction, $631,330.68 (Federal Building); (b) Saint-Pie-de-Bagot, Sites, $2,800, (Post Office Bldg.), $83,000, (Penitentiary), Construction $18,443.96 (Post Office Bldg.); (c) Saint-Germain-de-Grantham, Site, $4,000 (Post Office Bldg.), Construction $22,698.21, (Post Office Bldg.).


HAMPSTEAD, N.B., WHARF REPAIRS
Mr. Fairwealher: 1.	Who was the successful bidder for tender number 66-73 for repairs to the wharf at Hampstead, New Brunswick?
2.	What was the amount of the bid?
3.	What was the total amount of money paid for this contract?


George James McIlraith: 1. Kenneth Ducey, Hatfield's Point. N.B.
2.	$2,907.90.
3.	$2,907.90.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Challerion: 1. In the case of each of the following ferry services: (a) Newfoundland Ferry Service between North Sydney, N.S. and Port aux Basques and other Island points (b) the P.E.I. Car Ferry Service between Cape Tormentine, N.B., and Borden, P.E.I. (c) Nova Scotia-New England Ferry Service between Yarmouth, N.S., and Bar Harbour, Maine, (i) what were the annual operating deficits paid by the Canadian taxpayer for each of the last three fiscal years (ii) what was the capital contribution by the Canadian government towards the cost of the vessels and all ancillary services, e.g., wharves, dredging, etc.; and what was the approximate percentage of such contribution of the total capital cost; what arrangement exists for capital depreciation or reimbursement to the Canadian government

of such contribution; what was the basis of establishing such contribution (iii) what is the current ferry charge for passengers and vehicles between the principal ports of call?
2.	In the case of the proposed North Sydney-Argentia Ferry Service (i) what is the total capital contribution by the federal government towards cost of vessels and all ancillary works, e.g., wharves, dredging, etc. (ii) what percentage is this contribution of the total capital cost and what was the basis for establishing this contribution (iii) what is the anticipated fare for passengers and vehicles?
3.	Has the Canadian government contributed to the capital cost and operating deficits of any ferry system on the Pacific Coast and, if so, to what systems and how much?
Return tabled.


COSTS OF PERIODICALS
Mr. Reid: Regarding the (a) Department of Labour periodicals Teamwork in Industry, Rehabilitation in Canada, Technical and Vocational Education in Canada (b) Department of Fisheries periodicals Canadian Fish Culturist, Trade News (c) National Research Council periodical NRC News (d) Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development periodical North (e) Secretary of State periodical Citizen (f) Emergency Measures Organization periodical EMO National Digest (g) Department of National Health and Welfare periodicals Canada's Health and Welfare, Occupational Health Review, Canadian Nutrition Notes, Canada's Mental Health (h) Department of Trade and Commerce periodicals Foreign Trade, Canada Courier:
1.	What is the annual cost to the department or agency concerned for each of these periodicals?
2.	How many subscriptions are there to each of the above periodicals?
3.	What is the Act of Parliament which authorizes
or provides for the publication of each of these periodicals?
4.	Are any of the editorial boards of these periodicals nominated or appointed because of their affiliation with any private voluntary organizations and, if so, which organizations?
5.	With respect to the activities or policy area covered by these periodicals, is there a policy advisory council or committee established within the Department having among its members persons nominated by or appointed because of their affiliation with, any private voluntary organization and, if so, which organizations?
Return tabled.


Mr. Starr:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege. The answers being given a few moments ago by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance were rendered in such a rapid-fire manner that I think the translators were having difficulty in translating them into English. I would ask that it be done more slowly in the future.
December 21, 1S66


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I gave an English copy of that text to the translator. I do not know whether the messenger took it to the right booth, but that is another matter.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for papers Nos. 195, 196 and 197 are acceptable to the government.
Notice of motion No. 187 is acceptable to the government, subject to the reservations concerning privileged papers and the authorization of the governmental authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that notices of motions for the production of papers numbered 195, 196 and 197 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



EDWARD ELROY HUNT-INQUEST PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 195-Mr. Howard:
That an	humble	address	be	presented	to	HisExcellency	praying	that he	will	cause to	be	laid
before this house a copy of the transcript of the proceedings before the jury empanelled to inquire into the circumstances touching the death of Edward Elroy Hunt, an inmate of the B.C. penitentiary who died on June 26, 1966.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 196-Mr. Howard:
That an	humble	address	be	presented	to	HisExcellency	praying	that he	will	cause to	be	laid
before this house a copy of the report, findings and recommendations of the jury empanelled to inquire into the circumstances touching the death of Edward Elroy Hunt, an inmate of the B.C. penitentiary who died on June 26, 1966.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 197-Mr. Orlikow:
That an order of the house do issue for copies of all correspondence received by the Minister of Finance, the Superintendent of Insurance, the
Motions for Papers
Superintendent of Bankruptcy or officials in their departments, from William Gruber of Toronto, regarding the Prudential Finance Company, and replies sent by government officials to such letters, since January 1, 1964.
Motion agreed to.
Albert Béchard: Would Your Honour be kind enough to call notices of motions Nos. 185, 186, 189 and 190?
I ask that the other notices of motions be allowed to stand.



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT AND CITIZENS OF THE COUNTIES OF COMPTON AND FRONTENAC

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 185-Mr. Latulippe:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Post Office Department and persons from the counties of Compton and Frontenac, since January 1, 1963, in connection with changes in (a) postmasters (b) contracts relating to rural mail delivery (c) the award of contracts for the construction of new post offices and to the purchase of sites.
Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable as far as the part coming under the Post Office Department is concerned, subject to the reservations concerning privileged papers.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 185 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 186-Mr. Laprise:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the Department of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State or any official of that department and Telephone du Nord de Quebec Limitee, and Gagnon Television Limitee, since 1964.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to this motion, but I wish to advise the hon. member

December 21, 1966
Motions for Papers
that no letter, telegram or other document has been exchanged between my department, myself or any official of my department and "Telephone du Nord de Quebec Limitee" and "Gagnon Television Limitee", since 1964.
Since I have no document to produce, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

TERRACE, B.C., AIRPORT ALTERATIONS Motion No. 187-Mr. Howard:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources since January X, 1966, and any other person, government or group relating to, or within which is contained reference to, the airport or airport buildings at Terrace, B.C. or any part of it or them and any proposed additions or alterations thereto.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion, subject to the ordinary reservations as to confidential documents and the authorization of the government concerned?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
MERCANTILE BANK-EXCHANGE OF NOTES Motion No. 189-Mr. Diefenbaker:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of notes exchanged between Canada and the United States in the last three months on the subject of the Mercantile Bank and on the bank legislation now before the house.
Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this is a request for the production of an exchange of notes between Canada and the United States. I am sure that my right hon. friend will agree that such notes are privileged and on that account cannot be produced. I would therefore ask my right hon. friend kindly to withdraw the motion if he is so disposed.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am not so disposed because that is not the rule. I wish to

refer Your Honour to the various authorities on this question and make reference to the fact: The hon. gentleman who has just spoken made a statement on February 2, 1966 as reported on page 602 of Hansard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I had not understood that motions of this sort were debatable. That being the case I am sure my right hon. friend, who usually observes the rules so carefully, would agree that this should not be proceeded with.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to make a ruling on this. I was quoting the hon. gentleman's own words, and of course he does not like to have them quoted back to him. On February 2 there was a motion for production of a copy of a letter or letters written by the President of the United States asking for Canadian military assistance or any other kind of assistance in reference to the conflict in Viet Nam, to which the hon. gentleman replied:
There is no objection to accepting this motion, but it can, of course, be done only with the usual reservation, in this case the usual reservation being the necessity for obtaining the concurrence of the President of the United States.
So on the authorities, Mr. Speaker, these documents are not privileged. The only privilege-


Mr.   Marfin@Essex Easl: That is not a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understood the
Leader of the Opposition was rising on a point of order; that is why I heard the argument he submitted. With respect, I am sure the right hon. gentleman accepts the views expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the motion is not debatable-


John George Diefenbaker: I am not debating the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: -and that the minister is right to ask that it be transferred for debate-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: -at which time I suggest the argument being submitted by the Leader of the Opposition would be pertinent.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there was no request by the minister that it be transferred for debate. In this matter the house is being denied information which is made available in the United Kingdom whenever requested.
December 21, 1966


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask the minister
whether it was his request that it be trans-	
ferred for debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I	will put the motion.
The house divided on the motion (Mr. Diefenbaker) which was negatived on the fol-	
lowing division:	YEAS
	Messrs:
Aiken	Knowles
Alkenbrack	Korchinski
Allard	Lambert
Baldwin	Langlois (Megantic)
Ballard	Latulippe
Barnett	Leboe
Bell (Saint John-Albert) Lewis	
Bower	Loney
Brewin	MacLean (Queens)
Cameron (Nanaimo-	* McKinley
Cowichan-The Islands) Madill	
Chatterton	Mather
Churchill	Mongrain
Crouse	Monte ith
Danforth	More
Diefenbaker	Nasserden
Dionne	Nielsen
Enns	Pascoe
Fane	Patterson
Fawcett	Peters
Forrestall	Prittie
Fulton	Rapp
Gilbert	Regimbal
Godin	Ricard
Grafftey	Rynard
Grills	Saltsman
Gundlock	Schreyer
Hamilton	Scott (Victoria (Ont.))
Hees	Simard
Homer (Acadia)	Starr
Howard	Thompson
Howe (Hamilton South) Wadds (Mrs.)	
Irvine	Webb-65.
NAYS Messrs:
Asselin	Davis
(Richmond-Wolfe)	Deachman
Badanai	Drury
Basford	Dube
Batten	Duquet
Bechard	Emard
Beer	Forest
Benson	Gendron
Berger	Gray
Blouin	Greene
Boulanger	Guay
Byrne	Haidasz
Cadieux (Terrebonne)	Hellyer
Cantin	Hopkins
Cardin	Hymmen
Chatwood	Isabelle
Choquette	Lachance
Chretien	Laflamme
Clermont	Laing
Comtois	LaMarsh (Miss)
Cote (Longueuil)	Lamontagne
Crossman	Langlois (Chicoutimi)
Division
Laniel	Pilon
Laverdiere	Prud'homme
Leblanc (Laurier)	Reid
Lefebvre	Richard
Legault	Rideout (Mrs.)
Lessard	Rinfret
Lind	Robichaud
Loiselle	Rochon
Macaluso	Rock
MacEachen	Roxburgh
Mackasey	Sharp
Mcllraith	Stafford
Me William	Stanbury
Matheson	Stewart
Matte	Tardif
Morison	Teillet
Munro	Thomas (Maisonneuve-
Neveu	Rosemont)
Nicholson	Trudeau
O'Keefe	Tucker
Orange	Turner
Otto	Wahn
Pearson	Walker
Pelletier	Watson (Chateauguay-
Pennell	Huntingdon-Laprairie)
Pepin	Whelan
Pickersgill	Yanakis-95.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Cameron (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Ormiston). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Sherman:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Andras). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there ought to be a word said about this vote because it involves an issue that certainly is not clear, in the nature of the vote itself. It seems to me that this motion should have been transferred for debate because it involves an issue that reaches right into the heart of our national and economic autonomy, where Wall street financial interests moved directly through to the United States state department and, in so doing, were practising the kind of imperialism which seeks to bring pressure to bear on Canada-pressure which we do not need or want-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) that this is a point of order. It seems to me that in the remarks he is making he is reflecting on the vote of the house, which

December 21, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry was a decision of the house taken on the request that the motion be put. The motion was put; a decision was reached by the house. The reflections of the hon. member, or his comments, might have been acceptable in the course of debate, but in view of the fact that there was no debate I suggest his remarks cannot be made at this time on a point of order.



DOMINION MARINE ASSOCIATION-APPLICATION OF LABOUR (STANDARDS) CODE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 190-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or department thereof and the Dominion Marine Association dated on or about November 22, regarding the application or deferment of, or relating to Part I of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable to the government and the correspondence can be filed forthwith or very shortly. In fact I have already given the hon. member a copy of the letter.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion deemed to have been adopted by the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It has to do with the disappearance of $529,000 in securities from the custody of the North American General Insurance, termed by the Minister of Finance a theft. I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether this is being investigated by the R.C.M.P. Has any charge been laid regarding the disappearance of that very considerable sum and, if no action has been taken as yet by the R.C.M.P., what communications have taken place which obviate or explain the reason for such a long delay?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have no personal knowledge of the matter referred to by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. However, perhaps I may be permitted to comment that, as the house is
[Mr. Speaker.)
well aware, the administration of justice generally falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces and theft, I feel, would be a matter to be dealt with by the provincial authorities. However, as I have indicated, I have no personal knowledge but would be pleased to make inquiries.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister of course knows that the company from which the alleged theft took place is a dominion incorporated insurance company, and as such is the responsibility of the federal government. In this connection I would suggest that the minister look into the question of prosecution.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May I ask the Solicitor General whether he would not be well advised to follow the example set by his colleague, the Minister of Justice, who now is prosecuting, for violation of the Criminal Code, some persons in the province of Quebec in respect of certain activities they were alleged to have been engaged in.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York Soulh):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I should like to ask the hon. minister whether he has received a letter from Mr. George Burt, the Canadian director of the United Automobile Workers, protesting against the minister's proposal that the transitional assistance benefits be paid only after the supplementary unemployment benefits have been exhausted by laid off employees as a result of the Canada-U.S. agreement. If he has received the letter, would he inform the house whether this policy has been definitely decided upon and whether regulations to this effect are in preparation or have been adopted.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have received such a letter. Government policy in this matter was announced in the house some weeks ago, after discussions with Mr. Burt and some of his colleagues, and after extended discussion with his executive assistant, who remained here and participated in the detailed discussions
December 21, 1966



before the announcement was made in the house. Regulations have been drafted and if they have not yet gone to the cabinet for consideration, they will be submitted within the next day or two.


David Lewis: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? Perhaps I should know-and I apologize if I should and do not-but would the minister inform the house whether unemployed people would have to exhaust their supplementary unemployment benefits before becoming entitled to the transitional assistance benefits under the regulations which have been drafted.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The amended regulations I hope will be published within a matter of a few days. I do not think answering this question before then, and having an extended debate on it, would be fitting on the orders of the day, at least until the regulations have been published.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to ask whether or not the Canadian government made any protest to the United States state department against the interference with Canadian policies relating to the operations of the Mercantile Bank.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there have been of course very full discussions between the two governments. The last note of the state department which was received on November 11, will shortly be replied to.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the large number of rejections of applications for visiting privileges in Canada by people from central European countries, particularly countries such as Poland, I should like to ask the minister whether this is as a result of government policy or whether it is based on the minister's prerogative.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think we are applying exactly the same policy which has been applied for years and years.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Some time ago he intimated to the house that he was hopeful that his deposit insurance legislation would be given first reading before the recess. Apparently this has been impossible, but I wonder whether the minister could give us any further information on this.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I received the bill in proper form, and therefore I can assure the house that it will be on the order paper right at the resumption of the session.


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the President of the Treasury Board would not mind if I ask this question of the government house leader. In view of the fact that all of us seem to be agreed to the proposition of amending the terms of reference of the joint committee on the public service to deal with the matter of the pensions of retired civil servants, can the house leader say how soon this will be attended to.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might answer the question. This government, of course, always has been vitally concerned with the welfare of civil servants and retired civil servants. As I have indicated, we intend to proceed with this matter as soon as I am persuaded that a few other people would allow it to go through the house without debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister not aware that those concerned are prepared to let it go through the house without debate?


Edgar John Benson: All I am aware of is that my hon. friend speaks for himself.

December 21, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN ECONOMY


SUGGESTED MEASURE TO ENCOURAGE EMPLOYMENT IN CENTENNIAL YEAR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the two latest forecasts that the economy will slow down next year, made yesterday by the minister of finance for the province of Ontario and by the minister's own deputy minister, Mr. Bryce, would the government give consideration to introducing a measure to stimulate the economy so that we do not celebrate our centennial year here with rising unemployment.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm what is reported in the paper concerning what my deputy minister said at the meeting of the provincial ministers of finance yesterday. He said at that time that we could expect an increase in the volume of production in Canada next year of approximately 4 per cent. This is about the same as the increase the United States authorities are now expecting in that country.
May I draw the attention of the house and my hon. friend to the statement made by the Economic Council in its third annual report:
By early 1966, it was therefore clear that an adjustment to a more moderate and sustainable rate of growth was necessary.


George Harris Hees: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? Does the minister not realize that his deputy minister forecast a reduction in our growth of about two thirds, from 6 per cent to 4 per cent?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to the question of the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition on Friday, December 2, with respect to certain allegations that United States authorities were checking in Vancouver for deserters from the United States armed forces. I am informed that the persons who believed that the United States authorities were conducting such inquiries in Vancouver were interviewed by the R.C.M.P. and were not able to confirm that the persons suspected were in fact acting on behalf of the United States authorities.
I am further advised that the R.C.M.P. made inquiries of the F.B.I. and were informed that the F.B.I. had not conducted any such operation. They were told that the F.B.I. inquiry of the United States department of defence did not disclose any connection on the part of the United States military authorities with these allegations.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What plans has the minister in mind for 1967 to re-establish Canada's prestige abroad in view of-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -in view of the failure in 1966 of the minister's efforts in respect of Rhodesia, Viet Nam, the two Chinas and the United Nations peace keeping forces?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It may be that the minister would like to reply to the question on a question of privilege, but I doubt if this question is in order.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fullon (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, there is a matter I should like to take up with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact this is the last time we will have the opportunity of obtaining information prior to the new year, I should like to ask the minister to advise the house in respect to the present position regarding President Johnson's proposed "Water for Peace" conference, and in particular whether Canada has received or accepted an invitation to attend. Will Canadian representatives be instructed to take a firm position against any commitment to divert Canadian waters until Canada's own needs are ascertained and assured for the future?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, a paper on this subject will be presented to the cabinet tomorrow and an announcement will be made early next year. There is no doubt we will participate, but the extent and the form of that participation will be defined later.

December 21, 1SS6



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will he inform the house whether or not the Canadian government has accepted the request of the Secretary General of the United Nations to maintain its peace keeping contingent in Cyprus, in view of the recently renewed Security Council six months mandate?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the Security Council has renewed the United Nations commitment in Cyprus for a period of six months from December 26. I hope the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre will not regard this as a further indication of failure, when I say that the Canadian government believes firmly in the concept of the United Nations peace keeping, and has decided to continue to serve in the Cyprus force from December 27 until June 26 next year, the period set for the renewed mandate.



SOUTH KOREA-WITHDRAWAL OF FORCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke asked the Prime Minister a question as a follow-up to another question concerning whether or not Canada had announced its position regarding two resolutions proposed at the United Nations in relation to the withdrawal of the United Nations forces from the demilitarized zone in Korea. Has the Prime Minister any answer to that question?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: There were two resolutions presented to the United Nations assembly on December 16 regarding this subject. One was proposed by certain communist delegates and was to the effect that the United Nations should withdraw from Korea. That resolution was defeated. The other resolution, of which Canada was a co-sponsor, was to the effect that United Nations forces should remain in Korea until the government of Korea asked for a withdrawal or until conditions make it possible to do so. Of course Canada voted in favour of that resolution.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



SOUTH KOREA-AGREEMENT RESPECTING TEXTILE QUOTA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinihe-Bagof):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the treaty signed yesterday by Canada and South Korea, have quotas been set for textiles entering Canada from Korea?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Trade and Commerce will table tomorrow the text of the treaty and I invite my colleague, the hon. member, to study it well.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. I would like the minister to put the answer on the order paper because tomorrow we will not be here to examine it.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as the minister who reports for the National Capital Commission. Having in mind the increased interest in our national capital, will the minister give consideration to the establishment of a committee of this house which could meet annually to concern itself with suggestions of all Canadians regarding the national capital?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Michael Starr: That is a concise answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You sound like Paul Martin.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
11460

December 21, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry
It has to do with the preliminary answer given in this house last December 8. At that time I asked the Prime Minister whether the government had received a report from the ministerial committee considering the status of bargaining units and the merits of the C.N.T.U.'s grievances and whether the house could expect a statement very shortly in that respect. The right hon. Prime Minister gave the following reply on December 8:
The matter is under consideration and I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.
Is the right hon. Prime Minister now in a position to make such an announcement before we adjourn for the Christmas recess?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I cannot say more at this time than that this matter is still being considered. A meeting of a committee of the cabinet was held yesterday and another meeting will be held next week. I sincerely hope when we reassemble I will be able to make a more definitive statement.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has he or his department received any report, brief or representation from a group calling itself the Canadian Citizens Committee on Pollution?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I shall make inquiries. May I observe that the committee first made representations to the province of Ontario which, generally speaking, is responsible for water pollution in that province.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have a supplementary question. Has the minister been in touch with provincial authorities to discuss financial assistance in respect of water pollution control?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker, not since the conference on pollution held at Montreal. As I already indicated, I hope the members of the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers will meet early in the year to discuss this subject. May I mention that some assistance has already been provided by the Canadian government toward anti-pollution measures through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and income tax regulations.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. Regimbal (Argenieuil-Deux-Moniagnes):: I have a question for the
Secretary of State. A few days ago the Montreal weekly, Dimanche Matin published the names of employees of the C.B.C. who are active in the separatist movement in Montreal. Can the hon. lady indicate first whether she is familiar with that report, and whether any investigation has been carried out to verify the report?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for forwarding a copy of the article, which is to the effect that there has been an infiltration in the Societe de Radio Canada by a group of separatists. I am informed that some members are in effect attempting to prevent freedom of speech and association. That is detrimental to this country. Let me remind hon. members that article VIII, subsection 3 states that fulltime employees may not give public support to election candidates, or themselves run as candidates.
I can only say from this that it seems to me an individual who works for the C.B.C. is entitled, as is every Canadian, to have his own personal views about the country. This is a right we all have. But he must be scrupulously careful when holding those views to keep himself completely objective, and not put them forward over the air.



PRINCE RUPERT. B.C.,-FAVOURABLE CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST CONCERNING ELEVATOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I say at the outset that I know beneath his lean and light frame there is a very jolly disposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: I would like him to exhibit that jolly disposition by making a favourable announcement about the grain elevator in Prince Rupert.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has now epitomized me as the Cassius of the House of Commons, I should like to cheer his Christmas
December 21, 1966

a little by telling him that a favourable decision has now been made and an announcement of the terms will be made very shortly.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Prince Rupert may I thank the minister for this Christmas present.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he can reply to the question put the day before yesterday about the municipal winter works program.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is going to happen to this program next year. The cabinet will have to make a decision. I think the program will be revised or abandoned.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General.
Now that the principle of a minimum guaranteed income has been established by Bill No. C-251, does the minister not think that amendments should be made to the Income Tax Act to raise personal exemptions to $1,260 instead of the present $1,000, thus treating all Canadians equally?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is very general and I really do not think it can be allowed at this time.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I will make my question as brief as possible, because my hon. friend from Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) also has a very urgent question.
I wish to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister, and since this is the last day of the session, I would like to offer
Inquiries of the Ministry him my best wishes and pay tribute to him, on the eve of 1967, as the father of a new Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like to remind the hon. member that, particularly on Wednesday, we have only a few minutes at our disposal.


Auguste Choquette: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker.

