1966-02-11

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the house that an objection signed by the hon. members for Queens, Prince, Queens, Esqui-malt-Saanich, Bruce, Kings, York-Sunbury, Wetaskiwin, Rosetown-Biggar and Charlevoix has been filed with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter 31, statutes of Canada, 1964-65, to the report of the electoral boundaries commission for the province of Prince Edward Island relating to the proposed electoral districts of that province.

If the house will agree, I suggest that we follow the procedure used on former occasions in this session so that the text of the objection will be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table an order in council dealing with appointments and reappointments to fill vacancies on the Economic Council of Canada.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the report of a study of the disabilities and problems of Hong Kong veterans.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the exchange of letters which the Prime Minister tabled yesterday and the arrangements announced in the letters to the premiers, what has the Prime Minister to say about the amount of $17,350,000 to the province of Quebec? Has that amount been turned over unconditionally, or is it understood that it is earmarked for educational purposes?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I had better read this particular sentence which appears in the communication from the Prime Minister of Canada to the government of Quebec and with consequential changes in the letters to the other provinces.
For Quebec, the existing special arrangement in respect of the annual $2 per capita grant will be continued and, to give effect to the increase in the per capita grants, a cash payment will be made to bring total federal assistance-
We are talking about education.
-to your province to a level which is in proportion by population to what all other provinces are receiving.
Then the next sentence, which also deals with education, says:
Tim ^act that the organization and institutions of education in your province are considerably different from those in other provinces warrants in our view the continuation of special arrangements in respect of these grants.
-in other words, these grants relate to education.


John George Diefenbaker: Now, Mr. Speaker, I presume that the view of the premier of Quebec as announced in the legislature yesterday, that he had won an unusual victory, has been brought to the Prime Minister's attention. I take it from the excerpts he has read, as pointed out, that there has been no change whatever.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a change, but I do not consider it as a matter involving victory or defeat. There is a change from the arrangements made when the right
1070	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry hon. gentleman was head of the government. The earlier aid took the form of an abatement of the corporation tax for Quebec. This time it takes the form of a $3 per capita grant in addition to the abatement which amounted to $2.


John George Diefenbaker: But the grant in question which is paid to Quebec is earmarked for education and must be so spent? Is that correct?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I read the sentence from the communication.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question?
Has the premier of Quebec asked the federal government for a tax reduction or some tax credit in lieu of cash?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The letter from the premier of Quebec is clear on this matter. He is quite satisfied with this arrangement as an ad hoc arrangement for the current university year. These changes cover that year only, and during this time we have to work out more permanent arrangements in this field.

I should like to make a clarification. When I referred earlier to the current academic year I should have called it the academic year 1966-67".



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I was intending to direct this question to the Minister of Finance. In his absence I should like to refer it to the Prime Minister. Is the increase in the interest rate on Canadian treasury bills reported in today's press the result of deliberate policy by the Bank of Canada and the governor in order to promote a tighter credit policy, in response to what the governor is reported to believe are warning signals of inflation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to consult with the Minister of Finance before I answer this question. I will try to do so on Monday.



REPORTED INTENTION TO FURTHER DEVALUE CANADIAN DOLLAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: have a question for the Minister of Finance,
IMr. Pearson.]
DEBATES	February 11, 1966
but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. I am sure the Minister of Finance is aware, as no doubt the Prime Minister is aware, of the rumours and speculation in New York financial circles that Canada is going to further devalue our dollar. If, as I believe, there is no intention to take action of this kind, will the Prime Minister make a statement to this effect in order to assure that the flow of United States funds for mortgage and other loan purposes is not curtailed?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: I can assure the hon. gentleman that there is no intention whatever of changing the value of the Canadian dollar.