Here is the question I have. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is ready to act upon the recommendation of the consumers credit committee by establishing a department of consumers affairs.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we are giving very careful consideration to the important recommendations of this particular committee, including the one to which my hon. friend has referred.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to whom I should direct this question. Perhaps the Minister of Labour will accept it. It has to do with the situation on Bell Island and the difficulties of 8,000 Canadians there, many of whom find themselves in a position verging on destitution as they approach Christmas. This situation has existed for several months. What emergency action is the government going to take? Will it make available something in the nature of a federal subsidy, or what will it do so that the several hundred unemployed there will receive equal consideration with Canadians in other parts of the country?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I think direct action in this particular case would have to be taken by the Department of Manpower and Immigration. I do not know whether my colleague, who is in the house, is in a position to answer the question today. Perhaps he can.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are doing in Bell Island what we are doing everywhere in the country; we are trying to help those workers. We are ready to grant them allowances so they may find jobs somewhere else. We have counselling services for

December 21, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry them, and we are doing all that we can in the circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: Have any taken advantage of this rather less-than-generous offer to these people who have suffered for a long time, and are suffering particularly at this moment?


Jean Marchand: If any special measures are to be taken they will have to be decided by the cabinet.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a hope.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, yesterday my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question with regard to the gift of 1,500 gallons of gasoline from Friends of Rhodesia organizations in Canada. The article to which she referred carried a picture with the legend: "The gift indicates the sympathy and support of the Canadian people." The minister promised to look into the matter and read the article. My colleague has gone, and asked me to ask the minister whether he has been able to look into the matter, and has any comments to make about it.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secreiary of State for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, according to reports which we have received, 1,500 gallons of petrol were turned over to the illegal Smith regime at the end of October by a Mr. Ronald Gostick who was acting on behalf of the Friends of Rhodesia societies in Canada. The article to which the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway called my attention itself points out that the delivery of the fuel was made from South Africa.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Can the minister inform the house how many other remissions of sentence have been granted for Christmas and the New Year, in addition to the Vancouver labour leaders who were referred to yesterday?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give any exact figures, but a considerable number of cases forwarded from various institutions across Canada were considered, and granted clemency under the royal prerogative and approved for pre-Christmas release.



EXPO '67 EDMONTON, ALTA.-FAILURE TO SECURE TRANSPORTATION FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received a telegram from the centennial co-ordinator of the Edmonton school board protesting the fact that after two months they have not been able to negotiate an agreement with the C.N.R. to take 2,000 Edmonton children to Expo?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question cannot be answered at this time.



NATIONAL ANTHEM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I have taken the precaution of not giving him notice of it. In view of the expected adjournment of the house this evening, and the prospect that Canada will be launched anthemless into its centennial year, could the Prime Minister advise the house when and how parliament will get the opportunity to adopt "O Canada" as our national anthem?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think this matter should be sent to a parliamentary committee for consideration. I hope that a resolution to that effect will be on the order paper when we reconvene, and that we will have this matter settled well before Canada Day in our centennial year.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
December 21, 1966

Prime Minister whether Canada in its centennial year will commemorate the birthday on January 11 of Sir John A. Macdonald the statesman who was recognized by Sir Wilfrid Laurier as the architect of Confederation. A number of schools across Canada have, without any direction or dictation, suggested this as a means of indicating that we in Canada commemorate those who gave us our nation.
Let me point out that party considerations disappear after one dies; that is one of the characteristics of our country. The hon. gentleman from Lotbiniere is always abolishing things here, but political considerations are forgotten after one dies.


An hon. Member:: They are not forgotten here.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly they are not forgotten by Liberals sitting in the house, but they are forgotten by Liberals in all parts of Canada, and in fact by all people regardless of party affiliation. I ask the Prime Minister whether he will not bring this to the attention of the cabinet.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my right hon. friend that no one wants to abolish Sir John A. Macdonald, who stands pre-eminent in our history as one of the Fathers of Confederation. I think the suggestion the right hon. gentleman has made, and which has been under consideration for some time now, is a very good one indeed. I think we should act on it.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the house allow me to say this to the Prime Minister: Thank you for that recognition and for that answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, after what has been said here, I move that we adjourn now.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, December 20, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-231 to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions-Mr.	Pickersgill-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-National transportation policy.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening clause 1 was under discussion.
Transportation


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to repeat what I said yesterday. I will limit my comments to the new Canadian Transport Commission, and once more urge the minister to have the proper agency take, as soon as possible, the necessary steps to force the railways to make their stations more presentable, by cleaning up the surroundings and painting the buildings so that the millions of visitors to our country may see something other than a series of slums, since that is what most of our stations are at present; indeed, they seem to belong to another day and age and are in the worst state of neglect.
I would also like to put on record-at the request of a correspondent-the transcript of a complaint which he made to the Board of Transport Commissioners with respect to the C.N.R. I have not had the opportunity to check personally the allegations in the complaint, but I nevertheless wish to put it on the record so that the proper authorities may make the necessary investigations and see if it is necessary to intervene, because the complaint seems serious enough. I repeat that it is the transcript of a complaint forwarded to the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada; the title reads as follows:
The C.N.R. is threatened with serious dangers.
I am complaining against the C.N.R. which, for the past two or three years, has not been providing adequate protection to train passengers and to its employees.
It is all due to the fact that the C.N.R. has decided to make some changes in the management of stations. It has centralized the work in certain stations and appointed terminal traffic managers, assistant terminal traffic managers, staff supervisors freight sales, to manage and supervise those stations. Those gentlemen are not qualified to fill those positions. They have control over operating agents and operators without having the required qualifications, because those appointed to such positions. express and freight agents, know nothing about the regulations governing the operation of trains.
In addition, those men have authority over agents and operators. It is shameful for the C.N.R. to do such things, because you, the Board of Transport Commissioners, have issued a manual of regulations on railway security that the operators and agents must know and put into practice. Those unqualified men who have authority over agents and operators often give orders against security. I feel that you, the Board of Transport Commissioners, should require the C.N.R. to appoint qualified persons to those positions.
Those terminal traffic managers and others are so ignorant in matters of railway security that they claim that operators must carry out orders last of all, and force them to become clerks.

December 21, 1966
Transportation
I must say that with this new change, stations are farther apart, but those that remain have to take a lot of orders. But once again the terminal traffic managers-
Mr. Chairman, I apologize if that copy is not very clear.
-and the others do not seem to be aware of it and they are burdened with clerical work, which makes the position of operator most dangerous.
I trust you will take my letter into consideration, that you will demand of the C.N.R. that it appoint qualified people to supervise operating agents and operators.
If you do not obtain that from the railways, we can then expect the worst slaughters.
It is signed:
From a former C.N.R. employee.
Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to give the name and address to those concerned, if anyone is interested. But I put the letter on file, for it strikes me the accusation is warranted; it is serious and certainly deserves to be studied and looked into carefully.
Mr. Chairman, there may seem to be some disparity in the rest of my remarks, which I began to make last night, but as the order of procedure does not permit me to bring these matters to the attention of the government at other times, I take the opportunity to do so upon consideration of this bill.
Thus, I should like to make a remark concerning grade crossings, and I suggest that the new Canadian transport commission will have to review the grade crossings policy. I believe that municipalities are being required to pay a much larger share of the cost of construction of grade crossings than they can afford. Our Canadian municipalities are in a sort of financial strait jacket. They have about reached the limit of their investment capability and it seems to me, if railways want to go through our cities, that it is elementary that they should take care themselves of the costs incurred by such grade crossings it is intended to remove. I say grade crossings because that is what the act says, but they are eliminated mainly through the building of underpasses.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that it is unreasonable to ask the municipalities to assume part of the cost as they do now. Their share is exaggerated and prohibitive and should not be borne by the taxpayers but by the railway companies which must take steps to prevent accidents.
I would like to add that, under the present legislation, it takes far too long to secure the building of underpasses instead of grade

crossings. Unless I am mistaken, it takes three years of negotiations to get an underpass instead of a grade crossing. That is much too long, Mr. Chairman, and it should be recommended to the Board of Transport Commissioners-I hope it has the power to do something-to take steps so as to shorten the negotiations and to lower the cost of building underpasses to eliminate grade crossings.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to join with all my colleagues who expressed the wish that grade crossings will disappear throughout the country as soon as possible. On many occasions I helped people who had just been involved in grade crossing accidents and all hon. members should have the opportunity to see those dismembered bodies to become convinced that it is urgent to remove grade crossings, whatever it might cost. The human capital we would protect by eliminating those grade crossings is worth far more than the millions of dollars it will take to eliminate them. I think that the new Board of Transport Commissioners should be instructed to take the necessary steps to get rid of grade crossings.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I presume the new transport commission will have some responsibility regarding winter shipping on the St. Lawrence. I will not speak in the same tone as was heard here. I refuse to spread hate or myths. I would not want to claim for my riding or my province anything at the expense of the other provinces. I am not blaming the government for winter shipping conditions, because I have followed winter shipping ever since it began. I must say-and I am not saying this only about the government but also about its predecessor-that shipping conditions on the St. Lawrence in winter have improved over the years. I am speaking advisedly because, everything considered, the riding I represent, Trois-Rivieres, probably benefits more than any other from winter shipping.
The progress made in this field over the years is commendable. I think that my colleague who, the other day, raised the matter in a tone that shocked the whole house and the whole country was not too familiar with the problem. If he had been aware of the facts, he would have known that ships, at this time of year, or even when the St. Lawrence is more open to navigation than it is now, would not venture to ply through the ice of the river unless it has a reinforced hull; this is elementary, and anyone knowing
December 21, 1966

anything about navigation knows it. Such ships are called icebreakers, but they are not really icebreakers. In fact, they are ships which northern countries build to sail icy seas. They are equipped with armour-plated hulls to be able to ply through the ice. That is why there is less navigation in winter.
But that was not exactly the point I wanted to raise. To be courteous toward the minister, and also to get used to speaking the English language, I will try to put my point across in English.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)

There is a real problem, Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Pickersgill:: I understand French just as well as English.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I know that the minister very often extends to us the courtesy of speaking French, and I am trying to reciprocate as best I can.
There is a real problem about this winter navigation, and there is a lot of misunderstanding between those in the maritimes and cities along the St. Lawrence. I have been down to the maritimes and held discussions with all kinds of bodies. Some years ago I even conducted a forum over the television in Halifax and St. John's.
I suggest to the minister that either his department or the new transport commission convene at the earliest possible moment a meeting of responsible people from Halifax, St. John's or the other maritime ports who are interested in the subject, as well as responsible persons from the cities along the St. Lawrence such as Quebec, Trois-Rivieres, Montreal and perhaps other places, to discuss this problem.
Personally, Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any conflict between the interested parties in both regions of Canada. If there is, then we can easily find solutions which will neither hurt the economy of the maritimes nor prevent development of navigation on the St. Lawrence, which in my opinion is a necessary development under present conditions. I do not think it is advisable that we should prevent, for any reason, the normal development of the economy of our country. I do not believe the development of winter navigation along the St. Lawrence would in any
Transportation
way hurt the maritimes if all interested parties would get together and discuss the problem with the responsible officers of the Department of Transport. As I say, if there are any problems I still insist they are minor and that solutions will be easily found to them.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that once this commission is created it will deal as soon as possible with this problem, that may not be as acute as some may want us to believe, but that nevertheless deserves attention, since developments are still possible in that field.
I think the Canadian Transport Commission should also deal with air transport. In this connection, I would like to suggest that this commission, or those sub-commissions, should establish an overall policy as regards air fields. The present procedure is not very satisfactory. In view of the extensive development in air transport, I believe there are things the government should do in order to encourage not only the development of commercial airports, but also the building of certain runways, that could be called emergency runways, in secondary cities; this would be useful for increasing private air transport. More and more people or businessmen are travelling by air and it seems urgent to bring about a proliferation, so to speak, of those secondary runways that need not be built like those of Montreal, Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec airports. In certain cases, they would not have to be paved. But there should be some in cities of secondary importance. I do not wish to mention any names, so as not to hurt those of my colleagues representing such cities. But I believe this should be one of the responsibilities to be assigned to this new transport commission.
In any event, Mr. Chairman, I conclude by saying that the bill we are going to deal with is rather bulky and it will certainly bring about amendments, which is normal; but on the whole, it answers a need for standardization and even modernization and unification of services. It is therefore in this spirit that I intend to support it, even though I will have occasion to make a few other suggestions on minor points.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Chairman, I should like to go on record at this point in the debate as saying that there are many philosophical aspects of this proposed transportation legislation with which I agree. I agree with the

December 21, 1966
Transportation
implic t attempt which is embraced by the legislation to give the railways of this country more freedom to compete for business without being inhibited by unnecessary regulation and control from the top. I agree with the emphasis that the proposed legislation places-as did the min ster in his pronouncements in various parts of the country-upon a quest for a national transportation policy, upon the need for integrated planning among the various facets and arteries of our national transportation body, upon the importance of research in the transportation field, and upon the encouragement that is offered regional air carriers.
However, Mr. Chairman, I do have a fundamental objection to hurrying this proposed transportation legislation through the standing committee and through this house. As has been pointed out in this committee, there has been a surfeit of briefs and representations made to the standing committee on transportation and communications in regard to this legislation. My colleague from Acadia pointed out yesterday that some 3,000 pages of evidence were compiled and submitted to the standing committee. It has been, to say the least, difficult to assimilate and absorb the highly technical and in some instances highly expert body of information contained therein. The subject speaks for itself, when one deals with a piece of legislation as revolutionary as this, as revolutionary as the minister has stated it to be on occasion.
[DOT] (4:10 p.ra.)
When one is exposed to some 3,000 pages of evidence and technical information in a limited period of time, it must be obvious to members of the committee that it is extremely difficult to absorb and understand the nuances and finer points of the subject. As a member of that standing committee and as a member of the committee of the house dealing with the legislation, I plead for more time to acquaint myself with the highly complicated subject at hand.
Having said that one of my objections at this stage is the hurry attached to the processing of the legislation in the house, I would emphasize that my main fear in connection with this legislation is for the shippers and consumers of western Canada. I ask the minister to what extent he feels it is safe, economical, practical or realistic to give the railways virtually complete freedom to compete for every freight dollar they can get. I submit that is the effect of the proposed legislation. It takes the shackles off the railways in this country. Here, I might say that many of

us in the committee hearings have asked for an explanation of these shackles. We have never been satisfied what these shackles were in the minds of railway executives. But when these so-called shackles are later removed under the terms of this proposed legislation from the railway companies in this country, the companies will have free rein to charge what the traffic will bear, to fight for their own survival in a free, competitive environment, and presumably in a free and competitive national economic market.
As a member of the Conservative party, philosophically I am a believer in and supporter of the free enterprise system. I believe wherever possible free enterprise should be encouraged, stimulated and protected in this country. But I question whether, at this stage of our national development, in the particular economic crisis in which this country is involved at this time, in the particular stage of evolution of the railroads and development of their role in the building of Canada, it is advisable or in keeping with the best principles of the free enterprise system, to give those railroads carte blanche to compete for pi'ofits in the market place.
Bill C-231, like the abortive Bill C-120 preceding it, grew out of the recommendations of the MacPherson Royal Commission on Transportation. The MacPherson Royal Commission laid the groundwork, and did the basic research into problems connected with transportation in this country, that spawned Bill C-120 and subsequently Bill C-231. Circumstances in the railroad business and circumstances in every facet and every level of society have changed sharply since the MacPherson Royal Commission carried out these investigations. When the MacPherson Royal Commission looked into transportation problems, and railroad problems in particular, in this country the railroad industry was in serious trouble. I submit that this is hardly the case now. I do not think anybody in this committee can argue that the railroad industry is in serious financial trouble today. Its potential for profit, progress and success is unlimited. Witness the bumper wheat crops which have been Canada's good fortune in the past five to seven years; witness the huge wheat contracts signed with other countries round the world; witness, for example, the rise in the potash industry of Saskatchewan, a dream undreamed seven years ago when the MacPherson Commission began its investigation.
December 21. 196G

When this type of development appears in the Canadian economy, and when this type of progress and expansion has made itself felt, with all the impact of the three economic examples I have given; when other aspects of the economy have similarly progressed and expanded in the past seven years, naturally, in total and in combination they have a profound effect on the nation and on the sinews of its economy, such as the railroad companies.
The whole economic picture for the railroads in this country has changed for the better in the past seven years since the MacPherson Commission embarked on its deliberations and studies. Nobody could have envisaged seven years ago the potential profits and the potential, immeasurable financial successes available to the railroads of this country today.
Regardless of the reasons, regardless of the stimulus for the situation-call it an act of God, or what you will-resulting from our bumper wheat crops and our discoveries of potash, to take two examples, facts are facts. The whole economic picture has changed and the railways today can look forward to unprecedented business successes, and profits if you like, in the years ahead. As a consequence some of the basic concepts that went into Bill C-231 are now outdated. The thinking that spawned and generated this bill is similarly outdated; it does not apply to the economic situation in Canada today. The railroads are in an indisputably viable economic position now, and this point cannot be emphasized too strongly in our deliberations on the proposed legislation. I say it is wrong to judge the industry in the context of the economy and Canadian society existing in the years when the MacPherson Commission was first engaged on its investigations.
We are concerned in western Canada that Bill C-231 will give railroads carte blanche to charge whatever freight rates the traffic will bear. This has been an historic concern in communities of western Canada and that concern is no less important or acute in the prosperous west of today than it was in the struggling west of 40 or 50 years ago. In the standing committee on transport and communications where we were exposed to the pages of evidence to which I referred-the deliberations of that committee have been diligently attended by the minister-we have discussed this anxiety existing among western members of this house. So far, the fears of the west in this regard have not been allayed, sir.
Transportation
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
We are particularly unhappy with the maximum rate formula prescribed by the new legislation, and with the mechanics by which it will be enforced. If I may be permitted the indulgence of referring to a communication from which I would like to quote directly, sir, I would underline the concern and the anxiety which we in the west feel on the subject of the maximum rate formula and its application.
As members of the transportat:on committee know, the counsel for the three prairie provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, have been attempting for more than a year to obtain, through the Department of Transport, costing data from the railways relative to the proposed maximum rate formula. But accurate costing information has not been forthcoming. Therefore, on September 14 of this year, counsel for these three provinces wrote to the deputy minister of transport as follows, regarding Bill C-231- and I may say I am going to condense the communication but shall not paraphrase it:
As counsel lor the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, we wish to advise you of the strong views of our governments with respect to the maximum rate formula set forth in the proposed section 336 of this bill.
We have participated in discussions with yourself and your officials since the early part of 1965. It became apparent at an early stage that there could be no meaningful consideration of the maximum rate formula proposed in the earlier bill C-120 unless the provinces had sufficient Canadian railway cost data to enable them to assess the practical effect of the formula.
You will recall that the discussions in 1965 culminated with a conference between the premiers of the prairie provinces and the Atlantic provinces with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport and the associate minister of transport on July 19, 1965. At that time it was decided that the maximum rate formula would be reviewed in joint discussions between representatives of the Government of Canada and representatives of the provinces. It was understood that the discussions would be on an expert or technical level directed primarily to the practical effect of the formula on existing and prospective Canadian freight rates.
Following this meeting, the prairie and Atlantic provinces retained two outstanding American authorities in this field. Professor Ernest Williams of Columbia University and Professor George Borts of Brown University. Both men have had extensive experience in Canada and participated in the presentations made to the MacPherson royal commission.
The provinces were advised by their consultants that there could be no meaningful discussion of or comment upon the maximum rate formula unless certain cost data was made available to them
for consideration and study___ The provinces are
left in the position where they cannot prepare a meaningful presentation on the maximum rate formula for the consideration of the parliamentary

December 21, 1966
Transportation
committee. All that the provinces will be able to state to the parliamentary committee is that this essential cost information requested on the advice of experienced consultants has been refused. It would follow that the provinces must also say to the committee that the committee itself, in the absence of such information, is not in a position to validly assess the practical effect and long-term
consequences of the maximum rate formula_______
It is impossible to determine whether the proposed maximum rate formula will afford any protection to captive shippers. We strongly believe it will not. Whatever its effect, parliament is being asked to enact it without the slightest assurance that it will serve to remove the discrimination and distortion in the freight rate structure which was the reason for the creation of the royal commission.
There is considerably more in that communication than these paragraphs which I have quoted, but they constitute the essence of the message, and of the complaint and anxiety which we in western Canada feel about the maximum rate formula. If we could obtain this costing data we would have the opportunity to assess the impact of the formula, and the lack of this data has been one of the thorns which has stuck in the side of committee members since they began study of this legislation earlier this year.
This lack of data has been a roadblock to us in our pursuit of a reasoned judgment and assessment of the legislation. Apparently, there has been no inclination on the part of the railroads, or on the part of the government itself, to make this costing data available. On the contrary, it has been emphasized fairly strenuously that such costing data will not be available. In the light of that fact, we submit it becomes a purely academic exercise for us in the standing committee, or for members in committee of the whole house, to try to assess properly all of the key points and all of the key clauses in this revolutionary piece of legislation.
What does this maximum rate formula mean? What will its impact be on shippers? How can we answer unless we have the mathematical information necessary to proceed with a reasoned and intelligent study of that point?
Another aspect of the legislation with which we are distinctly unhappy is the definition of the term "captive shipper." This is also a point which was argued strenuously and long in the deliberations of the standing committee, but on which we have still not achieved the satisfaction that is necessary if we are to assess the legislation properly.
It is probably a question of semantics. The minister has stated on occasion that when entreaties have been made to certain of the

western provinces to suggest to the government, or to the standing committee, some shippers that they feel would fall into the captive category there has been no haste on the part of those provinces to supply such a list. I hope I am not attributing a sense to the remarks of the minister which is not correct, but I believe this is the essence of what he said on this subject to the committee. Probably one reason there has been no attempt by the provinces, or by the shippers themselves, to classify themselves as captive at this stage of the deliberations is that they are reluctant to tip their hand with respect to legislation that has not been passed.
Another point on which I am distinctly unhappy-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question about that?


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not quarrel with what he said about shippers, but a formal request was made. I think the hon. gentleman probably has the document with him, and I also have it here somewhere. A formal request was made to the provincial governments to submit samples of those persons now paying class rates whom they believed would be likely to be captive shippers. I think the hon. gentleman made a very good paraphrase of what I said, but I thought I would like to have the actual phrase on the record.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: I appreciate the minister's explanation of that point. I think it is valuable to have the actual statement of the minister on the record in this context, and I thank him for injecting it into the debate at this stage.
Sir, another point on which we in the west are distinctly unhappy is the scale of rates and the extent to which they will go up for a captive shipper. Under the legislation as it is presently worded, the maximum rate imposed on a captive shipper would consist of the variable costs plus 150 per cent, on 30,000 lb. carload lots. Evidence submitted by experts in this field, including the two United States experts referred to in the communication from which I quoted a few moments ago, plus argument from counsel for the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, have demonstrated to us that this particular rate which the railroads may charge will go up in an explosive fashion on carload lots over 30,000 pounds.
December 21, 1966

[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
For example, on carload lots of 140,000 pounds, the maximum rate imposed on a captive shipper would consist of the variable costs of the shipment itself plus a surcharge of more than 600 per cent, and not the 150 per cent as in the case of the 30,000 pound carload lots. These are the mathematics of the formula, based on the differences in the basic costs to the railroads themselves when dealing with carload lots of certain sizes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman would not wish to create a wrong impression. He suggested the rates would go up on these larger shipments. Of course, as I am sure he realizes, the actual rate would go down, but the mathematical proportion he has given, I think, is quite accurate.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: The return to the railways themselves.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: The profit figure for the railroads would increase by that much. Also in the west, we are distinctly concerned with the manner of appeal by a shipper against his rate, provided by this legislation, and the difficulty involved in proving public interest. In one particular clause in this bill, for which I am searching at the moment and which I have at my fingertips-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Clause 16.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: No; clause 55 on page 52 of the bill, where it refers to amendments to the Railway Act. I read;
The said act is further amended by adding thereto immediately after section 338 thereof the following section:
"338A. (1) Any person, if he has reason to believe that a tariff of tolls for the carriage of passengers of a company, or the conditions attached to the carriage of passengers in such a tariff, are prejudicial to the public interest, may apply to the commission for leave to appeal such a tariff or conditions, and the commission, if it is satisfied that a prima facie case has been made, may grant leave to appeal and may make such investigation of such tariff or conditions as in its opinion may be warranted.
Now, we submit that it is demonstrably difficult, if not well nigh impossible, for a private company or private individual with private interests in the market to prove public interest. How does one go about proving public interest to the satisfaction of the commission? Does public interest, for example, mean that only the province of Alberta, the province of Saskatchewan, the province of 23033-726J
Transportation
Manitoba, or a comparable body can make the appeal? A private company would have difficulty to prove public as opposed to private interest. It is difficult to find any legal concept of what would be public interest. There are cases which say that private interest definitely is not public interest.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to point out to him that the clause from which he was reading refers to the carriage of passengers. I think the clause he really wants is clause 16 of the bill where the language is slightly different. It is the clause which refers to carriage of freight.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: I appreciate the distinction which the minister has drawn, but in terms of the concern felt in the west in respect to various parts of this legislation, I do not see that it makes that much difference whether we are referring to clause 16 or clause 55.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope the hon. gentleman does not mind my interruptions. I am not trying to be controversial. I think it does matter, because if you look at subclause (3) of clause 16 you will see that in this clause we have accepted almost exactly the language used in the Manitoba brief. This is not in the clause which deals with passengers, because it really is not relevant to passengers but is relevant simply to freight. I think, therefore, in order to deal with the point, the hon. gentleman would prefer to follow clause 16.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Well, I looked at clause 16 at the same time I looked at clause 55. On the basis of our studies in Manitoba with relation to this proposed legislation, we still do not feel satisfied on this particular point.
I am prepared, however, to discuss this subject independently with the minister at a different time. I can assure you that in the opinion of the western shippers, and in the opinion of the counsel for the three prairie provinces to which I have referred, we still are not satisfied that the clause to which the minister refers removes the danger and the threat to certain aspects of the economic position in western Canada which we feel are affected unfavourably by this proposed legislation.
I should like to say also that I share the concern expressed by the hon. member for Acadia yesterday on the question of branch line abandonments. This is a point which I should like to discuss at a further stage in the deliberations. I am not going to elaborate on that subject at the moment. I believe the case was put eloquently yesterday by the hon.

December 21. 1966
Transportation
member for Acadia. 1 am sure that in subsequent deliberations in respect of this legislation there will be an opportunity for us to reinforce the western point of view and western concern with regard to branch line abandonments.
I might say that the three prairie provinces have waged a tireless campaign for justice and satisfaction in respect of branch line abandonments and in respect of many of the other points to which reference has been made in these past few moments. So far, there still is the anxiety, concern and fear in the west to which I already have made reference. There still is anxiety, concern and fear that the new legislation frees the railways to an extent which will redound to the disadvantage of western shippers and western consumers.
When these new maximum rates are imposed, the question arises as to how they will be borne. When new freight rates are imposed at any time at any point, the question arises as to how they will be borne and who will bear them. One concern we have is that the anticipated rate increases will be buried in the economy of western Canada; that if certain shippers in the west are classified as captive shippers, either through their own appeal or through a classification being imposed upon them from without, they will pay rates which they cannot afford, and the effect of these rates will be buried in our economy. It is feared that this exercise will militate to the disadvantage of western Canada. The fear is that the rates will be buried in higher prices charged by the manufacturers and shippers themselves, and that they will also be reflected in lower wages on the prairies.
We feel that these economic problems are acute and very important ones at the present time in western Canada where a whole region of the country is attempting to win for itself an equal share in terms of national development in this nation. The result of higher freight rates will certainly be higher living costs for all. In this connection, in the few minutes remaining to me, I would also mention the importance of the new railway wage settlement which recently has been announced, and the effect it will have on the western consumer and the western freight rate payers.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
As I understand it, the new agreement in respect of the 70,000 member brotherhood of railroad trainmen and the 55,000 residual nonoperating group is to provide wage boosts of
IMr. Sherman.]
24 per cent for unskilled workers and 28 per cent for skilled workers over a three year period. Similar settlements for wages and fringe benefits were reached earlier this month by federal mediator Carl Goldenberg with the 25,000 member shop craft union group. An agreement in respect of the 20,000 member Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport and General Workers is still to be settled.
The non-operating groups, totalling 100,000, were averaging $2.22 per hour before this increase went through. The 20,000 trainmen were averaging $3 per hour over a three year period. By simple arithmetic, it can be determined that under these new wage contracts the railways are faced with meeting a payroll over the next three years which will amount to tens of millions of dollars more than anticipated. Simple experience tells us where they are going to go to find that extra revenue, to meet that additional expense. They will go to the freight shipper, as a result of which freight rates will go up.
Western Canada, because of its long-haul position and its dependence on the railroads, is going to suffer most. The long-haul shipper must suffer because of his fundamental dependence on the railways of this country for shipping the bulk of his produce. He is the one who will really bear the burden of this wage increase. This is a classic position of discrimination against western shippers and consumers. The MacPherson commission was intended, among other things, to remedy this historical imbalance. The intention was to eliminate this discrimination which caused an increase in prices to consumers.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have the opinion the hon. member has almost completed his remarks. Perhaps the committee would allow him to conclude.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: I thank the minister and members of the committee for their indulgence, and I should like to say that I have reached the final moments of my remarks.
The MacPherson commission was set up in large part to do away with this element of discrimination against shippers in certain
December 21, 1966

parts of the country, such as western Canada. Some of the most energetic studies of the MacPherson royal commission were undertaken with this end in view. Western Canada finds itself in a position where, despite what the MacPherson commission recommended in terms of establishing a national economy wh.ch was equitable, and despite its own attempts to create an equitable transportation system in this country, it must still face today the difficulties of an ancient inequity so far as transportation costs in this country are concerned.
Let me, therefore, make a plea at this stage of the debate, on behalf of western shippers, that a go-slow approach be taken to this legislation. I appreciate how important it is from the minister's point of view, and perhaps from the point of view of the nation. But in order to come to some determination in respect of this important bill which has taken years to formulate, it is important that we consider these wide-sweeping and revolutionary changes very carefully. We should approach them with reasonableness and expertise. On behalf of every consumer, housewife and shipper in western Canada therefore, I ask that this whole situation, as well as every aspect of this proposed situation, be considered thoroughly before any final disposition of this legislation is made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before you recognize the hon. member for Halifax perhaps I could be allowed to ask the last speaker a question. I do not expect him to answer it now, but I should like him to reflect on it during the vacation between now and January 9 when we will again be considering this bill. Does the hon. member think that the consequences to western Canada would be more appropriate if we continued with this present legislation instead of making these changes? I ask this question with the thought in mind that the presently frozen rates obviously cannot be continued in view of the pressure to which the hon. member has referred as a result of specific wage increases which would require a general horizontal increase.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Let me respond by saying that my thinking in respect of this whole question is conditioned by the environment from which I come. I do not speak just for myself, but for the constituents and the region I represent. A great many people there, who are more informed than I, have extreme anxiety in respect of the ramifications of this bill so far as western Canada is concerned.
Transportation
Surely, we need a great deal of time to consider all the aspects of it. Frankly, I do not have the expertise, and I need time to acquire it. Let me assure the minister that during the Christmas recess, when I am not fulfilling my domestic responsibilities I will reflect on his question and continue my study of this bill. Perhaps, when I return to this committee in the new year, I will come in a spirit of conciliation and co-operation. The minister may indeed be surprised at the change in my demeanor.


Mr. Forreslall:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks this afternoon will be parochial and provincial. I intend to deal, as the minister has likely anticipated, with matters of broad but direct concern to the ports of Halifax and Saint John. I wish to refer not only to the effect of this bill on rail transportation, but the general effect on all things relating to winter navigation on the St. Lawrence. I then intend to refer to the adequacy or inadequacy of our port facilities, grain facilities, piers, back-up landings and so on.
It has been said many times in this chamber by more eloquent speakers than I, in the context of the bill before us regarding the economic impact of this situation on the city of Halifax, that the local environment has much to do with the efficiency of rail transportation. Let me point out to members briefly once again the extent of the economic impact in these areas of transportation facilities.
In the wintertime thousands of people are employed in the general field of transportation, including about 1,200 longshoremen, 900 to 1,000 freight handlers, the National Harbours Board staff, the steamship agency people, the tugs pilots, customs and immigration staff, railway employees, railway checkers, freight handlers, truckers, men employed in ship repairing, maintenance yards, freight forwarders and a vast range of other individuals including ships chandlers, and equipment suppliers to lumber yards which are partly dependent on the marine business. It has been estimated in two or three studies that if you bring all these people together some 8,000 to
10.000	people are indirectly affected by the norms of the port of Halifax. With regard to those directly affected, however, in terms of people drawing salaries and receiving direct benefit from the port, the estimate is around
3.000	jobs at winter peak traffic periods and about 1,000 during the peak summer periods.

December 21, 1966
Transportation
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In terms of money, with general cargo volume running in the order of 1J million tons annually, as it has been for the last year or so, it can be reliably estimated that revenue accruing to the local economy in the first instance-this is the direct benefit-is of the order of $16J million. Bulk cargo is running around 7f million tons. This bulk cargo will create another $2 million to $2J million, making in all a direct value to the port and the local economy of some $18 million annually. This is direct money, money that has the effect of diffusing itself throughout the economy. The figure of $18 million is a fairly conservative one; it could be higher, and indeed we wish it were.
It has been reliably estimated by the Port of Halifax Commission and other studies, one of which was carried out for the Atlantic Development Board a couple of years ago, that the further implementation and encouragement of year-round navigation on the St. Lawrence river will substantially cut into this volume to the extent of some 30 per cent to 40 per cent. Here again, I use a conservative estimate; some people have suggested it could go as high as 60 per cent to 70 per cent. In terms of the frozen position in which we find ourselves with regard to general traffic through our port, the latter figure I mentioned is more likely to be the accurate one.
In terms of tonnage we will take the more conservative figure of 30 per cent to 40 per cent. This will mean a drop from li million tons annually to fewer than 750,000, tons the economic consequences of which to the port would indeed be very grave and serious. It can be seen quite readily that this is a serious matter for the port of Halifax. The port is indeed one of the main economic sectors in the area. If it falls into a loss position of this order, or even worse, there is no possible way other than by government planning, to regain or recoup our position.
The loss of some 500,000 tons of general cargo would represent, at current approximate rates of pay, some 400,000 longshoremen hours at approximately $3 an hour, or $1,200,000 in direct pay and compensation. But the over-all revenue that would be lost to the ports could be of the order of $6,500,000. These figures are based upon the current rate of some $13 a ton for the handling of cargo in Halifax.
Substantiation of these figures may be found in a study by J. Cates and Associates, a consulting firm who carried out a study for

the Atlantic Development Board in 1964. In their report to the Atlantic Development Board, they estimated that the ports of Saint John and Halifax have experienced a combined loss due to the direct and indirect effect of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river and the gulf of some 150,000 to 250,000 short tons per season of trans-shipment or through-cargo. Because of the difficulty of estimating what the traffic patterns of the Atlantic and lower St. Lawrence river ports, chiefly Quebec, Trois-Rivieres and Montreal would have been in the absence of winter navigation, the assessment of traffic loss must be regarded solely as broad approximations, but nevertheless relatively accurate.
It is considered by the consultants that however you look at it, the approximate loss of 200,000 short tons is a reasonable estimate of the annual traffic that we have lost since the extension of winter icebreaking on the St. Lawrence river. In terms of dollars and cents, the same consultants have advised the Atlantic Development Board that on a seasonal basis this would represent a loss each year of some $3 million of direct income to the port economies and some 3,600 man-months of seasonal employment. This is an area that has long been close to the minister's heart, I am sure. His record inside and outside the house has been commensurate with the extent of its seriousness.
It can be seen from this that any further attempt at this time to extend, encourage, foster or fail to impede the extension of navigation on the St. Lawrence river, without first having committed some public authority, and in this case it must be the federal authority, to sound planning with regard to Halifax and Saint John will have a disastrous effect. I think the minister knows well what the feelings are in Halifax and Saint John. We accept the position-we accept it more privately, admittedly, than we do publicly-that we cannot continue to fight the battle against the ports of Montreal, Quebec, Trois-Rivieres, and so on, too much longer. It is incumbent upon us, however, to fight that battle so long as the government has not clearly enunciated its plans for the ports of Halifax and Saint John. I will deal with that matter in a little more depth later on.
In its submission to the transportation committee, the Port of Halifax Commission dealt with this question. Perhaps I might interject here briefly to say that this committee has been sitting for some months, I think with considerable success, and is deserving of the
December 21, 1966

praise of the members of the house and all the people of Canada. The committee worked hard and long and listened to many learned papers, briefs and positions on this new and very complex bill that is before us. Not having been a member of that committee, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to express my appreciation and thanks for the work they did. Among the briefs the transportation committee received was one from the Port of Halifax Commission. In their brief they took the opportunity to raise, in their terminology, an extremely strong objection to the federal government's new bill, claiming that it is diametrically opposed to the intention and objectives of national policy for overcoming the geographical disadvantage of this area. This matter was alluded to by the previous speaker. Indeed, the western populace are not the only ones who suffer from this disadvantage. The geographical disadvantage has prevailed in the maritimes since before Confederation. There is no need for me to reiterate the promises that were made in such glowing terms prior to our taking advantage of the opportunity to join the partnership of Confederation some 101 years ago.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The Port of Halifax Commission pointed out to the committee that the bill would tend very definitely to increase the general level of railway rates in the Atlantic provinces as compared to the other parts of Canada. As the minister knows only too well the effects of this would be to make it much more difficult for the industry in that region, for the merchants and manufacturers, to sell and deal in the great market which exists in this part of Canada. They put forth the proposition that it would bring about a situation which would permit the railways to set what they termed as outrageously high maximum rates without giving satisfactory protection to the captive shippers in the Atlantic region. They expressed their fears particularly with regard to that sector of the shipping community which is involved with higher loading weights per car. We know only too well from earlier studies on Bill C-120 and earlier hearings in the committee the degree to which shippers in the maritimes can be termed captive shippers. We know that we sit on the long, cold, abandoned end of that pole. We do not enjoy the degree of trucking competition which has kept the brakes on the railway companies so satisfactorily in other parts of Canada.
Transportation
We fear that, lacking truck competition and competition from other forms of transportation in the maritime regions, the railways will be free to use this massive Yankee Stadium of a playground, and indeed it is their business to make money. Nobody objects to the principle of making money in business. Businessmen are not in it for charity. However, it is the absence of protection for our people, which is automatically built in through truck competition in other parts of Canada, and the absence of further protection in the bill, which gives some concern to the people in the maritimes.
The commission also expressed the fear that what remains of the existing port parity tendencies on the part of the government not only tends to disappear but will disappear completely and forever. I was very pleased to hear the minister refer in his opening remarks to the concern expressed by the senior member for Halifax. I am a little regretful that the minister did not spell out a little more clearly what he intended by this statement. Perhaps, while he is sitting there listening, I could draw to his attention section 42 of the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company in 1903, one of the provisions of which reads as follows:
-the through rate on export traffic, from the point of origin to the point of destination, shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports.
This remains one of the few statutory bases for our position. Indeed section 13, chapter 6, Acts of 1911, regarding the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company, provided that:
-the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports.
Again, this is a word for word repetition. Chapter 20, Acts of 1914, regarding the Canadian Northern Railway System, provided that:
-the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall not be greater via Canadian ports than it would be via United States ports:... and that the Canadian Northern and the several constituent and subsidiary companies shall not in any manner within its power or control directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of any such freight by routes other than those above provided.
Also Section 14 (2), of the Canadian Na-tional-Canadian Pacific Act, first edition, volume VIII, Chapter 25 provided that:
The board of directors shall so direct, provide and procure that all freight destined for export by sea which is consigned within Canada for carriage to National Railways either at point of origin or

December 21, 1966
Transportation
between that and the sea shall, unless It has been by its shippers specifically routed otherwise, be exported through Canadian seaports.
As the senior member for Halifax has pointed out-and I am sure he will bring it to the minister's attention again early in the new year-we would like to know whether this policy will be continued and what guarantee the bill may contain to ensure that this is done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. member let me repeat what I said yesterday in this regard? It is my intention to propose an amendment when we reach the appropriate place in the bill to the effect that every advantage as to rates or routing now enjoyed by the Atlantic ports by any law now in effect will continue to be in effect notwithstanding anything in this bill. Of course, these are not the actual words which I used, but the sense.


J. Michael Forrestall: I thank the minister for that statement. I accepted it yesterday with the hope that the minister might go a little further and specifically spell out the form of the port parity policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman not think that we ought to allow these experts, to whom we are paying a considerable sum of money, to make proposals to us next March for general improvements in the Atlantic region and in this way earn their pay rather than try to anticipate their conclusions?


J. Michael Forrestall: Not at all, Mr. Chairman. I am not at all sure what it is they will do, and as a maritimer in whose constituency lies the port of Halifax I am not about to accept in principle a pig in a poke. I have greater confidence in what the minister is able to tell the House of Commons during the next two or three weeks. I would far sooner accept that, and hope that the special study which is being conducted will take due note of the minister's responsible directions. After all it is Christmas time; perhaps the minister could at least indicate to us that this is a matter close to his heart and is receiving his fondest, warmest and most charitable consideration.
Mr. Chairman, in most respects the bill accommodates railway transportation. At a later stage I will make one or two comments about the facilities in the port of Halifax, but at this point I would like to say a few words on the hearings of the committee with regard to the broad scope of the bill. I suggest to the minister that it was regrettable, not only to me but
[Mr. ForrestallJ
I am sure to many others in the chamber that during the course of the hearings briefs and papers were not encouraged, or indeed invited-maybe there was not enough time- from various segments of our air transportation industry. I refer to our main line domestic and international carriers, to our regional air carries, but more specifically to the aviation field in general, the charter companies.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
If you would review, Mr. Chairman, some of the national statistics relating to class 4 air carriers you would find that they are performing a role in Canada, the absence of which would indeed impose very strong hardship on vast segments of our rural and northern life.
It seems to me that on a bill of this magnitude, which sets out to reshape the administrative responsibilities for all forms of transportation in Canada, the committee not only could have but should have set aside at least two or three hearings for the purpose of exploring views of our main line carriers as well as the smaller regional and charter companies.
For example, Mr. Chairman, domestic policy, which still falls within the purview of the air transport board, has suffered from change, innovation, amendment and goodness knows what else for so long now, without any proper public exposition of this policy, that it is not only regrettable but quite lamentable that some occasion has not been provided the air transport industry within the recent weeks to put forward their positions. I think the government should have taken the lead in the matter and invited, indeed encouraged, their representatives to come before the committee. The fact that this has not been done will, I hope, not prevent the minister in any way from pursuing this question at some stage early in the new year.
Most of us welcomed his position paper on regional air policy. We found in it some most meaningful and helpful directional instruments. But this is just one segment of air policy; there are at least two others, possibly three, deserving of and requiring similar attention. It seems to me that this was the time this attention should have been given.
For example, Mr. Chairman, we should be looking at the adequacy of our air terminals, runways, refuelling facilities, passenger handling capacities and distances from airports to urban centres. Problems in air traffic control still exist. But the whole spectrum of flying has been ignored in the sense that none of the industry's representatives in this field participated in the committee hearings which
December 21, 1966



have now brought us to this stage. Again, I suggest this is regrettable.
There are one or two other areas about which I wish to speak which deal primarily with facilities in the port of Halifax. The minister knows all too well the difficulties the port of Halifax experienced during the shipping season 1964-65 resulting from cramped facilities, overcrowding and the total inadequacy of the port to cope with the traffic which came to it. This came about accidentally; we had not anticipated the strikes and bad weather which diverted the traffic which came our way. Indeed, it is true that in the last shipping season matters straightened themselves out, and the appointment of a coordinator for the harbour board was most effective. I hope the accomodation provided by this bill in relation to the internal functioning of the National Harbours Board will permit the expansion of this type of assistance directly at the port level.
This year the port of Halifax does not appear to be overcrowded; but the experience of the 1964-65 season pointed up the need, as I suggested earlier, for total studies of the port from the point of view of having an effective land usage-waterfront usage formula involving not only Halifax but Dartmouth and the basin itself. We are aware, because of the obvious economic advantages, of the necessity for keeping contained within a close-knit group the customs buildings, the ship handlers, the ship brokers and those engaged in ship movement in and out of port. Now is the time that the minister and his department should be looking very seriously at an over-all program of development and utilization of the facilities that we have in Halifax.
The type of shipping season we have enjoyed in the past has been the traditional one. Our harbour has accommodated the 7,000, 8,000, 10,000, 15,000 and 16,000 deadweight-ton ships; the old, traditional variety which we see pictured on canvas lying tied up in the ports all over the world. But, Mr. Chairman, this day has gone. The traditional utilization of small, economic units of 8,000 to 10,000 tons employed for the trans-shipment of bulk cargoes and large general cargoes is quickly coming to an end.
When the minister was in Halifax earlier this month to speak on Atlantic ports day he soft-pedalled a policy which, while it was not the most palatable in the world, the people in Halifax and Saint John accepted. We are aware

and the minister's admonition to us was quite acceptable-that if we are going to
Transportation
survive in Halifax we must find survival in the process of innovation, of the acceptance of new forms of cargo handling, containerization, bulk transportation and the integral train. All of these things-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired. Does the committee-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I suspect the hon. gentleman had only one more paragraph, and I think we should like to hear it.


J. Michael Forrestall: May I conclude by saying that we are approaching the era of 100,000-ton, indeed of up to 300,000-ton, vessels. The economics of this type of ship cannot be denied. To my knowledge no harbour other than, perhaps, Portland, Maine, which concerns itself with deep water naval operations, that is developed or even partially developed and lies between the minister's good province and Florida has the accommodation and the natural advantage that we enjoy with regard to deep water in the port of Halifax. [DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
If the bill before us, and the general policy embodied in it, does not embrace this concept in a functional way we shall lose the advantage this port may be able to gain over ports of the United States. The United States will build ports to accommodate the types of traffic I have mentioned. We know that considerable, or even massive investment will have to be made. Piers must be redesigned, back-up land acquired and land reclaimed in the interests of accommodating a large port. If we fail to do this some other port, very likely in another country, will carry out such a program and will reap the benefits of it. I trust that the minister will do all in his power to encourage plans or policies leading to the accommodation in the port of Halifax of the types of shipping I have mentioned. If the minister does this we shall let him plow out the sea lanes all the way to Montreal with complete regularity. Instead of going to some other place, when the minister leaves us I hope he might consider heading the commission in question. We should love having a maritimer on it.