REPRESENTATIONS TO U.S. RESPECTING APPLICATION OF MONETARY POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, 1 simply desire to say that we have just had word that, as the Prime Minister has said, much to our regret the President does not concur in the tabling of his letter.']
Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with questions asked me yesterday by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. With reference to one question he asked I would like to say that the written representations I had in mind were those to which I referred in the house on January 27, and on which an aide-memoire was presented by the government of Canada to the government of the United States.
These regulations involved issues of extraterritoriality in financial matters, similar to those presented by the United States balance of payment guide lines, on which the Minister of Finance indicated on February 2 that high level oral representations had been made. Of course my colleagues and I will be discussing these matters when we meet with members of the United States cabinet on March 4, but on looking over the question this morning I thought I had better make my answer clear.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam also asked whether the minister would consider tabling the aide-memoire. Would he tell us now whether he will table it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am looking into certain aspects of that question, and I certainly think, that at the proper moment, it should be possible to table the aide-memoire in question.
February 11, 1966



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister tell us whether an invitation has been extended to Valery Tarsis, the Russian author of "Ward Seven", to come to Canada as he has indicated he would appreciate doing, or does the government intend to offer such an invitation to him?


Mr. Speaker:: This seems to me to be an important and interesting question, but I doubt whether it should be answered at this time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the United States government is now greatly increasing its economic aid to South Viet Nam, is it the intention of the government to increase Canadian economic aid to that country?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, we have already indicated that we could have provided almost half as much again by way of additional assistance in Viet Nam if it were possible for us to put this money to good use. This situation has not altered. We are having some difficulties, because of the general situation in the south, in putting some of these funds to constructive use but I sincerely hope it will be possible for more aid to be given.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Oxford, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate whether he has had any requests from the United States government for greater Canadian participation in relation to the stepped up program of the United States government in Viet Nam?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: It will be recalled, Mr. Speaker, that when the President of the United States wrote to a number of countries last year his letter was not made public, much to our regret. Nevertheless the Prime Minister did indicate that there had been a request for assistance along the lines that we
Inquiries of the Ministry had been providing, and we were able to indicate at that time that we had increased the amounts available for external economic aid to Viet Nam.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: As a further supplementary, has there been any recent request, particularly since the Honolulu conference?


Paul Joseph James Martin: At the NATO meeting last December the United States Secretary of State did speak in general terms about further assistance to Viet Nam. I had discussions with him, and it was clear between us that the kind of assistance he was asking Canada to provide was the assistance provided for under our external aid office allocations.


John George Diefenbaker: As a further supplementary question, didn't the Prime Minister say at the time that there was a request for some military assistance?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Well, the Prime Minister did earlier make an observation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and it was a very responsible observation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this underlines the desirability of tabling that particular document from the President, and I am only sorry he has not given his permission to do so.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, 1 simply desire to say that we have just had word that, as the Prime Minister has said, much to our regret the President does not concur in the tabling of his letter.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State whether she is in a position to answer two questions which were asked a week ago yesterday and a week ago today. The first related to whether the speech of the chairman of the Civil Service Commission reflected government policy, and the second was to ask the hon. lady whether she or other members of the government had received a report from the interdepartmental committee on bilingualism in the public service and, if so, what consideration had been given to it.

February 11. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have ascertained that such a report was delivered to the Prime Minister's office, and I understand that in due course the Prime Minister will be making a statement in respect of this matter.


Richard Albert Bell: Would the hon. lady deal with the first question?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I thought I had, Mr. Speaker.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to address this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but in his absence may I address it to the Prime Minister. Perhaps that would be more appropriate in any case. In view of the assurances given in Toronto this week by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the government intends to commence contributions to medicare plans on a nation-wide basis by July 1, 1967, can the Prime Minister say by what date it will be necessary to have legislation enacted so that this will be possible?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say by what date we would have to make our arrangements to make the date of July 1, 1967, possible, but I will be very glad to look into the matter with the minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will this legislation be enacted at this session of parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I certainly hope so, Mr. Speaker, but naturally we are still in contact with the provinces on this matter.



REPORT ON MEETING OF COMMITTEE ON TIDAL POWER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. F. Kennedy (Colchester-Hanls):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Is he in a position today to report on the deliberations of the special committee on tidal power which met here in Ottawa yesterday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, but I will be glad to look into the matter to see whether I can make a report on Monday or Tuesday of next week.