Mr. Hamilton:: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to say that I am pleased the minister is in his place. My remarks will be directed to him almost exclusively because I believe he is the last hope we have in the house of bringing in changes desperately needed in this bill. It falls to my lot to introduce my remarks with

December 21, 1966
Transportation
rather harsh comments dealing with a definite commitment made by the minister, that there would be no proceedings relating to applications for abandonment of lines in western Canada until this bill was completed. Though the matter has been raised-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman quote my exact words?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The minister wishes me to quote what?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman quote my exact words?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I shall do that in a minute. These remarks are not aimed at the minister, as will be seen in a minute. I point out that there was an understanding that during the discussion of the bill certain things were not to be done. We hoped that a new philosophy would be in effect, and that a new type of thinking in this bill would be brought to bear on these lines being considered for abandonment. What we have seen in recent weeks, I think, can only be described as a breach of faith.
I am going to read some letters. The first letter I became aware of is dated December 6, 1966, from the Secretary Treasurer of 9 Rural Municipality in Saskatchewan, addressed to C. W. Rump, Secretary of the Board of Transport Commissioners. The letter reads:
Dear Sir:
Application for leave to abandon Hatton Subdivision, C.P.R.
We are in receipt of a letter from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, under the date of November 21, 1966, in which an application for leave to abandon Hatton Subdivision has been made to you, the Board of Transport Commissioners.
I will not read the balance of the letter because it has no bearing on the point I was making.
On December 14, 1966, the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek received a letter from C. W. Rump, secretary to the board, referring to the Hatton Subdivision. The letter reads in part as follows:
The above mentioned application is on file with the Board. The Company has advised that a copy of the application and supporting documents were sent to various interested parties. The supporting information has been updated to 1965.
I want the committee to pay particular attention to this following paragraph:
The line is in the "eligible for abandonment" category without waiting upon the passage of Bill C-231 and the Board is prepared to proceed with the application.

It is this statement by the secretary of the board which caused some of our members to feel that we were being double crossed with respect to the understanding we thought we had with the minister. I wish to quote the exact words of the minister on this subject, and I shall read from the standing committee records of Friday, June 19, 1964, at page 263.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1964?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will not read the entire statement, but only the relevant part:
I have given an undertaking on behalf of the government, so long as the present government is in office, that there will be no abandonment on the prairies of these branch lines until the legislation which is now before the house has been disposed of.
The reference was to Bill C-120. About that legislation you can argue, on strict interpretation, that once it was flung out it was disposed of. I have an exact quotation of the minister of September 2, 1966. I refer to unrevised Hansard of that date, page 8034. Some part of this I can leave out without falsifying the minister's intention.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would it not be better to quote it straight through?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Very well. I shall read more than I had intended. I did not wish to condemn the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I was going on to something else. I quote:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is awfully good to let me intervene at this point to answer his question,-
This was when I had posed the terms under which we might consider passing second reading.
-and I appreciate it very much. I saw the presidents of the railways this morning, but for another reason. I took advantage of the meeting to ask them whether I might be permitted to say that on the very day on which this legislation passed they would withdraw all their existing applications for abandonment on the prairies and that they would revise their applications in the light of the decisions made by parliament and put forward in the legislation, not as it stands at the moment necessarily but as it emerges from the committee and is passed by parliament. I was given the authority of the presidents of the railways to say that that would be done.
That is a statement from the record of what the minister said.
In other words, all those applications which are in suspension, none of which is being proceeded with, will be withdrawn on the day the legislation
December 21, 1SG6

is completed. I think it is only fair that they should wait until then, because they would prejudice their own position if they acted and if we did not proceed with the legislation.
It is clear from that, I think, that the minister was trying to say these new applications, or these applications in question, would be judged on the basis of the new legislation as it emerged from the house.
Then on December 20, yesterday, the minister made another remark following his opening statement, as recorded on page 11373 of Hansard:
Then, there is the question of the undertaking given by the railways to withdraw all their applications for branch line abandonment on the so-called protected lines. They have given an undertaking to withdraw them as soon as this bill receives the royal assent, and they have so signified before the transport commissioners.
This deals with the protected lines. I am quoting from the minister's statement of September 2.
That undertaking is, of course, contingent upon the pasage of the legislation. I am glad to say that the Board of Transport Commissioners, as a result of the intervention I made when the measure was brought up here in the house, has agreed not to hear any applications for abandonment in the prairie provinces while this bill is before parliament.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
It is my contention that when the minister said he took this up with the board and they would not hear any applications, the reference is to the September 2 statement of the minister. Therefore, I think some of the members, including myself, had a right to feel that we had received an indication of action on the part of the Board of Transport Commissioners that was not too helpful to our confidence in the promises, made over and over again, that this bill would be setting up new types of thinking. Then, the new board could deal with these applications on the basis of the new type of thinking that we produced out of the committee and out of the house.
The minister must be aware that we have had reason to be suspicious, and I say this not too unkindly because the minister, like it or not, over the years has developed the reputation of being unable to resist an opportunity to move pretty fast and take short corners. But since not only the people of the maritimes but of the west, in fact all the people of Canada, depend so much on this bill, we should try to work on the assumption that if we work together to produce the best bill we can, then the minister's reputation and the
Transportation
house's reputation will be more greatly enhanced than if the minister tries to lead us to pass the bill and then we find ourselves in a trap.
I do not think there is any question but that the bill before us is the first one since the passage of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act which deals with fundamental questions relating to railways and all types of transportation. I know the minister wants to have a good bill. I know he has been working hard to try to understand every form of transportation, but I am suggesting that the action of the secretary of the Board of Transport Commissioners in saying, "We are now proceeding with those applications", was such as to alarm us all. I only hope that all these letters which have been sent out, and which have caused that fear that I referred to in my speech on second reading, will be recalled.
We will be rational, you may be certain of that. But we have certain responsibilities here to make sure that when we pass a bill we do not find ourselves led to the slaughter. I have sat in the house and heard the fear expressed by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and the hon. members for Halifax. This fear is equally held in the west.
We will help in making and passing a good bill. But we want the conviction in our hearts that, if we turn all this power over to the national transportation commission, we will not have this situation arise in which the minister says no consideration will be given to present applications by the present board, only to have an employee of the board send out letters like that which I have just quoted. This breaks down the trust that there must be.
The Board of Transport Commissioners must have ignored the minister's statement on September 2, or jumped when the Canadian Pacific moved. We have to face the fact that what has caused the lack of respect for the Board of Transport Commissioners over the years is that when original guide lines were set out by parliament for their decisions these were guides for making judicial decisions. Over the years what has created the trouble is that the precedents set up by the board's decisions have carried the force of law which has not been made by parliament. In effect the board made its own law, and in a good many cases that law was the law of the railways. Railway figures and opinions were always accepted as fact.
We did not have the experts who could match the competence of the railway experts.

December 21, 1966
Transportation
No one blames anybody for this, but the fact remains that all over this country where people are knowledgeable on matters coming before the Board of Transport Commissioners these people have always felt-and this suspicion is not only a suspicion, it is almost an article of faith-that the board has been at the jump and call of the railways.
This letter which was sent, just because the C.P.R. made a move, was, I think, a direct slap in the face to the minister. If I were in his position there would be a serious reprimand given to the Board of Transport Commissioners for having made such a fool of the minister. I have to say these things, Mr. Chairman, because, if we are going to proceed with this bill with confidence, we have to realize we are drafting legislation not only for railway transportation but for all forms of transport, affecting tremendous segments of the whole national economy.
We have tried to be helpful, and the minister can continue to get our help. In the standing committee some 48 amendments have been made, mostly from the government side because it has the staff to draft the amendments. I think the minister has said there will be five more from the government, and I believe there are 14 more coming from our group alone. This means that there is a serious effort on the part of the parties in opposition to be constructively helpful. All we are asking in exchange is that we have no more of this type of hanky-panky that brings all these suspicions of 60 years up to the surface again. We know we are handing over our very future to this national transportation commission. I would like to believe that it will be embarking on its history with some feeling of good will.
In my remai'ks on second reading, I tried to put forward a general attitude which I would like to emphasize as a preliminary to my main remarks this afternoon. I emphasized that the pessimism of the last 40 years regarding railway operations in Canada should end. I pointed out that traditionally railway management itself, traditionally the economists of this country, and traditionally government officials have felt that railways were a declining part of the whole transportation picture. There was a great deal of evidence to bear out this pessimism, but many of us are concerned about this bill because it reflects that pessimistic attitude instead of taking up the attitude that the facts now warrant.
The facts now warrant the assumption on the part of those drafting the legislation, and

that is the members here, that there is going to be tremendous growth and expansion in all our transportation agencies, not least of which are our railways. Without repeating in great detail some of the evidence, let me remind the committee of some of the salient facts.
There is a tremendous difference in the economy of railways when they are hauling 400 million bushels of grain a year as compared with when they are hauling 800 million bushels a year, because the railways are largely a fixed cost industry. If you can double the amount of volume you tremendously increase the per unit profit in the carrying of those goods. With the tremendous flood of money that has gone into the prairies over this last five years there has been a tremendous increase in the back-haul of machinery, fertilizer and all the other things that make a back-haul profitable to the railways.
I outlined on second reading the tremendous development of minerals in Canada, the tremendous demand for these minerals all over the world, and the tremendous bulk hauling of them available to the railways which is very profitable. I outlined the tremendous need in the world for our paper and lumber, a need which will increase hugely over the next few years. Therefore, the railways should be thinking in terms not of consolidating, not of holding the line, but of spending capital to provide the services to meet this tremendous challenge.
The MacPherson Royal Commission report was based on the assumption that the railway era was over. They were trying to work out some system whereby the railways could live within the amount of traffic that would fall to the railway form of transport. All that pessimism of the MacPherson Royal Commission report should now be put completely out of the minds not only of railway managements but of the economists of the country and, particularly, of government officials as well as the new transportation commission.
We in the house recognize, as ordinary laymen, that sometimes we can speak with more common sense and more vision of the future than the people who only look to the past. I say that this bill, if it is going to be a good bill, must have in it this concept that we know we are in for a period of growth and expansion that won't stop in two or three years. This growth is not dependent on any one single product, but will take place across the whole economy.
December 21, 1966


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I agree with what he has said, but isn't he disagreeing fundamentally with the hon. member for Northumberland who has been telling us we are going to have another slump?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I think it is only fair for me to comment that the minister uses this technique of interrupting my speeches with inconsequential questions that have nothing to do with what I am saying.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I am not talking about 1967. I am talking about the next 10, 20 or 30 years when this bill will bear on the economy of Canada. I do not think I can accept questions from the minister if he is going to take that attitude. I refer, in respect of this bill, to the fact that we have not learned the lessons we should have learned from the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act. In that act, following the Duff Commission, certain recommendations were made by parliament, thinking that they were leading the railways into a new age. Parliament asked the railways to correct all the mistakes of 40 years in respect of railway operations. Over and over again the statement is made in this act that they should adopt these proposals for efficiency in running the railways and reducing freight rates. Since the passage of that act in the mid 1930's, the railways have demonstrated that they have not pad any attention to this phrase "may recommend". Yet, through this whole bill we find the phrase "may recommend" repeated over and over again.
In drafting this bill I think the government has ignored the position we took on second reading that there should be some form of direction. I cannot draft the regulations. I cannot draft the amendments this afternoon, because there are so many clauses in the bill that are interlocked. I suggest that those who are responsible for the drafting of this bill, over the next few weeks, should take the time to redraft these clauses so that the minister can compare them to what the bill now says. If this new transportation commission is not going to make the same mistakes that were made 30 years ago, it must say that the board may direct. There is a big club we could use to enforce this direction. The club is the fact that we start out with large subsidies. Then, if you use the words "may direct" you can put
Transportation
in a clause which says that if they do not follow the directions of the board, then the commission has the power to reduce the statutory subsidies.
I make these remarks with all the seriousness I can bring to bear, because although we do not want to run a dictatorship through the national transportation commission, I or any other layman who thinks back to the days of the Duff Royal Commission can point to scores of examples of inefficiency in the operation of our railways in western Canada. I have raised these questions in the committee. I have asked the men who know more about the shipment of grain in western Canada than anybody else in the world, the heads of the co-operative elevator companies, whether they are aware of the savings which could be made by better operation of our railways on the prairies. They all agreed that they were. These savings could have been made 30 years ago, if the Board of Transport Commissioners had had the power to direct. Now, with the subsidy in this bill, the Commission can be given the power to direct and the penalty for non-performance is the reduction of the subsidy.
I make these remarks, Mr. Chairman, in the belief that only the minister can bring his influence to bear on this. I do not think there is any use in attempting to tell this committee that the railways have learned their lesson and will run a rationalized railway system in western Canada on the basis of "may recommend". I pointed out in the committee that we know, from the figures we collected over the last 30 years, the number of bushels of grain per mile generated on the railway lines. We know that the line which had the second highest volume of grain per mile of any branch line in western Canada was involved in an application for abandonment. Once you have an application for abandonment, you must include in the application a willingness to sell it for its salvage value. The only reason anyone could advance that the second most used line in western Canada would be up for abandonment was the fact that the grain had to be back-hauled over 250 miles of prairies to Saskatoon and then back over the south line. This back-haul may have made the haulage of the grain less profitable. When you look at a map, however, and realize that 200 miles of the back-haul could be saved by routing the grain across a bridge belonging to another railway company, you realize the savings which could be made.

December 21, 1986
Transportation
Perhaps I might give a hypothetical example which may or may not be close to being accurate. If it costs one cent, per 100 miles to haul a bushel of grain and if 30 million bushels are coming off a branch line each year on the average, 30 million times two cents is 60 million cents a year which is going into the revenue of the railways. If much of that cost involved in carrying that grain to produce that revenue could be reduced by using the other person's line, then I think this would be a rational solution to the problem of reducing the cost to that railway.
Under this bill, there is the power to recommend that these things be done. I simply say that after the experience of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act of the 1930's, this new board should learn from the mistakes of the past and should have the power to direct national operation. I put this view forward to the minister because only he has the influence to say to his officials that they should draft new amendments to these clauses in order to make this possible.
So, it is up to the minister now. I think he knows my views. I made them known in respect of Bill C-120 two years ago. I made them known again in the committee in respect of Bill C-231. I made them known in the house through my remarks on second reading. He knows that these observations are supported by the biggest customers the railways have, the grain companies of western Canada who provide most of the profit of both railways. He knows that they want it. He knows they have suggested it. He knows also that this is the mistake we made in the 1930's in respect of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific bill. If this parliament wants to go forward with this bill as it is today and repeat the same mistakes, then those on the governement side cannot say they have not been warned.
In all sincerity, I ask the minister what harm would come from giving this national transportation commission the power to direct and the power to penalize by reducing the subsidy. What harm could there be? The only objections would come from the railways who are trained in squawking. On behalf of all Canadians, I should like to say that for once in this parliament I would hope that we could learn from the mistakes of the past and produce legislation which is a result of learning from those mistakes. I would hope that we could establish guide lines and give power to the national transportation commission so that it would be in a position to do something which we have been requesting for years.

When I say this I have in mind the Duff report and all the speeches which were made by politicians when the act was passed with such high hopes over 30 years ago.
In the second part of my remarks which I address to the minister, I should like to refer to the essential problem of democratic government. In the history of democratic government, as more and more of the economy has come under the control of elected governments, it has become necessary to turn over the administration of large sections of parliament's responsibilities to boards, crown corporations, and other agencies of the crown. No one denies the history of the last 40 years in this regard, but one thought keeps coming to mind. If parliament turns over its power to a non-elected board, an appointed crown corporation or an appointed agency, how will the people through their representatives have any control over the actions of that board, crown corporation or agency without interfering with the efficiency of the operation? That is the key problem involved.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
We have all witnessed the troubles parliament has experienced in respect of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Had parliament been wiser in laying down guide lines at the beginning, and in renewing them from time to time, much of this trouble would not have existed. In respect of the transportation system we have a situation which involves not just what we see or hear on television and radio, but what we will experience economically because of the delegation of tremendous powers over all transportation services. There is nothing in this bill which indicates we have learned from our mistakes in delegating powers to other agencies, boards or crown corporations. All we have in this bill in respect of powers can be found at page 12 in clause 20. This provides that the board shall present a report to parliament each year.
No matter how carefully or how many times one reads this bill, nothing can be found of a definitive nature which gives parliament any control over the body established by this bill. Members of parliament cannot be fully informed about the operations of this transportation commission, nor can they under any circumstances be adequately qualified to deal with its operations in detail. The only thing we can examine is the report which is submitted to parliament. No definitive action can be taken.
December 21, 1966

Last night the hon. member for Peace River, in consultation with the committee of this party which deals with transportation, outlined an amendment which he proposes to make at the appropriate time. I commend that amendment to the minister for consideration, along with the suggestion that it be added to the clause in this bill regarding duties and powers. If we are trying to maintain some form of control on behalf of the people over this board, which will have unlimited powers, we must set up machinery through which this parliament has statutory control over its actions. That is the significance of the amendment to be proposed by the hon. member.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we all want to hear what the hon. member has to say because he is being very constructive.


Maurice Rinfret: There seems to be unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Thank you very much. My remarks will only take me about five minutes. In Saskatchewan, we were suddenly faced with the creation of a large number of crown corporations and agencies following the election in 1944. The new government set up machinery the like of which has not been duplicated here in Ottawa, or in any other province of which I am aware. This machinery was elemental but it worked. A committee of the legislature was set up, namely the crown corporations committee. Any question asked about crown corporations was directed to the committee which was composed of approximately 75 per cent of the total members of the house. This committee is able to call before it ministers representing various crown corporations, boards of directors, branch heads and division chiefs. They can all be questioned by the elected representatives of the people. This gives the people the feeling that they have some control over the operations of these corporations.
The representatives of the people have control over the operations of these corporations in this way, and also have some method of providing guide lines on policy. In this way the people whom they represent feel they can control the actions of the corporations.
The minister, I am sure, will immediately say that the transportation commission is not
Transportation
a crown corporation, and that is true. I am sure he will also say that it is a court of record, and that is true, but it is also an administrative body. The only opportunity parliament has to influence an administrative body is through established guide lines. Surely those guide lines should be part of this bill. After the bill becomes law, it is through a parliamentary committee that we can effect policy.
Over the next few days I should like the Minister of Transport to consider the amendment to be proposed by the hon. member for Peace River, because I think its adoption would provide some relief from worry so far as the members of parliament and the people they represent are concerned. I am sure what the hon. member had in mind was that there be experts gradually seconded to the transportation committee whose loyalty would lie with the chairman. These members could develop an expertise in so far as transportation generally is concerned. They could then keep the chairman informed, who in turn would report to parliament through the committee reports.
If this amendment is adopted a standing committee would be established immediately a new parliament meets. Canadians would then have the feeling that competent people with expertise would be representing them so far as transportation problems are concerned. The hon. member did not suggest this would solve all our transportation problems, but he did suggest that this would, in effect, provide some parliamentary control over the board's actions. In this way our transportation systems could be operated in such a way that efficiency would not be hurt and still keep some parliamentary control.
The concept of this bill is good and we wish to support it. But it would make our task easier if the government indicated its acceptance of the amendment to be proposed. This amendment would not interfere with the efficiency of the board, but it would give some form of democratic control. If the government accepted this amendment we would not only benefit from the lessons we have learned as a result of the operations of the C.B.C. and the Board of Broadcast Governors, we would also benefit from the experience of hon. members on all sides of this house.
[DOT] (6:00 D.m.)
The placing of this tremendous segment of parliamentary power in the hands of an independent board is a great step. It must be considered in the light of the effect it will

December 21, 1966
Transportation
have on our responsibilities to the people we represent. If we turn this power over to this independent board, we should have some way of examining and controlling it without interfering with its judicial capacity or efficiency of administration. This amendment would have two main results; we would have some control over the operational side of our transportation systems and some parliamentary machinery by which positive expansionary concepts of railway development could be put forward in a proper manner through permanent parliamentary machinery. The railways have demonstrated in the last few years that you have to twist their arms, tails, and everything else before they see the future as for example, the Pine Point Railway. I hope the minister, on whom our hopes now rest, will consider the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Peace River as being well-intentioned and not designed in any way to embarrass the government. I trust he will consider it to be an improvement to the bill that would make hon. members on all sides of the house very proud of our work on this bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. gentleman would permit the minister to say a word or two on the last point that he raised. The amendment suggested yesterday by the hon. member for Peace River was very similar to a proposal made in the standing committee by the leader of the opposition of Manitoba; in fact, it is almost identical to that proposal. The idea of having a standing committee with some kind of trained staff that will assist them in dealing with so important a matter as the whole spectrum of transportation is certainly one that appeals very much to me.
There is a procedural question in my mind, namely, whether the right way to achieve that result is to allow the Senate and the Governor General to participate in making the rules of this house, or whether we should do it under our own standing orders. However, I am very much in favour of the objective of the hon. member for Peace River, endorsed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: On that point, Mr. Chairman, if I may trespass upon the time of the committee for a moment, I think the minister recognizes that our concern is that it be done under the ordinary procedures of the house. The minister did not quite give that guarantee. There is close to the surface all this suspicion that has been generated over 60 years. We have to establish a statutory provision.
[Mr. Hamilton.}
Then, this matter would be written into the statute. It would not seriously affect the house rules, but it would impress upon the people who think we are going blind into this new era and turning powers over to a super-board, that we are guaranteeing by statute that this body will not get out of complete touch with parliament. That is the whole point of the amendment; we want a guarantee in this respect.


Mr. Salisman:: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few brief remarks to make at this time. Before raising the serious objection that I have to the principle of the bill, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Minister of Transport for the assistance he and his department have given to the Waterloo-Wellington Airport Commission in the extension of the airport runways. The minister appeared recently in the riding to inaugurate the runway extensions. This has been a great help to us, and we appreciate the efforts of the minister's department in looking into the problems involved.
The difficulty this bill raises is the question of whether the best interests of Canadian transportation can be served by competition in the field, or whether there is a need for an over-all, comprehensive body that will direct the use of transportation in this country and integrate our resources in the best way possible.
I think the question that has to be asked is not which is the best ideology, but which works best and which will result in the best service at the lowest cost to this country. Canada starts off with the disadvantage that we have higher transportation costs than other nations. Because of the vast distances that have to be covered in our thinly populated country, our transportation costs tend to be high. Every effort must be made to lower those costs if we are to raise our productivity. We certainly cannot afford to have any wasteful efforts in the field of transportation, whether those wasteful efforts be under the direction of the government or private companies.
This bill is somewhat schizophrenic: it says we are going to have competition, but at the same time we are going to lay an extremely heavy hand on that competition and see that it does not get out of control. I think we will wind up getting the worst of both worlds. We will not benefit from the advantages possible under a competitive system in those areas where competition will work effectively; neither will we get the benefits of a regulated
December 21, 1968

system for which the transportation field seems to call. We impose regulations and say that the railroads cannot undercut trucking companies; they cannot drive them out of business. I am not going to argue the merits of the railroads doing this or not doing it; I merely raise the point to indicate that we have seriously interfered with the effective working of the system. In order to have a free enterprise system working properly, to achieve competition there must be great freedom within the competitive area; you cannot pass regulations of this type saying, "You cannot compete ferociously with someone else."
The national interest that is involved in transportation is of the kind that the market cannot decide. What happens in transportation profoundly affects many other areas of our economy. For instance, exports are vital to Canada. They affect our balance of payments and our ability to buy from other countries those things which we cannot or do not produce. This nation may have to make a decision, under some circumstances, to maintain our exports at a level that will find acceptance in world markets. One such decision may have to do with the cost of transportation, which affects the cost of our exports and the price ultimately obtained for them.
Is a competitive system going to give us this kind of judgment? Can you expect a competitive system to make this kind of judgment? After all, the elements within that system can only act according to their own self-interest; you cannot expect them to act in the national interest when no one else is doing so.
For this reason, in our transportation policy there must be a concept which provides that the national interest is paramount. Transportation is so fundamental to everything in this country that it is paramount. It is at the root of whether it is possible to raise our productivity to the level to which it should be raised. We cannot leave this kind of decision to the free play of the market forces and the competitive elements. We have to equalize distance in this country. This nation was built on the basis of a railroad going from east to west. The people who built that railroad knew that parts of it would not pay in any purely commercial sense. It was true at that time, and is true today, that without a transportation policy that takes into consideration the difficulties in creating and holding together a country like Canada, we would not be able to easily maintain our nationality. The west will require special consideration for certain products.
Transportation
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
The maritimes obviously need special attention for other reasons. There is hardly a part of Canada which will not be affected in a different way. We can talk about subsidies and we can deplore them but the truth of the matter is that everyone in Canada is subsidized. If we do not subsidize railroads, then we subsidize such things as old age pensions or we are subsidized through family allowances. Some of us subsidize others through tariffs that are put on products coming into this country. We are completely interrelated and interlocked, and it is impossible to distinguish those areas which are subsidized from those which are not. To try and make this kind of distinction is both futile and hopeless. I think we will have to devise a transportation policy for the benefit of the entire nation, and of those parts of it which may be uneconomic but will have to be carried by areas which bring profit. There can be no other way of doing this in a country such as ours. If we are to make a clear distinction between what is subsidized and what is not, then I would suggest that we will have to remove the entire machinery which we have built up, from tariffs down to social allowances, in order to return to some kind of a base. We cannot start from the base which we have now.
If we are to have a competitive system, then we have to remove the barriers which now restrict competition. We have built up a structure which by and large is a good structure: I am not suggesting that it be dismantled. What I am suggesting is that whenever we talk about a transportation policy we should recognize that this structure exists, and that it is neither possible nor desirable to make a clear distinction between what is subsidized and what is not subsidized as the bill attempts to do.
I would like to give to the committee an example illustrating the inefficacy of competition as far as railroads are concerned. If we had to depend on competition, I think we would have discontinued the railroad passenger service by now. There was a time when the C.P.R. tried to eliminate its passenger service as quickly as it could. During the committee's trip through the west, we heard some fairly clear indications from people who gave evidence before us that the C.P.R. was just about kicking off its passengers. They did not want them. The competing railroad, namely the C.N.R. was in a similar position from the financial point of view. They were not making any money on passengers either. However, the

December 21, 1968
Transportation
difference was that the C.N.R. had a responsibility to the people of Canada and to national objectives.
Because of this responsibility, it brought back the passenger service. Although it sustained losses at first, we now see that it may pay off. The time may never come again when passenger service will bring money to a railroad, but I think we all agree that there are people in Canada who depend on trains to get them from one place to another. If this kind of service requires a subsidy on the part of the nation generally, then that decision has to be taken and we have to go along with this approach. The point I was making was that this decision was not made on the basis of free enterprise and competition. The decision was made by the railroad because it had a responsibility to act according to the needs of the people of this country.
I am afraid that if you say that transportation must be competitive, the effect will be that as soon as a railway discovers it cannot make a fast dollar on a particular service it will discontinue it. We have to ask ourselves whether this bill contains sufficient safeguards to prevent this from happening, and I am not convinced that there are. We have to ask ourselves whether this is the system that we want, a system whereby the profitability of the company will determine the transportation service which the nation will have. We should seriously consider whether the profitability of the company is really a reflection of the advantage to the nation as a whole.
I was interested in reading the evidence of a representative from the chamber of commerce who testified before the joint committee on consumer prices. The question of the cost of transportation as it affects consumer prices was raised by Senator Carter. I would like to quote that part of the proceedings as an illustration or what could happen. The purpose of competition in transportation services is to give the railroads a break and to allow them to raise their rates. The effect of an increase in railway rates will clearly be to raise the rates of every transportation facility in this country which will use the railroad rates as a base against which they will calculate their charges. In effect we will get a system very much like our tariff structure where the price of goods in Canada is determined under some circumstances by the price in the United States plus the tariff cost. The two combined constitute the Canadian price.
I would like to read into the record part of the proceedings of the joint committee on

consumer credit in which Senator Carter asked questions and the witness, Dr. Farrell answered him. This appears at page 1878 of the joint committee proceedings:
Senator Carter: You are saying that competition is a good policeman so far as prices are concerned. On page 10, at paragraph 27, you say, "The very basis of the enterprise economy is competition." Then on page 24, at paragraph 75, you talk about freight prices going up, and you say: Thereafter the railways can be expected to adjust their rates along commercial principles. Then you go on to say: ... it is anticipated that the highway carriers will raise their rail competitive rates to roughly similar levels.
Dr. Farrell: That is what we said.
Senator Carter: Is that not competition in reverse? How do you square these two sets of ideas?
Dr. Farrell: Well, the end of any era brings adjustment problems, and when railways are given a new set of working rules and are told to function, well, without a lot of rates being frozen, then charges are going to go up, and after the transportation industry has adjusted to the new set of rules, I think they are going to be efficient and will contribute more to Canada.
I will interject at this point to say that this very pious hope was certainly not borne out by his prior statements before the committee. I will continue the quotation. It reads:
Senator Carter: But these railways are making a profit or they would not be in business. So if they raise the rates because the other carriers do they are just increasing their profit.
Dr. Farrell: In the highway sector, yes, hut then if they raise them so far-
Senator Carter: But how do you square that with competition as the great factor in regulating prices and costs?
Dr. Farrell: Is anyone from transportation here? I should like some comment.


Mr. Whitelaw:: The transportation representative has just left.
Dr. Farrell: I must plead a certain degree of ignorance in trying to answer something on transportation.
Co-Chairman Senator Croll: That has nothing to do with it. Take the problem in its principal sense. What he is talking about is competition. You admit that the railway companies will have a new set of rules?
Dr. Farrell: Yes.
Co-Chairman Senator Croll: And you also admit that the transportation companies are now running along and making money.
Dr. Farrell: The highway sector.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
Co-Chairman Senator Croll: What you say is that when the railways get a better deal the highways will immediately match them; and Senator Carter's point is that they are then taking an undue profit.
Dr. Farrell: For the short run it may well be-
I am afraid that this short run may turn out to be the long run; that the railroads may set up a system upon which other services will
December 21, 1366

base their prices, which may not be to the benefit of the public.
I should like to restate my point about the importance of low transportation costs in Canada. We simply cannot afford the luxury of any waste or excessive transportation costs because we already suffer from a geographical disadvantage. I would go further and say that this is one area where even the profit derived from transportation operations should accrue to the benefit of the public in an attempt to lower transportation costs so that we may increase our ability to become more productive.
This is terribly important, Mr. Chairman. The Economic Council of Canada pointed to one of the reasons we are less productive than the United States, and it is because of our higher transportation costs. It is vital that whatever we do in terms of bringing forward new legislation, that legislation should reflect our concern in the matter and be used as a means to provide the lowest possible transportation costs in Canada.
The government offers a mishmash. They have obviously recognized that they simply cannot throw the field of transportation wide open to competition. No one argues this anymore; not even the government defends that contention. So, the government imposes some regulations. I suggest that some of the regulations may be more unworkable than other aspects of competition. I regret to say this but the government has abdicated its responsibilities in taking this kind of philosophical position. It has shown its lack of willingness to govern.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, a planned system is difficult; no one will argue it is easy. It is easy for the government to wash its hands of this system and to say it will not make any decisions which caused difficulty in the past, or that it will only make partial decisions. The government can let the competitive forces which exist within the system make a lot of the decisions. Planning is not easy. It involves moving into an area with which we are not completely familiar. However, this should not deter us. Nothing great is ever easy. Nothing worth while is ever simple. New approaches have their problems. But the role of a progressive government is to face up to the problems instead of abdicating their responsibilities, and not worrying about the problems because they are too difficult.
In the field of rail abandonments, it is tough to decide that one piece of line should be abandoned and another retained. But
Transportation
somebody has to make the decision. Some formula has to be worked out to recompense those who are hurt. Our competitive system cannot make these decisions; they are decisions a government must make. Admittedly, the government has included some provisions in the bill to take these considerations into account; but since that is the case why not plan things properly and look at the total picture?
I suggest that more difficulty will be created if the government only just touch upon the problem, than if they really plan things in the best interests of the people involved right off the bat. For example, the government will not have too much trouble in deciding the wages of railway workers and when they should receive a raise. They can say that the railroads are competing with each other, and if one railroad does not have enough money to raise wages they need simply raise their rates, that is very easy to do, but the national interest is involved here.


An hon. Member:: What would you do then?


Max Saltsman: I hear someone ask me what I would do. There is an approach to a sensible policy to which essential industries will have to face up to later. We will have to find a way to cope with the problem of generating confidence between labour, management and the government; of reconciling the interests of management, labour and the population in general. Why avoid it? We must do this sooner or later so we might as well start here.
The bill shies away from this. It indicates that the government does not want this kind of responsibility. The government seem to be saying "We have had enough of it. We have not handled it too well in the past and it has given us many headaches; in the future we want no part of it". This is an abdication of responsibility from the public's point of view.
In their planning, the government will have to allocate carriers to certain groups. Which ships will go where? Where will trains best do the job? Where will a trucking company operate more efficiently? Where do you build a highway or a canal rather than a roadbed? These are tough decisions, but nevertheless decisions which in the interests of Canada have to be made. The government must accept the responsibility for making them. We have to weigh one factor against another, which is not easy to do. But the decision cannot be abdicated.

December 21, 1966
Transportation
My time is nearly up, and the only point I wanted to raise this afternoon was this: Despite all the work done on this bill and the hundreds of amendments proposed, some rejected, some accepted, we are now trying to go even further and bring in new amendments improve this, that or the other clause. But what the bill really needs is a complete reexamination of the principle upon which it is based. I suggest the government has taken the easy way out, and rather than plan for the benefit of the whole nation it has tried to find an easy way of avoiding the hard job of governing.


Mr. Nielsen:: I was not a member of the transport committee when this bill was being considered, but having looked at the proceedings one of the most glaring omissions appears to be that there was no evidence at all adduced before the committee with respect to transportation by air, both of a private and of a commercial character. The second most glaring omission is that there does not appear to have been any evidence at all with respect to transportation in the northern areas of our country.
Sitting here listening to various members speak about transportation problems and the ramifications of the provisions of this bill, it struck me, as it often strikes me, that the members who sit here-I say this not unkindly-tend to confine their mental projections from St. John's, Newfoundland to Victoria on Vancouver Island.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
They fail to appreciate the great need for north-south communication in this country, and for internal communication facilities above the sixtieth parallel as well as in the northern portions of provinces. The only reference in some 3,000 pages of testimony that I can find to air transport is that contained in a brief submitted by the Canadian Pacific. At pages 31 and 32 of the brief, they refer to a legitimate complaint not dealt with by the bill before us. The complaint should be dealt with by placing Air Canada under the same authority that other carriers are placed under. The bill before us brings transport by air, as the Canadian Pacific brief points out-to which the Aeronautics Act applies-under the jurisdiction of the new Canadian commission. The Aeronautics Act applies equally to all carriers except Air Canada. On an application for a licence Air Canada need not establish that the service is and will be required for the present and future public convenience and
(Mr. Saltsman.l
necessity. Its licence cannot be made the subject of the controls and conditions applied to licences granted to other carriers. In effect, the Governor in Council is the individual, with the Minister of Transport-not the Air Transport Board-controlling the domestic routes operated by Air Canada and the conditions under which they shall be operated.
Once Air Canada has made an agreement under section 15 or 24 of the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act with the Minister of Transport, it can make application to the board and the board is required to grant to Air Canada a licence under such terms and subject to such conditions as will enable Air Canada to perform the agreement. It seems to me that Canadian Pacific makes a valid point in its brief to the transport committee. The bill should direct itself to matters such as I have mentioned rather than dealing, as it does, with amending the Aeronautics Act for purposes of bringing dry leases on aircraft under the control of the board.
I, too, am fearful of the tremendous power to be given to this new commission with respect to one of the most vital segments of our country's economy. The Minister of Transport said he was very much in favour of the kind of parliamentary control suggested by the hon. member for Peace River, and the amendment the hon. member proposed yesterday. I was happy to hear what was said. The government is becoming more and more complex as the world takes on the complexities of the space age. This is no excuse to carve out of segments of public affairs concerning the people as a whole, great chunks of administrative authority and turning them over to what inevitably must become bureaucratic control. There are many shortcomings adopted in the methods of the Air Transport Board in dealing with the myriads of questions coming before it, with the only appeal being to the minister. Regardless of how valid an application might be for the beginning of a commercial air service, for instance, there is no appeal from the decision of the Air Transport Board. Almost invariably, the board bases its decision on evidence taken at public hearings before an individual who is not even a member of the board.
Counsel or assistant counsel hold hearings which are sometimes of great length, listening to volumes of evidence as to the public interest. Then, because of the routine adopted with respect to the internal management of the
December 21, 1966

affairs of the Air Transport Board, the individual hearing evidence presents a brief either in written or verbal form to the board. It is on the basis of that kind of information that decisions yea or nay are made.
What will happen? Under the bill there will be set up various committees or subcommittees of the Canadian Transportation Commission. One of those committees will deal with matters affecting air transport in the country. A provision of the bill ensures that the chairman of the Air Transport Board, whoever he may be at the time of the coming into force of this act, will be the chairman of that subcommittee. Over him and over all the other committees will be the chairman of the commission, who, in effect, will be the czar of Canadian transport of all kinds over which the government of Canada has jurisdiction.
This is a tremendous responsibility and tremendous power to put into the hands of an individual. Such administrative control cannot be abdicated by the parliament of Canada, by those of us sitting here representing the people by due process. The immediate word coming to mind, when looking at legislation such as this is Lord Hewart's new despotism. Such will be the inevitable role that this commission will play in affairs of transportation in this country.
Some sort of appeal procedure seems to have been written into this legislation. An appeal simply to the minister, as exists in the present Air Transport Board routine, is insufficient, notwithstanding that with his usual benevolence the minister probably views all such appeals with that impartiality for which he is noted. How does the bill affect air transport generally? The committee proceedings, as I have said, said nothing about this except for two pages in the brief produced by the Canadian Pacific.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
The announcement which the minister made to the house on October 20 of regional air carrier policy deals with every phase of air transportation except one. It deals with the two main line carriers in Canada. It deals very briefly with commercial charter operations, but says nothing about general aviation. Notwithstanding the fact that we had recent amendments to the Aeronautics Act, the new despotism is still sniping at an area of aviation which made aviation possible in this country, indeed made Canada a leader in aviation matters throughout the world.
Transportation
I refer to clause 93 of the bill. If it is passed as it stands it will make every person who is the owner of an aircraft, and who desires to lease it, subject to obtaining first the approval of the Canadian transport commission, or the subcommittee on air. This is an entirely undue restriction. I speak not simply because I happen to be found in a personal position here. Many people in general aviation throughout this country acquire aircraft and are able to do so because of the probability of being able to lease them on a dry lease basis.
I know there are lots of bootlegging operations of frustrated air carriers who purchase aircraft simply for the purpose of getting into the business and lease them to licensed air carriers. But when you pass a blanket provision, such as this amendment which is prepared to the Aeronautics Act, you are catching all the little people who happen to own aircraft.
The minister has been a champion, certainly while he has been Minister of Transport and I have no reason to believe that his philosophy was ever any different, of protecting the government air line, Air Canada, at all costs. In my view, this has worked to the disadvantage of air progress in Canada. I am sure he is aware of the editorials that have been written with respect to his policies, both past and present. When he announced in 1964 a segment of his air policy, he said that in the domestic field any development of competition should not compromise or seriously injure the economic viability of T.C.A. main line domestic operations which represent the essential framework of its domestic network services. In other words, he said there must not be the kind of competition which would put T.C.A. into the red.
The minister nods his head that this is right. I disagree with the minister, as have many editorial writers. I submit to him that this is not true Liberalism when he adopts this kind of philosophy, because it completely negates the philosophy of free competition. The air line that is going to survive will be that one that can compete efficiently and economically, and that is what a mass of editorials have pointed out.
The minister has said that the policy on regional services calls for a reasonable role for regional air carriers, which will give the regional air carriers a reasonable chance to operate without government subsidies. He used the word "reasonable" twice, and that indicates the extent to which the minister feels there must be that degree of control

December 21, 196S
Transportation
which will ensure that there will not be any degree of competition which would have the effect of putting Air Canada into the red, no matter what kind of operation it may be, efficient or otherwise.
An editorial from a Saskatchewan newspaper commented as follows:
Whenever a government determines on a policy which necessarily involves subsidization, this amounts to an increased direct tax on individual Canadians. In this reference, competition-which means less not more government intrusion in business and industry-is the only certain safeguard the taxpayer has against extravagant policy-making.
That is the view which has been generally expressed with regard to this concept of the minister's.
I notice in the guide lines of the government respecting regional air carrier policy that he tabled in the house on October 20, he has dwelt at length on the relationship of Air Canada with not only C.P.A. but other regional carriers. With respect to routes, route transfers and the division of routes between the two national carriers he said that some anomalies exist and more may develop as a result of future growth with respect to these divisions.
I suggest that when these guide lines were being prepared, the minister had no real regard or concentrated concern about the north-en portions of the provinces and northern Canada generally. If ever there were areas in which there must be a far-sighted attitude developed toward the provision of transportation facilities, it is in those areas.
I can recall the minister's attitude when he was on this side of the house when it was suggested that a rail line be constructed to Pine Point. He and his supporters of the day joined together and voted against that. Now, of course, they clutch it to their bosoms as though it were their own idea, and a good thing. The minister of northern affairs was not present when the vote was taken on that matter, and so he can now feel free to say a very laudable thing was done in the construction of that railway, an operation that was paid for far earlier than was ever anticipated even by the proposers of the legislation at that time.
Similar developments are now taking place in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and the northern portions of the provinces. I am sure the minister of northern affairs has acquainted the Minister of Transport of the tremendous development taking place in the Yukon where rail facilities are going to be

necessary. The government has caused a survey to be made, paid for jointly by it and by the private concern that is interested in developing the ore in the area, but these developments will not come about unless transportation facilities are provided there.
What consideration does this bill give to the nagging problem of the barrier of the panhandle of Alaska cutting off, as it does, a great portion of the coast of British Columbia and the entire Yukon Territory? We have a copper mine coming into production next spring in the Yukon, New Imperial Mines Ltd., with a long-term contract for the supply of copper to world markets.
The normal docking facilities on the panhandle, on United States territory 105 miles away, are not adequate. It is now discovered that the ore will have to be brought from its place of production all the way to Vancouver in order to be trans-shipped to world markets, even though tide water is only 105 miles away.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
All we get from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is studies, studies and more studies. We are being snowed under by studies. The same number of studies will be undertaken now with regard to that problem as have been, and likely will be, undertaken with regard to the provision of a paved route between Alaska and continental United States. 1 do not particularly blame the members of this government any more than I blame the vast majority of the members who sit in this house for not being oriented geographically to the fact that there exists this vast area and this vast potential in the northern part of our country. Were it not for the transportation costs which form the major factor in respect of any decision which would bring a new development to fruition in the north, there would be all sorts of economic development in this part of Canada.
The richest silver mine in North America now is closing because the costs have risen to the stage now where they no longer can continue to compete in world markets. The biggest single factor in the cost of producing that product is transportation. Then there is the living cost. If hon. members believe that costs are skyrocketing here in the south, they would not need to pause very long in reflection to realize what the transportation cost for 1,500 miles from the port of Vancouver to White Horse means in relation to the additional cost of everything used in the north. When we have to carefully consider and
December 21, 1966

think twice before we order an extra package of insulation because it costs more to transport that 1,500 miles than it does to transport a pound of butter and such things, then we have some small insight into the over-all problem. Everything that reaches us costs more.
I do not think that subsidies are the answer. I do not think the subsidies which were suggested in the air policy that the minister tabled last October are the answer. If there were a more enlightened view taken in respect of allowing competitive services to generate in these areas, that well might provide the answer. If the government would get out of such operations as Eldorado aviation and allow private enterprise to fill the gap-which it can do and which it has assured the government it can do-that might be part of the answer. Then of course, there always is the government's obligation to provide surface means of transportation in the form of highways and railways.
Instead of sniping away, as clause 93 of this bill does-and I am only picking on clause 93 because it is an indication of what is happening and how the freedom of the individual is being eroded by this sort of direction-what the government should be doing in respect of the provision of adequate incentives to the development of aviation in the country is paying perhaps a little less attention to the Canadian main line and major regional carriers in the country and a little more attention to general aviation, which after all was the birth place of what the minister now is so proud of, Air Canada.
General aviation is being put in a strait-jacket of rules and regulations which stifles the growth of this segment of the air industry. One example of this is that it is contrary to the air regulations to land or take off at an unlicensed air strip. It is a recognized fact that aircraft are being used more and more in the agricultural industry in this country. Aircraft are being used by the farmers. Yet, if he takes off and lands on a strip which is not licensed or which is on his farm, he is guilty of an offence. Of course there always are the over-zealous police officers who come along and lay charges. Under the regulations as they now exist this farmer would be guilty of an offence by flying under 500 feet when he was landing or taking off from his unlicensed airstrip. He may be engaged in spraying his crop, counting his cattle, or looking over his land in the spring preparatory to seeding. A very excellent television film about the part aircraft
Transportation
are playing in respect of the agricultural industry was shown last week end.
This type of niggardly regulation should be done away with. Instead of looking for more ways to restrict the growth of aviation in this country, the government and the officials of the Department of Transport should be looking for sections which they could take out in order to make it a little easier for private aviation to grow in this country.
Another good example of the way in which the healthy growth of aviation is being stifled in this country is the airport policy which does not allow convenient usage of private airplanes. I was in the city of Vancouver where persons wishing to use a private aircraft sometimes must wait until half a dozen other airplanes are pulled out of the way before they can take off. The reason for this is that the Department of Transport, by its policies, will not allow the construction and placement of "T" hangars such as the one now in use at Uplands airport. There is no earthly reason that this policy should not be changed so as to allow this kind of convenience for those who are in a position to take advantage of it.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I did not expect that I would have an opportunity to speak on this bill. I have, however, been very interested in reading it. I should have liked to have had the opportunity to participate in the work of the committee which gave consideration to this bill. I believe only the Minister of Transport could have designed a bill which starts out with a very clearly defined policy and then arrives at as many "ifs", "ands", and "buts" as this bill has. The bill indicates that there cannot be any real transportation policy. This really is not a transportation bill, as I had envisaged it a number of years ago when I moved a resolution suggesting that we have a national transportation policy.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
I have long been concerned with many parts of the problem in Canada which relates to a national transportation policy. I was particularly interested in the shenanigans which took place in connection with the railways and the public attitude toward those railways. There are those who say that the Canadian National is a crown company and that the people of Canada own it. I do not think this is true; we do not own it. It is a little like the

December 21, 1966
Transportation
case of the man who pays $10 on a new car and finds himself with a $10,000 debt. It is much similar to what is said about the Canadian National. We pay so much interest on its debt it is doubtful that we can say the C.N.R. is a government agency owned by the Canadian people. It would be more logical for those operating the C.N.R. to fit its operations to the needs of the public. They should provide leadership in the field of transportation. From my own experience I can say that in the field of public relations the Canadian National, so far as transportation of passengers and goods is concerned, is no more interested in the welfare of this country than a number of other railway companies. In fact some others in many ways serve the public better.
It is foolish for the government to suggest that a national transportation policy should be adopted, such as the one outlined in th s bill, if this whole problem is not faced, and I refer to the duplication of lines by the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. In my area there has been talk about abandoning a line. Yet people working for the railway have said that the cost of repairs in recent years warrants the operation of the line, without any increase in the volume of business, for a considerable period of time. There is a potential increase in transportation need in this same area as a result of the development of natural resources, but the railway company continues to threaten abandonment of this line.
Surely it is foolish to have two railway companies operating duplicate services across this country, competing in areas where competition is of no value. Railways in certain areas should be considered as public utilities and there is an advantage to the public in owning these facilities. With the advent of the block system, with one dispatcher controlling all the trains in a division, it would seem reasonable to operate these two lines as one. The minister will eventually have to face up to the necessity of public ownership of this public utility.
An hon. member suggested it would be to the advantage of Canada to place both railway companies on a free enterprise basis. If we do not combine them and operate them as a public utility perhaps that would be advantageous and would lead to a solution of our transportation problem. The railway companies admit they are facing a problem which they will not be able to solve even with the limited freedom provided by this bill.