TRANSPORTATION ARRANGEMENTS TO FILL ORDER FROM JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct this question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but in his absence and because it is a related question I shall direct it to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the statement made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources outside the house, in Vancouver, that there was a new order for five million tons of coal for Japan, can the minister now report that the C.P.R. is prepared to compete with the Great Northern Railway on freight rates in the United States in reference to coal, and to supply the same kind of service as the United States railways supply in respect of the shipment of coal to the coast?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have been in fairly close touch with this matter, as I am sure the hon. member is aware, and I understand that negotiations are going on at the present time between the Canadian Pacific Railway and at least one if not all three of the coal companies, two of which are located in the Crowsnest Pass and one in the hon. gentleman's constituency on the main line of the C.P.R. My impression is that these negotiations constitute hard bargaining between people who are, as I am sure the hon. gentleman would approve, representatives of private enterprise. The negotiations are being watched very closely indeed, I can assure the hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: Are they under surveillance?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, 24 hour surveillance.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is he aware that the B and B commission has initiated an investigation into the operation of the Canadian press with radio stations across this nation, requesting views as to how they can be improved; and does he approve of such action?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that but I will be glad to look into it.
February 11. 1966	COMMONS DEBATES


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I did give him brief notice of it. Has the hon. minister seen the interesting suggestions made by Ambassador Jean Chauvel, who has recently conferred with leaders in Hanoi and Peking, the suggestions being the neutralization of Viet Nam and a transition government in South Viet Nam with free elections, as a possible basis for settlement? Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs recommend that the government of the United States take a serious look at these proposals in view of the fact they come from a knowledgeable and experienced source?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I agree that Mr. Chauvel is a distinguished ambassador of his country and that anything publicly attributed to him deserves most careful attention. We are examining this publication and seeking to verify what has been attributed to Mr. Chauvel in this connection.
I should simply like to remind my hon. friend that the United States in its 14 points has specified that the countries of Southeast Asian can be non-aligned or neutral as they so choose, and that the United States wants no bases in Southeast Asia nor a continuing presence of U.S. troops in South Viet Nam if peace is assured. The United States government accepts the principle of free elections in South Viet Nam and the reunification of Viet Nam, to be determined by the Viet Nam people through their own free decisions.
I will take the question under further advisement.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforlh):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Conservative party attitude in this house that Canadian troops should be committed to Viet Nam, can the government assure the house that no such action is contemplated by them?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Monleilh:: Who said that?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. We cannot permit this statement to go unchallenged. No Conservative has recommended that Canadian troops be committed
Inquiries of the Ministry to Viet Nam. I have suggested that non-combatant forces be sent to Viet Nam to assist with medical and hospital services.


Mr. Crouse:: McCarthyism.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question was improper because it expressed an opinion, and I suggest that in the reply of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who has made the correction that he sought to make, there was really no question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that we now recognize another member who has a question to bring forward. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge).



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, which is known to some of us now as the department of ghost spokesmen. In view of the fact that the minister failed to deal with two of the questions I asked him on February 9 and yesterday, and only made a few general observations as to freedom of speech, is the minister now in a position to answer my questions 1 and 2 of that day?
First, does the agreement with the West German government for the training of troops in Canada provide for public lectures on the achievements of the German army; and second, have these lectures received the approval of the Department of External Affairs or the Department of National Defence?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I admire my hon. friend's persistence, Mr. Speaker. I can only say that I have already answered the first part of his question. There is nothing in the agreement that deals with this kind of matter, and of course the government of Canada through the Department of External Affairs neither approves nor disapproves of speeches made by private individuals, including the speeches that my hon. friend himself might make from time to time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister know that section III of Queen's Rules and Orders for the defence forces of Canada, dealing with
February 11. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry the question of public meetings and the disclosure of information about any defence forces, relates not only to the defence forces of Canada but also to the armed forces of any country while on Canadian soil?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My colleague the Minister of National Defence knows of this regulation and has told me about it; but he also asked me to remind the hon. gentleman that Canadian officers from time to time make speeches in Germany and that the German government does not seek to curb these speeches being made by our officers. The government of Canada has no intention of curbing the principle of free speech, as my hon. friend seems determined that we should.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of National Defence under what authority Canadian officers are making public speeches in Germany?
Hon Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): Under the authority of their commanders, as set out in the regulations, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A further supplementary question. Do not the Queen's Regulations and Orders supersede any orders from commanders of forces?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Hear, hear.