I am always bothered when the C.N.R. comes to parliament for more money, particularly when I think of its inefficient operations and the waste it incurs without satisfying the needs of the people it serves. I remember when I first came to Ottawa in 1957. At that time one could get a berth on a train running from here to northern Ontario. Anyone who had a little money could get an upper berth. Someone with more money could get a roomette, and someone with even more money could get a drawing room or a bedroom. Very soon after the railway company decided to stop sleeping car services at En-glehart. Th s meant that people travelling from northern Ontario to Montreal had to get up very early in the morning at Englehart and travel the remainder of the distance by coach.
Not very long after that it was decided that sleeping car accommodation should be abandoned at North Bay. People travelling to or from th:s area had to make special arrangements in order to obtain sleepers. All this took place at a time when the railway companies purchased sleeping cars from the New York Central Railway at $10,000 per car. Those cars may well have been satisfactory for operation in southern Ontario but they were not satisfactory on this line. On occasion one would find the left side of a car completely frozen up while at the same time the temperature on the other side of the car was about 100 degrees. After discovering this fact I found out that the C.N.R. was charging the province of Ontario $250 per month to keep these sleepers on this line in northern Ontario. Presumably it did not take the C.N.R. very long to pay for the cost of these cars.
Obviously these companies were and are not interested in passenger service. An example of this is the fact that trains going to northern Ontario and northern Quebec met at stations at about two o'clock in the morning. They did not depart until four hours later. During the interval the passengers waited in cold stations. I remember leaving Ottawa on numerous occasions to catch a train which was supposed to depart at 10.55. After several such trips I arrived no earlier than 1.30 a.m., only to find that I was approximately an hour early.
a (7:10 p.m.)
I was very surprised when I went there one day to find that the train had gone. One of the chaps at the station said it had left at the regular time. That night it left about 11.30. The railway had made the service so bad that obviously nobody was travelling on the train.
December 21, 1966

Then it went before the board and asked permission to drop the Continental, a train that travelled from Montreal to the west coast. The railway dropped it. I invite hon. members to travel from northern Ontario to Ottawa or Montreal by train. They will find that you get to North Bay at about twelve o'clock and the other train arrives any time after two o'clock. The minister may smile, but this is how the Canadian National operates. The connecting train was so late that, not having anything to do in North Bay and not particularly wanting to sit in the station all night, I stayed on the other train, went to Toronto, had my breakfast in Toronto, spent two hours there and caught the train from there to Ottawa which was held up here at the Beach-burg siding for five or ten minutes while the train from North Bay passed through on its way to Ottawa. In the meantime I have travelled half way around Ontario to fill in the time. The railways have not been interested in passenger traffic.
Then there is the question of freight. I was interested to learn that nobody in my area ships cows by rail. If under the community sales system they ship cows by rail to Toronto, a distance of about 350 miles, it takes anywhere from two to four days for the cows to reach Toronto. Anyone who ships cattle knows the cost involved in feeding and watering them, taking them off the cars and putting them back on again, and the fact that there is four days' shrinkage in the cows also has to be taken into consideration. This is a very expensive way of moving cattle to Toronto. These people can ship their cows from the community sales barns in New Liskeard and Earlton at night and they will be in Toronto the next morning and on the market that day. I have asked the railway why they cannot provide this type of service. They admit that they could but say they are not going to bother because it would take some planning and they would have to make arrangements they had not previously considered making.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could ask the hon. gentleman a question?


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. gentleman talking about the publicly owned railway, and is he giving this example as an illustration of the kind of advantages of public ownership for which his party stands?
Transportation


William Arnold Peters: We are not really involved in public ownership. The Canadian National Railways are not publicly owned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: We bought it but we have never paid for it. The minister can laugh. Just let him look it up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We have been paying for it for years.


William Arnold Peters: We have been paying for it ever since the Grand Trunk went bankrupt. We are still paying for it. We do not repay anything on the principal; we are having enough trouble paying the interest. We do not own it. We might as well be renting the damn thing. This is also true of some things in the ownership of the Ontario government.
If we are to have a truly national transportation system we will have to relate it to the needs of the people and provide a satisfactory service. The minister can laugh. We can put any public utility out of business if we wish to do so. We can slow down or stop any train operating if we wish to do so. All we have to do is make the facility so bad that it does not satisfy the needs of the people using it. We have done that very well in the cases I have cited as examples.
As I see it, this policy is not going to help the situation one bit. We are trying to relate the problems that face us to Canadian Pacific and Canadian National without really helping either company to solve them. Before we really solve the problems in this area we have to provide a utility that is publicly owned and controlled and will be used for the advantage of Canada. We the people of Canada are willing to make the necessary contribution in the way of subsidies.
I do not think the situation has changed since the days when the bridge principle was introduced. I do not believe there is really any objection to the subsidies we provide for those areas that cannot carry the facility. In my opinion we have to try to get some advantage out of the facilities that are provided. Revenue must be obtained from them. Only recently have the railways given any consideration to some of these problems. Canadian National and Canadian Pacific recently made a deal whereby Canadian Pacific would get out of the transportation field in the Ottawa area. What has happened since this arrangement was brought about? We now have trains running from Toronto to Ottawa and Toronto to Montreal which are providing a reasonable

December 21, 1966
Transportation
service. For the first time we are finding that the people of Canadian National are proud to talk about their Rapido train. This is no advance in railroading; this type of transportation has been provided in Canada for years. I can remember when the Silver Bullet of New York Central travelled through Canada with one stop at St. Thomas. That train averaged over 80 miles an hour; on a number of occasions it averaged over 90 miles an hour.
We now find the Canadian National, 20 years later, bragging about the fact that they have the most rapid transportation system on the continent. This type of facility was present in Canada for a number of years, sort of in bondage, but it was there for Canadians to examine and find out how transportation could be made profitable. As long as we are not willing to face the problem of Canadian National and Canadian Pacific and their relationship, as long as we are willing to call for competition between them, this bill will not provide the type of national transportation policy that the government suggests it will provide.
Other problems will have to be faced more realistically than they are today. This bill is a catch-all to the extent that the government has introduced a completely new category of transportation and has literally thrown it in with the National Energy Board. We will have to face this problem because it relates to the railroads and their ability to produce economically. I refer to commodity pipe lines. There is on the order paper now a bill involving the Shell Oil Company and the building of a small pilot, research pipe line at a cost of approximately $50 million. The company hopes that this commodity pipe line will carry sulphur, 1 believe, from Saskatchewan to its refinery on the coast.
I think we should be quite happy to support it in its desire to develop this facility, which has been used in other countries. It means that through the medium of oil as the carrier they will be able to move the vast supplies of sulphur, potash and gypsum that are being found on the prairies and are now being hauled by the railroads. This is a new form of transportation that will create as much havoc as the railroad freight differentials, tariffs and the advent of trucking facilities, particularly trucking facilities which are under the control of the railroads and are competing with the railroads for similar types of freight carriage.
Under this bill these lines are classed as combined lines. Even the government could not make up its mind whether they would be

commodity-handling capsules, sludge carriers or lines handling commodities transmission. In recent days we have had some experience of pipe lines, as has the government. This experience will probably indicate whether the National Energy Board should control the licensing and handling of the transmission of commodities by pipe lines. Our experience indicates that the National Energy Board's operations in licensing and controlling the transmission of commodities owned or bought by companies should be governed by the national transportation policy.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
Pipe lines will play a very important part in the future. In England it has been found that coal can be moved by pipe line. Experiments have been conducted in the use of pipe lines for the movement of capsules and packaged freight. According to the developments outlined in the submission by Shell Oil, I am sure that Canada will lead in the movement of many commodities through this medium. Of course this means that the miles and miles of box cars which one sees travelling across the prairies may eventually come to an end. It may be possible to transport grain and other commodities such as sulphur, gypsum and potash by this new transportation medium, and this will have a direct bearing on the volume of business undertaken by the railroads.
I think a saving could be affected if the government would think in terms of the public ownership of rail transportation facilities because I believe that there is a vast duplication of services in this area. It seems that the Canadian Pacific Railway wishes neither to continue nor to discontinue passenger service. It appears to be a dog in the manger in this field. If the C.P.R. were to say that it will upgrade its passenger service and let the C.N.R. out of that service, then I think the government would be well advised to consider such a proposition. However, I think it is possible for the two railways to provide the kind of service which the Canadian public should have and to do so economically through competition between the two railways which are operating side by side.
It is a fact that the C.P.R. has tried to discontinue certain lines. I remember comparing C.P.R. and C.N.R. fares for the same kind of accommodation on the North Bay-Ottawa run. I found that the C.P.R. rate was three times as high as the C.N.R. rate. This is an indication of Canadian Pacific's interest in that service. It is also an indication of the
December 21, 1966



non-existence of competition between these two companies because obviously the Canadian Pacific had increased the fares so as to discourage passengers from using its service. I am sure that considerable discussion will take place on some of these clauses but I believe that our attention should be drawn mainly to clause 1 because it seems to me that in the preamble of this bill the minister has expressed the hopes and aspirations of every member of parliament to define and implement a national transportation policy.
I think also that hon. members are concerned about the operation of highway transportation and the role it plays. I am referring both to C.N. transportation and to the subsidy we pay for C.P. freight as well as the role played by independent transport in this particular field. It is certain that the advent of increased shipping on the St. Lawrence seaway must be considered in relation to transportation. I am aware of the argument recently advanced in the house regarding the closing of the ports on the lower St. Lawrence river and the fact that this plays a considerable role in the freight costs and the movement of goods through the ports in the maritimes. I am also aware of the responsibility which the government must bear with regard to those ports and to communities dependent on the facilities that are provided. I believe that the general public is aware of the fact that these problems will not be solved with the passing of the bill.
I know that the hour is late and that the possibility of the minister commenting tonight on some of the major problems is remote. However, I should like to ask him to give the house a reasoned explanation of why the government will not consider the nationalization of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company so as to make possible the integration of the two railway companies and eliminate what I am sure the minister will agree is excessive duplication. Even in their present operations the railways are attempting to eliminate some of this duplication. Not long ago a matter was dropped from the order paper relating to the operations of an independent distributor for the express and freight sections of both railways in the Ottawa area. The railways tried to make an arrangement whereby these services could be integrated so that only one truck would make the deliveries from both railways instead of having two separate services. This duplication extends throughout the whole system. I think everyone here would agree that great savings could be effected if 23033-7271
Transportation
duplication in this particular field were eliminated.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time not to make a speech on this bill but to ask the Minister of Transport if he would not consider it wise for the house to recess at this stage until the call of the Chair for royal assent. Alternatively, would he not agree to the house taking an hour off to enable us to have some refreshment? The minister has been in the house now for several hours and I am interested in his health. I think he should have a little relaxation. Would he consent to either of those two suggestions?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the solicitude of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has almost but not quite melted my heart. An arrangement was made last evening behind the curtains to adjourn the committee stage on this bill in order to expedite other business to enable the house to adjourn for the Christmas recess this evening instead of tomorrow. This was done on the express understanding that today we would use the time available to deal with this bill which I, and I think a lot of us, had hoped could be passed before the end of the year. My hon. friend the house leader has indicated that this present session of parliament is very far from over. We have to have another session in 1967, and some of us think that it would be rather a good idea to have a relatively short session in 1967 with some time to enjoy the centennial in the middle of the summer.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
The hon. member for Winnipeg South said earlier today that this bill should not be rushed but should be given adequate consideration. Therefore I had hoped that we would have all the speeches made today by the members who are in Ottawa at the present time which are to be made on clause 1. I know there are some members who are greatly interested in the bill but are unable to be here today. They will want to say something about it when we come back on January 9, but as the hon. member for Winnipeg South very fairly said earlier, although he thought we were trying to move too fast with the bill he also admitted that the process had been going on since 1958.
There is no question that we are going to be faced in the new year with a very serious problem, particularly with respect to the railways. All sorts of deadlines have to be met, as I indicated yesterday, by December 31. If this bill cannot be accepted by parliament within

December 21. 1966
Transportation
a reasonable time in the new year, all sorts of interim arrangements will have to be made that I think would be very undesirable and not really in the public interest. Therefore as long as there are any members who have anything more to say on clause 1 of the bill I would hope we will take the time to proceed, and that those hon. members, even the most conscientious, who really feel the need for refreshment will do what I did, I confess, a little while ago, which was to take half an hour off and get something. If the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre would like to go up to my room I will have some sandwiches sent in to him.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I see the minister does not agree with the two useful suggestions I put forward. I am prepared to agonize with him over the difficulties which face us if the railway bill is not passed early in January, but everything he has said to us now should have been said to his colleagues in the cabinet. Apparently his influence has diminished to such an extent that he has to make an appeal to the opposition. We are very sympathetic toward this minister and realize he was pushed out of the way by the Minister of National Health and Welfare; otherwise his bill would have been before us a lot earlier than this. He has not had much support from his party today, but we will co-operate with him and I will make my speech on the bill later.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, looking closely at the bill I have realized that it arises out of the recommendations of the MacPherson royal commission. In a sense it is born out of that commission. The hon. member for Winnipeg South pointed out earlier today that the atmosphere in railroading today has changed. The minister admitted this in the committee and I could quote his own words. The railroads admit this too. The C.P.R. and C.N.R. have admitted that the atmosphere that brought about the establishment of the MacPherson royal commission has changed greatly between then and now.
In 1959 the atmosphere was depressing; the railroads were in financial difficulties. Today the opposite is true. Railroading has been given a tremendous boost by the recent huge grain shipments, by the development of the potash industry in Saskatchewan, by the iron ore mining developments in the Peace River country and by the development of the Pine Point railway, which we brought about and which the minister voted against. The hon. member for Winnipeg South went into this
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
fully and I will not repeat what he said, but I think it should be pointed out that the shippers or consumers initially brought about the MacPherson commission. The commission was appointed to look into their complaints.
The commission was asked to look into the inequities in the freight rate structure, their incidence upon the various regions of Canada, and the legislative and other changes that could and should be made in furtherance of national economic policy to remove or alleviate such inequities. One could interpret these terms very broadly, and the commission did. They even studied the Crowsnest pass rates, and I think in a sense studied them for too long.
In opening his remarks yesterday the minister said something about the railroads being the backbone of Canada. He then went on to say that their bony structure must be healthy. By that statement and by his statements in the committee he has shown he is vitally concerned about the financial position of the railroads. This is why I ask why the royal commission was set up in the first place. It was set up to iron out some of the inequities experienced by consumers or shippers in the matter of freight rates.
What did the British Columbia government say in their brief to the committee? They said:
We must conclude that the recommendations of the royal commission in regard to inequities in the freight rate structure are not reflected in Bill C-231.
In other words, Bill C-231 does not answer what the royal commission was set up to study.
The brief goes on:
It is a well known fact that in 1959 the railways did not request the government of the day to appoint a royal commission.
That is a well known fact. The royal commission was brought about by representations made by shipping concerns and consumers in the transport industry generally which urged the then government to study the whole question of freight rate inequities. I happened to come across that quotation in the British Columbia brief to the effect that the bill does not answer these inequities, but I point out that this bill was born out of the royal commission, and I think this is very important. The answer given by the bill to meet these inequities is, in a sense, to be competitive. Competition will aid the shipper and consumer in the transport industry. It will also aid the railroads.
December 21, 1966

[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
If competition is the answer we must define what we really mean. In reading clause 1 and studying some of the amendments suggested to the committee on this clause one must take into consideration that ultimately competition is the answer. If that is the case, then do we mean by competition, competition between the railroads or competition between the trucking industry and the railroads? We believe firmly that trucking firms must compete with one another. If competition is the ultimate answer why does the bill not spell it out? Railroads must compete with one another. It is well known that the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific do not compete. They operate under the same rate structure. Under the Railway Act the Board of Transport Commissioners has provided one rate for one haul up to now. The railways have the same rate structure for a given haul. If I am to believe that competition is the answer then the railways must compete with one another and they must be able to fix any rate they want to. Referring to that subject I point out that the manufacturing industry presented a brief, part of which is to be found in committee proceedings No. 27 at page 1926. They were speaking about an amendment to the bill.
As the minister and the committee know, I have not gone along with the idea that competition is the ultimate answer. I doubt that the amendment suggested can be incorporated in the bill. If the bill is to pass and if competition is the answer, then let us have full competition and not partial competition. Paragraph (a) of clause 1 says:
(a) regulation of all modes of transport with due regard to the national interest will not be of such a nature as to restrict the ability of any mode of transport to compete freely with any other modes of transport;
The association recommends that these words be added:
Nor any carrier to compete freely with any other carrier.
As the clause stands it deals with any mode of transportation competing with any other mode of transportation. In other words, we want competition between the railroads and the trucks, between the railroads and the air industry, but we do not necessarily spell out that there shall be competition within the various segments themselves of our transportation industry. I repeat the words of the suggested amendment:
Nor any carrier to compete freely with any other carrier.
Transportation
The minister believes that competition is the answer. I know he has wrestled with this problem because in committee proceedings No. 23 at the top of one page he says that this was a difficult conclusion to come to but that after a great deal of thinking he could only come to the conclusion that competition was the answer.
The amendment I have referred to has much to commend it and I think it would go a long way toward solving the inequities of the freight rate structure. If we are to have competition let us have full competition. I should like to hear the minister's comments about this suggested amendment. What is wrong with it? Will the railways be able to compete with one another, because we shall have no rate-setting board such as the Board of Transport Commissioners under this new legislation? Under the old act the board had a lot to say about fixing rates. That is the first matter on which I wish to hear from the minister.
One can look at what Mr. Gordon had to say about competition with the Canadian Pacific in committee proceedings No. 24 at page 1765. Mr. Gordon said:
,~aL certainly we will talk to the C.P.R. and they will talk to us, when there are particular freight rates to be fixed. We will consult with each other because usually the applicant is dealing with both railways-
That is the point. Usually the applicant is dealing with both railways. We are looking for the complete answer. It may be that the railroads consult with one another in trying to find the proper rates for a given haul. I am asking, what will happen when both railways are not providing similar services to the same industries?
I am in some doubt the interpretation of paragraph (c) of clause 1. It is my belief that this all encompassing commission will in a sense regulate and set out areas. This board will take unto itself the thinking formerly done by bodies such as the Air Transport Board, the Board of Transport Commissioners, the maritime commission and so on. It will be an all-encompassing commission and under it various segments of the transportation industry may be more or less parceled out. In other words, it may say that air freight can do so much but no more, or it might step on the railroad industry. The same thinking might apply to the trucking industry.
My question is, will the commission parcel out parts of the transportation industry to the various modes of transport in the industry?

December 21, 1966
Transportation
This is the difficulty the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States faced. If we run into that difficulty then the loser under Bill C-231 will be the consumer of the services of the transportation industry, the shipper or the buyer of goods shipped. As soon as the commission starts parceling out various segments of the industry to various modes of transportation, in a sense you do away with competition and bring about a situation where instead of bringing in lower prices there is a tendency to create higher prices.
I am not the only one in doubt about the interpretation of paragraph (c) of clause. 1. With regard to the Canadian National brief, as found in committee proceedings No. 24, page 1769, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace said:
But (c) seems to deal mainly with co-ordination in development, regulation and control. It seems that that co-ordination should be necessary in a large country like Canada where we have limited funds for investment in transportation generally.
In other words, he believes that to some degree it is necessary to bring all modes of transportation under one commission so that parts of the industry can be parceled out to various modes of transportation. This is the interpretation of paragraph (c) given by Doctor Bandeen, a statistician for the C.N.R., who said:
Well, the minute you do that you are saying that competition will not let the best or the cheapest carrier come to the top and prevail. You are saying we have to go beyond competition and determine which carriers shall be where, and how much, and how effective. That is what we are arguing against. Either the bill is for competition as it says at the beginning or it is not. The problem that has come up in the United States has arisen-
This is the point I want to drive home and this is the argument I make.
-precisely under this same type of wording-
Under this same type of wording.
-where they are attempting to co-ordinate the various modes.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
I would like to hear the minister deal with this point in regard to paragraph (a) and paragraph (c) because Dr. Bandeen, a very capable economist, said in the committee that the difficulty in the United States "has arisen precisely under this same type of wording." I think there should be something more definite in the clause. If this type of wording got the United States railroads into difficulties, we should consider the problem. I could read the rest of this page of the committee proceedings and the top of the next page but I will not take

the time to do so except for this sentence, again from Dr. Bandeen's evidence, when he is talking about the commission acting as a research and regulatory body:
We fail to see the advantage of having these two combined but, since the bill suggests they should be, all we are doing is cautioning that if they are combined, let us hope that they keep their two arms separate and do not misuse their research powers in a regulatory field.
Dr. Bandeen said we should not get into the same difficulty that the United States got into with its transportation policy and the Interstate Commerce Commission, and I believe he made a very sound argument.
I could read what the chairman of the standing committee said when questioned on whether or not the committee would again hear the C.N.R. and C.P.R. witnesses after some amendments were approved by the committee. I shall quote what the chairman said because the question may be asked now, why did you not get that fully explained in the committee? We were led to believe in the committee that the C.N.R. and C.P.R. witnesses would be recalled after we had heard briefs from other users of the transport industry. As recorded at page 1751 of the proceedings the committee chairman said:
May I bring to the attention of the committee that it is the intention-it was the steering committee's intention earlier-to bring the C.N.R. back to this committee. The C.P.R. will be coming back-
There are no ifs or buts about that.
-and I would think that after the questioning and the information has been laid before this committee as to what costs they are putting before the committee, we will be in a position to act, after the other briefs have been heard.
So we had reason to expect that the C.N.R. in particular would have been back and that we could have questioned Dr. Bandeen and other C.N.R. officials on Dr. Bandeen's statement that this precise wording got the transportation industry into difficulty in the United States.
I should like to touch on one other subject very briefly, namely, the amendment I have suggested to line 4 of clause 1. I suggested that the word "adequate" should be added. I have talked to the minister about it and he, having had time to think about it, has said that this word is acceptable to him and to the government. I do not have very much more to say except that I hope the minister will answer some of the points I have made with regard to paragraphs (a) and (c). Whether the minister wishes to move the amendment I
December 21, 1966

suggested or wants me to move it does not really matter.
At the end of the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South the minister asked permission to ask one small question. He said, "What else can we do? Can the freeze that is now on the railroads go on forever?" In other words he was saying, Isn't this bill better than doing nothing?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, no.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I thought this was a rather weak argument because no one believes that the freeze placed on the railroads in 1959 and the subsidy paid because of it should go on forever. But if a freeze was considered necessary in 1959, so necessary that it was acceptable to parliament and the country, how can one readily accept a bill which says, Take the freeze off and let everything go? How can one accept those two principles? This is where the minister's argument was weak.
Certainly we agree that legislation is necessary, but should it be legislation that takes the freeze off and opens the gates wide? The freeze was put on to control freight rates. If you are going to take the freeze off you should not allow freight rates to go sky high. I agree that there should be legislation and that the freeze must eventually come off. Maybe now is the time to take it off, but if it is taken off it should be done in such a manner that there will be some degree of hesitancy on the part of the railroads to increase freight rates, and there should be some overseeing body with the authority to question and examine the necessity for any freight rate increases after the freeze is removed.
The minister's argument was weak when he said, "This surely is better than nothing." If the bill is being introduced for that reason and that reason alone, then we would be better to stick with the freeze until the minister and his officials or the transport committee can devise a new bill or proper amendments to this one to solve some of the inequities in the freight rate structure which were the cause of the MacPherson royal commission being established. This bill is born out of that commission but it solves none of the inequities of the freight rate structure other than to say that the structure is too complicated so we should throw it wide open, start all over again and see which rates go up and which are abused, and if a shipper is abused and complains loudly and proves he is being hurt by sky-rocketing freight rates we will give him a
Transportation
hearing. In some cases he will be expected to prove not only that his interest is affected but also the public interest, be it the welfare of his community or province.
This bill really does not solve the question that the commission was set up to study. It does not bring about a solution to the inequities in the freight rate structure. It does the very opposite and therefore is not the answer that the Canadian people want. The bill takes the freeze off but it is a bill and nothing more than a bill and the reasons advanced are not good enough for the house to pass it before January 1 or even by the end of January. But who knows?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I hope hon. members will not die of shock when I say that the speech that has just been delivered by the hon. member for Acadia is much the best speech I have ever heard him deliver in the house and one of the best speeches I have heard in the house on a very complicated subject. But before I deal with his speech I want to say a word about something I was told. This is perhaps very unfair to the hon. member for Waterloo South and if he wishes to say so I shall accept that, but I was told he said, and certainly I heard the hon. member for Timiskaming say in what I thought was the most extraordinary speech in favour of public ownership I have heard in the whole course of my life here, when he condemned it up hill and down dale and then said we should have more of it. I do not imagine that the hon. member for Waterloo South, who perhaps has a greater capacity for consistency than the hon. member for Timiskaming, would have made that kind of speech.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
I believe, however, that any discussion of nationalization is beyond the scope of this committee. In the committee we are supposed to discuss the bill which is before us. I think it is proper on second reading to argue that we should not have this bill but rather a bill to nationalize the railways or any other type of transport, but once that point has been settled by the house I think we should then deal with the bill which is before us. I did not object when hon. members wandered back into this field, but I do hope that at some stage we will decide to stick to the bill before us and deal with it.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit me to ask a question? He referred to the discussion we had on second reading.