Mr. Hellyer:: The Queen's Regulations and Orders provide.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether as a result of questions he has been asked in the last few days he has been able to ascertain whether Victor Spencer is still in Canada.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in the past few days the right hon. gentleman has on several occasions asked me whether Victor Spencer had applied for a visa. Because of the kindness the right hon. gentleman has shown me in the last few days I did not want to embarrass him; but the Canadian government does not issue visas to residents, nor is it possible for us to know whether a foreign country has granted a visa.


Mr. Fairweather:: You are supposed to have him under surveillance.


Mr. Nielsen:: Don't you check his mail?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The government of the country does issue passports. Now, I know for a fact that Mr. Spencer does not have a passport, nor did he apply for one; and he is in Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: How recently did the minister have the information that Spencer is in Canada? Of course, I know about visas. I would have thought with a man under surveillance you would ascertain from the government of the United States and other governments whether visas had been granted. This is a dangerous man, according to the minister.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I should like to ask him whether he or the government have arrived at a decision as yet to set up a commission of inquiry into the Spencer case?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I could deal with that because the question was addressed to me in the first place. I hope to be able to make a statement on this matter when the estimates of the Department of Justice are under consideration, which should be early next week.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rene Emard (Vaudreuil-Soulanges):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
Does the minister intend to meet with Montreal postal employees, since a number of them would like an interview with him?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, as I will be paying a visit to the Montreal post office Monday, I will also meet with the president of the Montreal postal employees' union, Mr. Houle, as well as with five women apparently representing 750 temporary postal workers in Montreal.
February 11, 1966



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: have a question for the Minister of Transport which perhaps he would like to take as notice. Can he tell the house the present status of community antenna television, and will amendments to the Broadcasting Act be introduced during this session covering the jurisdiction of the Board of Broadcast Governors on this aspect of broadcasting?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know whether a question about something that might be done some time this session is urgent within the meaning of the standing orders, but the matter is under consideration.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister not think there is some urgency in view of the C.T.V. matter and the Barrie-Toronto transfer?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are, of course, existing regulations about which the hon. gentleman is as well informed as I am.



LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether Mr. Gerard Picard, a member of the Canada Labour Relations Board has resigned his position or has indicated he desires to resign?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask that that question be placed on the order paper.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskaioon):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Is she in a position yet to answer a question regarding the establishment of a C.B.C. television station in the city of Saskatoon?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I believe the hon. member knows that for some time the C.B.C. has been prepared to file an application with the Board

Inquiries of the Ministry of Broadcast Governors for a licence to operate a second channel in Saskatoon. However, the Board of Broadcast Governors has not been receiving applications for the creation of new alternate broadcasting outlets pending a declaration of policy by the government on the question of precedence in applications for second station licences.
This matter, of course, has been commented upon in the Fowler report, which is under very active study by the government at the moment and which it is anticipated, during the course of this session, will be discussed by the standing committee on broadcasting.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. Regimbal (Argenfeuil-Deux-Montagnes):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it permissible for a member of the Queen's Privy Council to publicly criticize the monarchy in general and Her Majesty in particular, and if not what does he intend to do about his nominee, Yvon Dupuis?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In the light of statistics released yesterday indicating that in the Atlantic region 10.5 per cent of the labour force is unemployed, has the minister any short range, middle range or long range plans for a special effort toward reducing this unemployment in the Atlantic region, which now stands at twice the national average?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minisier of Labour):: While the situation is regrettable, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that the situation today represents an improvement over last year. There has been a gradual improvement during very recent years in the month of January over January of the preceding year. I might say that responsibility for special programs is that of my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I can assure the hon. member and the house that everything within reason is being done to improve the situation referred to by the hon. member.