December 21, 1966
Transportation
Does the minister recall that on second reading of this bill he said that he appreciated the suggestion that it go to a standing committee and made it very clear that in passing second reading we were not in the ordinary sense committing ourselves to its principles. He suggested that on clause 1 we could in efEect reappraise our whole position in respect of the principles set out in this clause.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not agree entirely with the hon. gentleman. We both are speaking from recollection and one's recollection sometimes is not borne out by the written record.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If the minister will allow me to say so, I noted that statement at the time because it was a rather unusual one for the minister to make.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member would listen to my reply. The position I took was, I think, that there were only one or two points which I thought were being decided on second reading and one of those points was that the principle of nationalization was rejected. I am just saying now that we have had nearly two days of general debate under clause 1, and I would hope that after one or two members who are not present in the house and who 1 know wish to say something on this clause have spoken when we come back in January, we will be able to get down to the content of the bill.
As the hon. member for Comox-Albemi very properly said, apart from the broad principles of the bill, I will be quite willing to consider any reasonable amendment which I think will improve the bill, no matter which side of the house it comes from. When I say this 1 should like to add that I am pleased to say now that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Acadia about putting the word "adequate" in clause 1 to me seems to be a distinct improvement. Like him I do not care which of us moves it. I might beat him to the punch, but in any case he was the author.
Both the hon. member for Acadia and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle earlier talked about the pessimism of the MacPherson commission report and the much changed conditions since the time that report was produced. I will not be so partisan as to give any reasons for those changed conditions, but I am very glad to have the nod from the hon. member for Acadia. I was particularly cheered when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle said he believed that the prosperity was going to continue, because I really did not like the gloomy tone of the hon. member for Northumberland

who seems to be trying to talk us all into a depression again.
I do not think that anyone who has anything to do with western Canada these days can feel very depressed, because there is the kind of atmosphere in western Canada that there was when I was a boy and which unfortunately has been rather lacking through much of my adult life. I think every Canadian is very glad that this is so. I really do not think that the main purpose of the MacPherson commission was to deal with the inequities of freight rates. That was one purpose. I think the main purpose was to deal with a problem which had arisen because of the horizontal rate increases which were rolled back by the previous government at the time that commission was appointed. In order to roll them back the policy of paying subsidies to the railways was started, both in respect of the C.P.R. and the publicly owned railway. This was a new departure. To be quite fair to the previous government, I must point out that they did not say it was a policy. They said it was an expedient while a policy was being formulated.
The basic problem so far as the railways are concerned, however, is that those subsidies which started at $20 million have now reached $110 million. The subsidies which are being paid today do not take into account the new wage settlement in the railways which is approximately 24 per cent over a three-year period. Unless the railways in some way or other are permitted to improve their financial position, these funds will have to be raised somehow. They can be raised only in two ways. One source is from the shippers and the other is from the taxpayers. I think most of us in every part of the house feel that taxes are pretty high now and that we do not want to have automatic increases in taxation for specific services if those services can be made to pay for themselves.
I think it is as important to get rid of waste, inefficiency and redundancy now as it was when this was recommended by the MacPherson royal commission. It is just as important now as it was then, notwithstanding the great prosperity we have at the present time. We have to face this. We cannot forever keep putting it off.
Just as much as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle does, I regret the misunderstanding, call it what you will, about the action of the Board of Transport Commissioners. I do not think it has facilitated the passing of this bill. I think hon. members have been very
December 21, 1966

charitable with me because I think they realize that nobody was more embarrassed than I. The fact is, however, that we really must not put off forever the abandonment of lines which really are not needed, because in this way we are just making the taxpayers pay for them for very little purpose. At the same time we must make sure that we do not abandon any part of the structure which is needed or which will be needed. This is one of the things with which we have tried to deal in a constructive way, partly in this bill and partly by the government's voluntary action in undertaking to protect the great majority of the lines in western Canada. I think that action has created a much better climate in western Canada than there was before, and 1 think hon. gentlemen opposite were generous enough to say that.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
That is not the only redundancy. There are services which were once important but which the railways should get rid of when there is no social advantage involved and when we have to collect taxes out of the pockets of the Canadian public to pay for them. To the extent we can get rid of redundancy and unnecessary services in order to make the railways more efficient and obtain better value for our money, we will not have to raise extra money through taxes or through increased freight rates and rates for other services.
In order to get away from the problem of ever-mounting subsidies we must rid ourselves of useless expenditures, or at least those that cannot really be justified. We must recognize that we cannot have increases in costs and wages and continue indefinitely to have static freight rates, unless the taxpayers are going to pay the bill. That is what has been happening ever since the freeze was established. We are faced with a real crisis in this regard and there is no question about that.
Up until December 31 we will have paid in the neighbourhood of $100 million because of these various freezes. We have not taken any account yet of the latest wage settlement, and I include in that statement those settlements reached through legislation and those which, happily, were settled by mediation. What are we going to do about this problem? Should we take the freeze off and allow the present law to operate?
I do not think the hon. member for Acadia understood my question to the hon. member for Winnipeg South, and I am not surprised because I sometimes do not make myself as
Transportation
clear as I should. I asked the hon. member for Winnipeg South whether he would rather have the present law operate-I do not mean the freeze, because that is not the law, but a voluntary acceptance on the part of the railways of something less than the law-and let the railway companies go to the Board of Transport Commissioners to ask for a horizontal rate increase to meet increased costs and wages, or have the new bill. My opinion is that the former would be much worse for western Canada and even worse for the Atlantic provinces where there is a greater rollback. That is the point I tried to make to the hon. member for Winnipeg South. There is not a choice between continuing the freeze or adopting this bill but there is a choice between the old system of horizontal increases and adopting this bill.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: I should like to ask the minister whether the difficulty in respect of the maritimes is related to the fear which is brought about by a lack of understanding?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Atlantic provinces will have two full years to observe the experience of other parts of the country regarding the unknown because their freeze will continue. If we do not adopt this bill the Atlantic provinces will suffer most. Not only will the freeze be removed but the rollback will also be removed.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is it not the
freeze in rates which makes the people in the maritimes unsure about the essence of this bill?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The freeze exists in respect of non-competitive class rates and non-competitive commodity rates. This is a large part of the spectrum where a removal of the freeze would enable the railways to apply for a horizontal or another kind of increase in respect of these non-competitive rates. In my opinion the case the railway would make for an increase in rates would be unanswerable; otherwise we have been wasting the taxpayers' money by voting these subsidies all these years. That is my point.
We are faced with this stark choice, and I do not think we have faced it squarely before now. We have three possibilities before us. We must maintain ever increasing subsidies and ever increase taxes, as we have been doing since 1958, or adopt this bill or let the present law operate. I think we have reached the end of the road of subsidies. If we continue in that

December 21, 1966
Transportation
direction the people of this country are going to rebel against the burden of taxation.
The second alternative is to follow the law as it now exists, let the railway companies go to the Board of Transport Commissioners and increase their rates wherever they can and let them apply for abandonments wherever they feel they are necessary without interference with the present law.
The third alternative is to adopt something more constructive. I think I will be successful in convincing the house that we have something more constructive in this measure. What we are saying in clause 1 of this bill is that we believe it is feasible to allow rates to be determined by competition wherever there is competition. We believe that we can rid ourselves of a great deal of regulation in this way. You may ask, what does that mean? It makes a lot of difference. Thousands of man-hours in the form of very expensive labour, such as the services of Dr. Bandeen, are wasted every year in hearings before the Board of Transport Commissioners and dealing with unnecessary regulations. We feel strongly that we should not regulate things that need not be regulated. If we can protect the public, both shippers and consumers, by competition without having a whole lot of bureaucrats measuring the rules and interpreting them we will save a great deal of money.
One of the difficulties regarding competitive rates is that though during the freeze competitive rates could be increased, so much notice was required that other transport companies could often under-cut the competitive rates. We want to give the railway companies an opportunity to compete in competitive areas. We believe there is so much regulation now that these companies do not have the opportunity of operating as competitively as possible. I personally believe that railway companies can obtain far more revenue from competitive areas if they are allowed to compete. If they get more revenue from these areas they will not have the necessity to charge such high rates in non-competitive areas. This will result in more equitable freight rates for non-competitive areas.
The hon. gentleman asked whether the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. compete for business. Surely each of us judges that for himself and forms some ideas. There are more ways of competing for business than by rates. Even in areas where there is no alternative mode of transport, wherever two railway companies provide a service customers will go to both to see which one will give the best rate.

[DOT] (8:20 p.m4
That fact leads me to a point raised yesterday by the hon. member for Medicine Hat and another hon. member who raised the same point. They seemed to assume that, in some way or other, the railways under the law can set secret rates to favour one customer over another. There is no way whatever under the present law that the railways can lawfully set any secret rate. Every rate the railways charge any customer is, by law, available for inspection. I know a number of hon. members, particulary hon. members from Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, are very worried about the situation of the shippers of bulk commodities who obviously have no other way to ship except by rail. Therefore in that sense, not in the special sense of this bill, they are captive shippers. In other words, they have no other place to go than to the railways.
For almost all commodities many shippers have access to both railways. Once one of the railways has set a rate that is acceptable and has been published, under clause 16 any shipper who is charged a higher rate under similar geographical circumstances, similar circumstances of volume and so on, will have a grievance. He will have a grievance if he is charged a higher rate and it will be against the public interest to charge it. That is what the clause says. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg South did not thoroughly appreciate the fact that this clause was very substantially modified compared with the earlier provisions of the bill, the proposed section 317.
The modifications were based mainly upon the representations made by the government of Manitoba and it seemed to me they met the point fairly precisely. I believe that clause 16 has pretty well accomplished what many members hoped would be accomplished, and which would never be accomplished by a maximum rate formula such as there is in section 336. The purpose of the maximum rate formula is to protect the relatively small shippers, who at the present time, have to pay class rates. We have tried and have not been able to find any way to devise a maximum rate formula that would provide anything like reasonable revenues for the railways on small shipments that now go by class rates and would fit the circumstances of bulk shippers who now have commodity rates. Unless we are going to go right back into the field of complicated regulations, which we are trying to get away from, I do not believe it can be done. I say this because some of the best experts I have been able to find have tried
December 21, 198$

very hard and in various ways to find such a formula. I just do not think it can be devised.
I think there is far more protection of the kind that is really needed in the new clause 16 for commodity shippers than any kind of maximum rate formula that could possibly be devised. But we do need the maximum rate formula to protect the small shipper. I was rather interested that Dr. Bortz in his evidence before the committee indicated that under his calculations as well as he could make them, the shipper shipping small quantities would, under the maximum rate formula, in a substantial number of cases have a lower rate than he is now paying under the class rates. So it does appear to offer some reasonable measure of protection to the only kind of shipper that in my view a maximum rate formula can protect. The improved clause 16 will, I think, provide the protection needed to shippers of bulk commodities.
I should now like to deal with the question of the public interest. The public interest is not circumscribed, but there are certain things that are definitely said not to be in the public interest. The most important of these is found in subclause (3) of clause 16 on page 9 of the bill:
In conducting an investigation under this section, the Commission shall have regard to all considerations that appear to it to be relevant-
In other words, the commission may say that anything that seems to it to be relevant is part of the public interest.
-including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(a) whether the tolls or conditions specified for the carriage of traffic under the rate so established are such as to create an unfair disadvantage beyond that which may be deemed to be inherent in the location or volume of the traffic, the scale of operation connected therewith or the type of traffic or service involved:
That really means that if you are shipping from roughly the same geographic area to the same point, say on the coast, and are shipping at roughly the same volume, it is against the public interest to charge one shipper a different rate from another shipper. That is said quite specifically in this bill to be against the public interest. I think it would also clearly be against the public interest for a railway to seek to charge a rate which would in fact be so high as to make it impossible for a shipper to export who already had established himself and had had a rate previously, so long, of course, as a lower rate was compensatory, because that is one of the other requirements of the bill. We are saying that the railways
23033-728J
Transportation
are not permitted to charge rates that are not compensatory, except in certain specified cases where the treasury will make up the difference. When you take all these geographical and other factors into account and take the fact that there are two railways, to which certain hon. gentlemen object but which I think provides a quite considerable protection to shippers, it seems to me there is in clause 16 a pretty adequate protection, about as effective a protection as can be devised.
There seems to be-I do not think it is explicit at all-an implicit assumption that in some way or other the government is anxious to get railway rates higher than they need to be. I have to be elected. All my colleagues have to be elected. The members on this side of the house who are supporting the government have to be elected. They are not going to get many votes by giving the railways higher rates than they need. They are much more apt to get votes by any protective device that will keep the rates down. At the same time, we are not likely to continue to get public support for very long if we keep the rates down by dishing out endless subsidies and then bringing in increases in income tax and sales taxes to pay for them. This is the problem. If it were an easy problem to solve it would have been solved long ago. It would have been solved by the previous government without ever appointing the MacPherson royal commission. It would have been solved during all these years in between. It has not been solved.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
It is just about as difficult and intractable an economic and social problem as one could think of. I do suggest that, although there may still be some improvements and refinements, as a result of the conscientious work of the committee, based on what I like to think was a pretty good framework to start with, we have the makings of a good piece of legislation which, however, cannot be absolutely perfect. That is why we have made two or three provisions for statutory reviews of these procedures, because we know they are not going to be perfect and we know they will have to be improved in the light of experience. But I doubt that we will get a very much better bill by taking another six months at it. I certainly agree that we need a few more days.
I am disappointed, as are the hon. gentlemen opposite who are so sympathetic to me, but everybody knows that I really have been pushed around terribly by my colleagues. I am the low man on the totem pole. I admit

December 21, 1966
Transportation
that quite readily and I appreciate the tremendous, and I am sure utterly sincere, sympathy of all hon. gentleman opposite for my plight. However, I still think that we all have a job to do which most of us have been trying to do quite sincerely ever since this legislation was first introduced in the shadow of another crisis in the transportation industry last August.
I hope sincerely that early in January we can hammer out the remaining clauses of the bill and send it to the other place after which it will receive royal assent so that we can meet some of the problems in a new way instead of having to fall back on the existing legislation which was considered so bad by the previous government eight years ago that they appointed a Royal commission and started this process which we are trying to finish now.
I would be inclined to take the view that if there are other hon. members who have general speeches to make we should perhaps go on a little longer. But if this is not the case I might be inclined to yield now to the blandishments of my personal friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre who has expressed such solicitude for me.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the comments made by the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickers-gill). He always has interesting things to say, being either humorous or showing a great understanding of human problems, or simply because of the philosophical way in which he accepts criticism.
But there is something in his argument which did not strike the right note in my mind; let me try to explain.
At one point the hon. minister says, if I heard him correctly-and if I did not, I hope he will set me straight-that if the railway companies-this appears to be the new philosophy in the field of transportation- cannot make ends meet with the present rates, only two solutions remain: either raise the rates or ask the government to pay larger subsidies.
The hon. minister seems to think that the government contributions have reached a ceiling beyond which we cannot easily go. Therefore, passenger and freight rates will have to be raised. I presume this is what the hon. minister believes; personally, I have a different outlook on the problem.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman has left out what I believe is the most important element of all. Before we consider increasing the subsidies or setting higher rates there are two other things which should be done first. One is to get rid of everything that is wasteful or unnecessary so as to reduce costs, and to that extent there will be no need for higher subsidies or higher rates. The second thing is to give the railways a chance to get more business by enabling them to compete more actively for the traffic and to do so in a more businesslike way so that by getting more business at the existing rates they can improve their financial position and as a result will not have to raise their rates so much. I thought I had made that point. I believe that this is the most important point of all.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Up to this point I am in perfect accord with the minister but I do not agree with him when he says that this is the most important point. There is something else which troubles me and I would be very happy to hear the comments of the minister on this point which weighs on my conscience as a Canadian citizen. We all remember the time when the railways came to parliament and requested all kinds of grants, rights and benefits. They wanted to have rights in real estate, in natural resources, rights to operate air lines, steamship lines and hotels.
They promised that they would give the country the best of services for both passengers and freight and thus serve the best interests of the country. They were granted those benefits. Later they realized that it would be advantageous to them to organize all kinds of companies such as air line companies, steamship companies, real estate companies and hotels. I apologize for my English. It is not what it should be. However, I know the minister will understand me because he is very bright.
To return to what I was saying, they decided to keep those companies which brought profit and wash their hands of those which were not profitable. Then they came back to parliament and said, we are not making money on the passenger service and on some freight services. We seem to be in the red on some of the lines. Either the government should subsidize us or we will have to raise our rates. There is something wrong somewhere. The railways were granted all kinds of benefits when they first came to parliament. In spite of this they decided to discontinue the operation of those companies which did not bring a profit and then said, we have to raise
December 21, 1966

our rates or get more subsidies from the government. Maybe I am naive, and I know there are things I do not know, but it seems to me that there is something wrong somewhere and I would like to have the minister's reaction to what I have said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a question to which, if the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres had been brought up in Manitoba as I was, he would be very hesitant to give an answer because I am sure that the answer I would give would not command universal approval in western Canada. I will try to give the answer as straightforwardly as I can. Knowing I will never be able to defeat any of the members from Winnipeg anyway, I will not have to answer for my remarks in Winnipeg.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: You can always try. It might help us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would not give the hon. gentleman many chances in my constituency either.
First of all, I do not think it possible to have one rate structure for the Canadian Pacific Railway, to which the hon. gentleman's remarks applied, and an entirely different one for the Canadian National Railways. The companies which form the Canadian National Railways were also given a lot of the public domain to build the railways. They dissipated those assets and went broke. They were taken over by the government during the first world war and afterwards, and in my view they are publicly owned, though the hon. member for Timiskaming in an extraordnary kind of convoluted argument this afternoon seemed to suggest they were not publicly owned. At any rate they have been a tremendous drain on the treasury for a very long time.
There is no doubt that one could say to the Canadian Pacific Railway, because you have been provident when all the other private railways were improvident, because you made good use of the assets you had when Canadian Northern, Grand Truck Pacific and all the others dissipated theirs you should therefore take the revenue from all these assets into account and because you make so much out of Consolidated Mining and Smelting and other investments of that sort you can afford to give the Canadian people free service, or practically free service, on your railway. If they did that, wherever there was any competition, the Canadian National would get no traffic at all.
Transportation
This is one of the practical difficulties of this concept.
The Solicitor General will correct me if I am wrong about this but I understand that the courts have determined why the grants were made to the Canadian Pacific Railway. They agreed to build the railway if they got these concessions. A great many other Canadians received concessions out of the public domain in the 19th century for doing other things, but to my knowledge nobody has suggested they should provide their services at an uneconomic rate because either by good fortune, good luck or good managment they made the most of their assets.
If the Canadian Pacific were really the kind of soulless corporation it is customary to protray it as in political speeches, this problem would not be so difficult. We could say that they could take their revenues from their assets and run their railway at a loss because they are making so much out of other things. However, one must remember that Lord Mount Stephen, Lord Strathcona and Sir William Van Horne are all dead. Even Lord Shaughnessy and Sir Edward Beatty are dead. The securities of the C.P.R. have changed hands hundreds of times.
If we told the C.P.R. that they had to provide their services at a loss and derive all their revenues from these other companies, I can just see the Leader of the Opposition talking about the widows and orphans who own C.P.R. stock and how the Minister of Finance ought to compensate them for the shocking injustice being done to them by the public. The tears we have seen him weep would be nothing in comparison, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would not be far behind.
I have tried to avoid controversial subjects like this and like icebreaking on the St. Lawrence, where if you say something pleasing to one part of the country it is sure to displease another part. I am like the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, rather naive and simpleminded. There are times when I find it a little hard to perpetuate the old-fashioned hypocrisies in which no one really believes but which in politics we so often repeat over and over again.
The other day in Halifax I took my life in my hands, politically speaking, when I said I would not do anything to prevent the development of navigation on the St. Lawrence, that we were taking no extraordinary measures to accelerate it but would not do anything to prevent it. Five years ago if any politician had

December 21, 1966
Transportation
said that in Halifax he could not have got out of the city fast enough. Perhaps the junior member for Halifax is naive too, but he said I was fairly well received there.
The plain fact is that once in a while we have to face the realities of public life. Whether or not it was wise to give the C.P.R. 25 million acres of land, whether or not Sir John Macdonald, who is also dead, made a great mistake in doing this, we cannot undo it now. Whether or not it was wise to give this grant to build a railway I am not going to say. When I leave this place and return to a university to lecture in history I will give my opinion on this question, but I will not do so today.
Nevertheless this is a fact of our political life and the consequences that flow from that fact are with us. There is no practical way I can see of solving this problem simply by saying to the Canadian Pacific Railway that they have to undo all that has been done in the past, treat the revenues from all these other assets as though they were railway revenues and run the railway as a kind of public charity. That is just not practicable, and I do not think anyone in the house in his heart believes it is either. And if we do not think it is, why go on saying so? That is about the only answer I can give the hon. member.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: It is always charming to listen to the Minister of Transport. He has such a sense of humour that he should have been a lawyer. I do not know whether he is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Apparently he is not. He would have been a good lawyer and made a lot more money than he makes in the House of Commons, because he is really bright.

Mr. Chairman, I will now speak French again, because it is easier for me to say what I mean.
Like all other hon. members, I was impressed by the argument of the Minister of Transport, because he argues with unassailable logic and such good nature. However, as I said a little earlier, he did not answer my question. My problem is a matter of conscience, Mr. Chairman, as a Canadian. I think that all hon. members have the same problem and I have the impression, although that may be a rash judgment, that the minister feels the same way also, although he may not be as free as I am to say it publicly.

The minister said a little earlier: Because the C.P.R. has been given generous concessions and has displayed an intelligent and objective administration, should we take that as an excuse to beg that company for low rates? Of course, he is right; we are not asking for very low rates for passengers, freight, etc. It is not that at all. We simply want to know-and this is the question I am putting to the minister-if an objective, non partisan assessment could be made by neutral people concerning the concessions granted by Canada to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, since it began operations, in every field, when there was no question of subdividing the companies, so that we can find out which companies make a profit and which companies do not, thus enabling the government to grant subsidies to those companies operating at a loss.
There was no mention of this, when the Canadian Pacific Railways were established, and all these concessions were made. Would it not be advisable to clarify the situation today and make an appraisal of all that has been granted to the C.P.R.? As for those who later became millionaires and have since left us for a better world, I hope the Almighty is watching over them, because I do not want to trouble their eternal rest or that of their heirs. Nevertheless, I feel that when Canada granted them certain privileges, natural resources and operating rights, Canada was not entering into a ten, 20 or 50 year contract, but rather a contract which was to last as long as our country should survive. As for those who made millions with these concessions, it is not our worry whether they be in Heaven or elsewhere.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Our problem is whether the company, originally called Canadian Pacific Railways, which has since subdivided its operations to find out which would make millions and which would be in the red, thereby being subsidized by Canada, our problem, as I say, is whether we should not now make a re-appraisal and say: You have been conceded much up to now, but it is necessary that we should establish some common denominator in order to ascertain whether you should give back to Canada what it gave to you. And this, to a certain extent and taking into account the fact that such enterprises should bring in some profits, some dividends, certain advantages which we have no objection to.
I am not talking about nationalizing railways. I am for private enterprise as much as possible, at least just as long as contingencies
December 21, 1966

do not require otherwise. But I am one of those who, through simple-mindedness or candour, is a little surprised to see that the C.P.R. was given everything to start with and that subtle questions were not asked as to what would be economic and what would not, and that in 1966-67 the C.P.R. should say to us: well, railways, airlines, hotels and mines are all economic and we will keep them-I do not know, I am not familiar enough with the whole organization to make an objective analysis-but passenger service is not; therefore, let the government take it over or subsidize it. Well, there is something wrong here. An agreement was made with the C.P.R., tremendous advantages were conceded. I realize that the C.P.R. ran some risks at the time, but history has now proved that there have been ample rewards for the risks that were taken.
Should not the Canadian people today, who, after all, own those natural resources and those rights we have granted them, be justified to say: Give us a balance-sheet, showing what this has brought you up to now and what you have contributed to this country? And we should say: Do not subdivide companies so as to keep only those that are economical and leave us with the ones showing a deficit.
And I do not accept the minister's philosophy to the effect that every company should be maintained through charity. Oh no. Whenever I travel from Ottawa to Trois-Rivieres- well, in my case, there is no problem as I have a pass like all the other members-if I were not a member of parliament, I would be very happy to pay my fare.
This is an aside, Mr. Chairman. I wish to point out that the Canadian National is giving, at the present time, a better service than the Canadian Pacific, for many reasons. The Canadian National is a crown company. But if we were to talk about private companies, we could say to the Canadian Pacific: You should at least give us the same advantages.

I should like to summarize very briefly, Mr. Chairman. Let the minister forget that he is a minister of the crown. Let him remember that he is a Canadian and I am sure that he will feel as I feel. Let us have a balance sheet of what the Canadian Pacific has had from this country up to now. Let us investigate to see if the Canadian Pacific should keep everything it has had from this country. Let us see if the company is not trying to keep for itself what is a paying proposition and leaving to
Transportation
the country what should be subsidized by the government. That is the point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, we know that the Canadian Pacific cannot be taxed by the municipalities on its main line in western Canada. That is part of the contract of 1881 and that contractual right is part of the constitution of Canada at the moment, I regret to say. At least, the lawyers say it is. The Canadian Pacific Railway was built pursuant to a contract between the government of Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1881, if I remember correctly. The first statute of the session of 1881 was a statute confirming that contract.
It is true of course that this parliament is sovereign and we can abrogate any contract we like with or without compensation. That is the theory on which our constitution rests. But it has been the custom of all governments of Canada up to the present time to respect contracts into which governments have entered even if sometimes they were improvident contracts. I was speaking quite seriously a little while ago when I said that whether that contract originally was provident or improvident, it is a contract and it has to be construed by the courts. We can make a law saying that the contract is abrogated. Except in the one respect I have mentioned, I do not know of any other respect in which we could not abrogate it unilaterally. But we just do not do that kind of thing. We never have up to now and we have never had a government or parliament willing to do that.
If the Canadian Pacific is not carrying out that contract, if it is doing anything to divest itself of certain of its assets which is illegal, then of course we should make the C.P.R. obey the law. There is no question about that in my mind. If they are doing something that is against public policy we can make a law to stop it. I think perhaps that is where I would not disagree much with the hon. gentleman. If the Canadian Pacific is rearranging its assets in such a way as to be contrary to good public policy-I am not saying whether it is or is not because it is not a question I have studied-if it is rearranging its assets in such a way, and I know that there are many people who think it is and some people think strongly that it is not, then it would be an appropriate subject for this parliament to deal with and correct.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
But I think there are other things that we sometimes forget. When they got those 25 million acres in 1881, most people said the land

December 21, 1966
Transportation
was not worth anything. In the period after 1881, and particularly after 1896 and indeed up to the time my father homesteaded between the lakes in Manitoba in 1911, you could get a quarter section of land for five bucks. The land was free. You filed on the land and then you had to clear so many acres over three years and then you could get a patent and it was yours.
In some cases those lands turned out to have tremendously valuable minerals on them. In some cases they did not. As the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale knows as well as I do, homesteading was a lottery. But we have never said that the fellow who struck it rich has got to give it back, except to the extent anybody else does who makes money any other way, in ordinary taxes. This has gone on all over western Canada. It is not only the C.P.R. which have received grants of land.
I think we would have to look at that problem as a whole, deal with one case compared with another and do similar justice to all. Otherwise I think we would be creating a very serious injustice which would be visited upon people who had no original responsibility for the situation. But I certainly agree that to the extent that the hon. gentleman was able to show, or that anyone else was able to show, that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was arranging its affairs and assets in a way that was contrary to public policy, in other words, that it was really milking the railway, so to speak, and particularly if we were paying subsidies at the same time, then that would be something that certainly should be corrected. But I do not think that up to now that case has been proven. I think it is an open question. It is a question on which there can be some debate, but so far as the construction of the original contract is concerned that contract is there and open for everybody to read. I understand it has been construed several times in the courts and, unless we change the law, as the courts have construed it, it remains the law.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Shall we rise and report progress?


Mr. Wahn:: Mr. Chairman, since second reading of this bill I have learned that several mining companies in western Canada are somewhat concerned about certain provisions of the bill. I refer to provisions which permit the railway companies to fix freight rates for the transport of bulk commodities.

The legal firm of which I am a partner has been acting for several years for several of these companies, and I personally have acted for several of them for a number of years. Under these circumstances I suggest that the proper procedure for me is to disclose an interest and refrain from voting in connection with the matter before the house and unless instructed otherwise by you, Mr. Chairman, or by Mr. Speaker, that is the course I propose to follow. I do not propose to vote on any clauses of this bill which relate to rate fixing by railway companies in respect of commodities which might be shipped by clients of our firm for whom I have acted in the past.


Mr. Baldwin:: I want to ask the minister a question which I do not expect him to answer now. First, may I say I think this has been a very useful exercise. The very frank statement the minister has made will make our dealing with the subsequent clauses much easier when we come to them. The minister dealt extensively with clause 16 and the question of public interest, and rightly so. The minister suggested that when we come to subclause (3) we will in effect be defining the public interest. Is the minister not really begging the question, because subclause (1) refers to certain conditions which "may prejudicially affect the public interest?"
Once there has been a prima facie establishing of that point the commission can then institute an investigation, but it is only when the investigation has commenced and is under way that you take into account the different aspects which are dealt with in subclause (3). So really you have no more definition of public interest than what the commission itself may decide is a proper and reasonable interpretation, unless a matter reaches the stage where a court might give that definition. I am concerned because the words "public interest" could be so construed, so interpreted that to establish this prima facie case it would be essential to bring it to the attention of the commission, which would mean that a full, very wide and very deep type of interest was being prejudiced.
I will not go any further now. I think this matter affects people coming from regions such as mine who may feel there may be something that affects the interests of the Peace River country and northern Canada, but they may come up against the suggestion that the "public interest" here means the national interest in the sense in which "national interest" is used in clause 1. Somewhere in our proceedings could some consideration
December 21, 1966

could be given to this matter? I do not think it is the kind of phrase you can put a limiting definition on, but we could say, without limiting the generalities of it, that we have taken it to mean certain things. This is important because any benefits which flow from clause 16 must be founded on a wide and proper interpretation of clause 16.
If I am a shipper and feel I am being discriminated against, and in the course of my business I deal with so many hundreds of people, is this considered to be the public interest or must it be public interest in that it affects a very substantial area or region? This is a point that needs clarification.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. and learned gentleman's intervention demonstrates to me quite conclusively that I would never like to be opposite him in court because he has raised a point that had never even occurred to my lay mind until he raised it. Since he has raised it, I would want to get legal advice on it before I reply, because it had not occurred to me that if one said in any part of the clause that the investigation would take particular account of one set of circumstances that those circumstances would not, ipso facto, be one definition of the public interest. I am sure that is what is intended. It is certainly what was intended in the mind of the nominal author of the bill, the Minister of Transport, but perhaps I should consult the real author, the draftsman, before I attempt to give an answer to the hon. gentleman. I thank him very much for raising this question because I think a proper answer to it will help us a great deal in our consideration of the bill when we come back to it.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister mentioned his trip to Halifax. I think the minister's performance now indicates that he can come to almost any part of Canada and be well received. I recall many years ago when the hon. minister was in opposition that we were talking about a railway to Pine Point and the minister then made a very strong and determined attack in which he was aided and abetted by the Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, and the then hon. member for Laurier, so much so that even months after mothers in my area persuaded their children to go to sleep by saying that if they did not the bad Pickersgill would get them. I think the minister could now go safely into the Peace river country and we might even set
Transportation
aside for him one of those homesteads about which he is becoming so nostalic.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say one
word about the Pine Point railway. I do not apologize for any argument I used. It was a long-shot gamble which the C.P.R., although it owned the mine, would not take and which I did not think the taxpayers of Canada should take. I did not think that that reckless gambler, Donald Fleming, should have gambled the public's money in that manner. But I admit that it has paid off.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I cannot resist rising to take part in this debate. Does the minister not remember that as minister of northern affairs and national resources of that day I pointed out to the house and to the minister, when he was in opposition, that if we did not get that mine into operation that by about 1962 or 1963 we would have to import lead and zinc into western Canada and that in the national interest it was imperative that we move forward. Surely he must remember that debate. It is not right to say that this was a gamble when there was a sure market.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All I can say is that the C.P.R. missed a big opportunity when they did not make the hon. genteleman the president, because they would have built the line and would have had the profits. We now know who the gambler was. It was not Donald Fleming at all. All I can say is that the hon. gentleman is noted for his vision and this certainly is one vision which has turned out.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I must rise again to say that "gamble" is the wrong word. It was a pure case of a calculated risk which had very little gamble in it. It is just one of the ten proposals made in 1958 which have turned out well.


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, I move that we rise, report progress and ask-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before that may I say a
word or two and while I am saying a word or two perhaps my hon. friend the house leader might say a word or two to the whip on the other side. I know we do not usually draw attention to these matters.


J. Michael Forrestall: Direct your remarks to the port of Halifax while you are doing this.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely what I got up to do. I realize I have been negligent in failing to say anything tonight in respect of the intervention by the junior member for

December 21, 1966
Transportation
Halifax who made a very thoughtful if somewhat parochial speech this afternoon. I was hoping that before the end of his speech he would get as far as Musquodoboit but apparently he only got across the Angus Macdonald bridge to Dartmouth, and I am sure that will not do him any harm in the future.


J. Michael Forrestall: I got out to the airport too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. The hon. gentleman, when he is not parochial, is always up in the air.


J. Michael Forrestall: Or out at sea.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say that 1 agree entirely with what the hon. gentleman said about the real future of the port of Halifax. I think the hon. gentleman has been quite generous to me since he came into the house, and as an old man I appreciate it. I think the hon. gentleman is quite right when he says that the future of the port of Halifax

I am paraphrasing what he said-is not in getting crumbs from the rich man's table. It is in developing in a modern way and taking advantage of the most magnificent natural harbour on the east coast of Canada.


J. Michael Forrestall: I hope you will say that in February as well as in December.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh yes. This is a harbour which has the tremendous advantage of having really deep water and easy access. It is adapted to the ships of the future and I am convinced that they will bring great economies to maritime transportation in exactly the way that the St. Lawrence ship canal has brought great economies and I believe will bring greater economies to transportation in the central parts of Canada. I think we must have real foresight. We must do everything we can to take advantage of what we have and be ready both on the east and the west coasts. The last time I was in Vancouver-


An hon. Member:: Is that parochial?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not want to be parochial. My parish is Canada. I recognize, however, that Halifax is a very important part of Canada. I believe the real future of the port of Halifax depends upon two things. One is the development of the hinterland of Halifax and the bringing of that part of Canada into a position where it will not be dependent upon the winter traffic from other parts of the country. It is, nevertheless, entitled to the historic rights it has and we will safeguard them in this bill.

That, however, is not the future of Halifax. The future of Halifax will be far more dynamic. First, there will be the development of the hinterland and, second, Halifax has a real place in the future because it is a port which can handle these ships of the future to an extent to which no other place in eastern North America can.


J. Michael Forrestall: Will the government help us in this task?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have done a fair amount already, as I am sure the hon. member knows. I hope we will pass this bill before I have been the Minister of Transport for three years, which will be by the beginning of February, but in the three years during which I have been Minister of Transport I think the improvements in the port of Halifax have been very substantial indeed. We are not going to stop where we are now. We are going to go on trying to be at least one step ahead of these developments so that we will be ready for them in Halifax.
I am advised that there might be some disposition on the part of the house to deal with item 85 on the order paper in the next few minutes, if I were to ask the committee to rise. If I can ascertain in a rather unusual way, but through the usual channels, whether there would be some disposition to take a few minutes to deal with this item, I should be glad to do so.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the minister's words let me extend the season's greetings from the people of Halifax. We were pleased to receive his in the form in which he has seen fit to deliver them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. member for Halifax. If my understanding is correct item No. 85 on the order paper is to be dealt with at this time. I would ask the chairman to rise and report progress in order that we can deal with this matter of business.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall I rise and report progress?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it
agreed that we allow the minister's request?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADA LABOUR (SAFETY) CODE PROVISION FOR EMPLOYMENT SAFETY IN FEDERAL WORKS

John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. S-35, respecting the prevention of employment injury in federal works, undertakings and businesses.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the members of this party could have one copy of the bill which is now under discussion.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Perhaps I should inform the hon. member that members of the committee will receive copies in a few minutes.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: While copies of this bill are being distributed perhaps I could say a word or two as a member of the standing committee which considered this measure. In its present form the bill is not sufficient in its application in so far as members of this party are concerned. As the minister has suggested it did receive thorough study in a committee of the other place as well as in the standing committee of this house. While we regret that our amendments were not supported by a majority of this house we are satisfied to allow the passage of the bill without extended discussion. We are prepared to allow the minister and his department to have a whirl at this measure in its present form. We may have some further remarks to make about it at a future date in respect of how it could be improved. The bill in its present form represents a constructive step in the field of safety for employees of this country, and we are appreciative of the fact that the proposal was brought forward at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
Canada Labour (Safety) Code
On clause 8-Special committees.
Michael Starr: In respect of clause 8, it is the intention of the government to provide for consultative and advisory committees?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am pleased to assure the hon. member that we are very interested in this measure and we certainly will welcome the advice of representatives of employees and employers.


Mr. Crouse:: My remarks may not relate to the appropriate clause but the bill does state that it applies to all federal works, undertakings or businesses. I assume this means the shipping industry. Will this bill apply to a company employing stevedores in the event that a stevedore is injured?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes. Under the definition in this bill longshoremen employed by stevedoring companies will be included in the general category of shipping. This is a safety act, and we are by the provisions of this measure attempting to provide certain safety measures.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Clauses 9 to 31 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: the third reading of the bill.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask a question for clarification under clause 30 but we went from clause 28 to clause 1 while I was making up my mind. Can the minister tell me whether this measure will cover federally owned and controlled ships under any type of repair, overhaul or refit in any private dockyard or shipyard?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, it would certainly cover the operations in dockyards. It covers generally any work or business undertaking that comes within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada. It is broad enough to cover that.


J. Michael Forrestall: I am not certain that the answer the minister has given covers the area that has concerned me for many months. I refer to certain situations that developed in the Dosco shipyards in Halifax some months ago. As a result of a fire on board one of the military vessels of the Department of National Defence, certain injuries were sustained by employees. The investigations have not yet
December 21, 1966

Expression of Christmas Wishes been successfully concluded to the satisfaction of union or management. I understand some claims are still outstanding. Because of this concern I wanted to raise the question in committee, and I apologize to the house for raising it now.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am informed that the point raised by the hon. gentleman was dealt with by the other hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) before the committee. The reason I gave the answer I did was that this bill does not cover the public service of Canada. That is covered by government regulation. I am told this matter was gone into at some length in the committee.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication addressed to the Speaker of the House of Commons:
Ottawa, 21 December, 1966
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that Hon. Emmett M. Hall, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor-General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 21st December, at 9.45 for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be.
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General. HOUSE OF COMMONS



EXPRESSION OF CHRISTMAS WISHES

Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is a very real privilege to be able, as the leader of the government, to wish all hon. members here the compliments of the season.
I feel that I am wishing these compliments to a gallant band of survivors who have resisted the temptation to fly home prematurely and have even resisted the temptation to stay out in the lobby and watch a hockey game on television. It has been a long and hard session. In our own ways, and they have not always been the same ways, we have done our best to make it a productive session in the best interests and welfare of the people of our country.
I think we have earned a Merry Christmas. I hope we will deserve a Happy New Year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, we wish to thank the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) for his good wishes and the hope that we have a happy new year. I do not think the new year can be very prosperous in view of all the taxes with which we have been saddled and with which we expect to be further saddled in the next budget to be brought down. However, in all sincerity we wish to reciprocate the Prime Minister's good wishes and say to him and his colleagues that we wish them a very merry Christmas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party may I express our thanks to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) for the good wishes he has extended. We are very happy to reciprocate those good wishes to the Prime Minister, and we convey them also to the members of the government and to all hon. members of all parties in this House of Commons. We would like also to extend our special greetings to you, sir, as our first commoner-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -to the other occupants of the chair, to those at the table, the staff, the page boys, and because it is Christmas I might even include the press. We join in the sentiments the Prime Minister has expressed. We trust we may all have a merry Christmas and that our work in the coming months will make it a happier new year for the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Complon-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to express to you and to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) the heartfelt admiration of our group. We offer you our best wishes for a long and happy life.
We extend the same wishes also to all the hon. members of this house, to all those who worked to make Canada a better country and give it better legislation and a higher standard of living.
Last year, I said that I would do my best to convince the house to increase family allowances. I have not won my point, but
December 21, 1966

I hope that 1967 will be a year of achievements and that family allowances will be increased, so that every family may benefit from its share of the technical, scientific and other progress achieved, and everything to which families are entitled.
I express the wish that each and every Canadian family will enjoy a better standard of living all through 1967 and share in the growth of production that we will have again in 1967, because Canada is developing and going ahead. Moreover, if such development occurs in Canada, it must also be reflected in each family and in each home, because every individual should get his share.
Such is the wish I make, saying thank you to everyone and wishing a Merry Christmas to all.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Social Credit group I would like to express our appreciation to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) for his words of greetings and best wishes. We also wish to convey our good wishes to the right hon. gentlemen, to the government, to you, sir, and to every member of the house.
In the past weeks and months we have witnessed acrimonius debates which may not have been conducive to a happy Christmas, but I am sure that now that we have drawn close to the time of the year when we remember the birth of the Prince of Peace we will all join in some soul-searching which will help us when we return to carry out our responsibilities in a pleasing and satisfactory manner.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my small group, I wish to thank the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) for his good wishes and I wish to extend to him and his party, and also to every member of this house, my best wishes for a happy and prosperous year 1967.
Obviously, 1967 will be a very important year for Canada. Indeed, we will be celebrating our first centennial and we will play host to a world exhibition.
In this our centennial year, may all Canadians, from sea to sea, finally realize that national harmony and brotherhood cannot flourish in this country unless everyone receives fair and equal treatment.
Christmas Adjournment
And, in connection with the world exhibition, may all foreign visitors to our country feel with us that we are part of a single and great family here on earth and realize that we must all work to banish war from this earth and love one another as individuals and as a people, true to the teachings of the Divine Child, from the day he was born in the manger and throughout his whole life.


Mr. Speaker:: On behalf of my colleagues in the chair, of the table officials and of the staff of the house, I thank hon. members for the gracious greetings and wishes which have been extended by them.
May I take this opportunity to invite hon. members to call on the Speaker in room 16 to give me an opportunity to extend my personal greetings to all of you.



PRIVATE BILL


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, it is with some reluctance that I ask the house to consider now a private member's bill which has been on the order paper for a long time, namely Bill No. S-38. It has been considered by the committee on private bills and returned to the house without amendment. I should like to ask for passage of the bill tonight.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement to the request of the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The house in committee on Bill No. S-38, to incorporate the Evangelical Covenant Church of Canada-Mr. Rapp-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 17 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, when this house adjourns at the end of this sitting, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, January 9, 1967, at 2.30 o'clock p.m., provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Her Majesty's Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he

December 21, 1966
Royal Assent
is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and,
That in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[DOT]	(9:50 p.m.)

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows;
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
[DOT]	(10:00 p.m.)
An Act to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical
care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans.
An Act to incorporate League Savings and Mortgage Company.
An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act.
An Act respecting the Boundary between the Province of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories.
An Act to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.
An Act respecting the prevention of employment injury in federal works, undertakings and businesses.
Mr. Speaker:: Before adjourning the house, may I reiterate the invitation I extended a moment ago to hon. members, to the officials of the house and to members of the press gallery, to continue the debates in "Room Sixteen".

Pursuant to special order made this day, the house stands adjourned until Monday, January 9, 1967, at 2.30 p.m.
At 10.06 p.m. the house adjourned, pursuant to special order.

Monday, January 9, 1967