February 11, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



SOUTH VIET NAM-PROVISION OF MEDICAL PERSONNEL AND HOSPITAL FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what progress has been made with regard to sending medical or hospital assistance to South Viet Nam, after two months of contemplation of the problem.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are now waiting to hear from the government of South Viet Nam on whether it can provide facilities which would enable us to make effective certain programs of rehabilitation with which Dr. Gingras has been particularly concerned on behalf of the government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister consider doing more than just this proposed rehabilitation program, and provide on a large scale medical and hospital services for not only the civilian population of South Viet Nam but for the fighting troops there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have been in consultation with the government of South Viet Nam on this matter as well as with United States authorities. This is thought to be the kind of effective contribution that Canada could make under the circumstances.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: May I ask a
supplementary question. In view of the fact the government of West Germany, partially on a government basis and partially on a voluntary basis, is now sending a hospital ship to South Viet Nam, would the government consider doing this, thus avoiding the necessity of having to worry about special facilities being available on land?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: If my hon. friend knew the difficulties attendant upon that particular project he might want to revise his question.



VIET NAM-REPORTED FUND RAISING CAMPAIGNS FOR VIET CONG

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina Ciiy):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether they have yet got an answer to a question I directed to the Prime Minister in this house on January 25.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if my hon. friend would be good enough to repeat-


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: It had to do with Canadian funds going to the Viet Cong.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Inquiries are being made into that matter. It is an important matter, and I will try to hurry up the reply.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: have a question for the Minister of Labour. Does he have a report to make about meetings that are going on between his department, the Canadian Pacific and the unions concerning the integration of the Canada Pension Plan with the company plan?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, all I can do to-day is report progress.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Porlage-Neepawa):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the increase in the cost of living, and in view of the fact meat prices are an important element in the cost of living, will the government consider some action under the Combines Investigation Act to explain the lack of increase in returns to the producers of beef, in spite of the consistently high retail prices of this product? I point out, too, that the cost of pork has increased sharply without any increase in returns to the producers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is supplying information. I suggest that it be placed on the order paper.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scot! (Danforth): Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could address a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the widespread interest in certain future decisions of the Board of Broadcast Governors, particularly re channel 3 in Barrie and C.T.V. ownership, would the minister make a statement on Monday as to the present constitution of the board, the tenure of its members and when the vacancies will be filled, and by whom?
February 11, 196$
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this question might be asked on estimates. I suggest there is no urgency to the question being put at this time.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Labour whether he had yet considered a formal complaint of unfair labour practices which had been lodged with him by the newspaper guild against United Press International. The minister stated that the complaint had been received and that he would make a decision in a day or two. Perhaps the minister can tell us now whether he has made a decision and what that decision is.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have completed my inquiries. An order giving permission to initiate proceedings will be signed today.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I was wondering whether the minister would now be in a position to give an answer to the starred question which was placed on the order paper on January 24 regarding the Plains Cree shrine (Mistaseni), in Saskatchewan, and whether he has made a decision about giving aid for its removal.


Mr. Speaker:: I realize that the hon. member may have difficulty if he feels that this answer is not being given quickly enough, but the question is still on the order paper.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as house leader. In view of the suggestion made by the Prime Minister on January 25 that the house leaders of the various parties might meet to see whether there could be an
Inquiries of the Ministry agreement on the setting up of a committee of the house to discuss the various bills proposing divorce reform, may I ask the house leader whether such a meeting might be held for this purpose at an early date?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to do that. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that if the hon. member, as the representative of his party who is dealing with these matters, had communicated with me before this we would not have had to take up this time in the question period.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the minister knows I have spoken to him about it more than once. I thought this was a more effective way to get action.



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the concern felt by young Canadians particularly and Canadians generally as to whether the plans for the Company of Young Canadians are going to come to anything, may I ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position to say whether he expects to make an appointment shortly of a permanent head or director of the Company of Young Canadians?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, a director has been appointed-


Edmund Davie Fulton: An interim director.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, an interim director. I hope there will be an announcement next week about the other members of the board of directors, and that the council will be able to meet under the interim director very shortly.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A supplementary question. Do I take it from the Prime Minister's answer that it is his intention to make the present interim director the permanent director, or when will this situation be cleared up?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As my hon. friend perhaps knows, the interim director is also a director of CUSO. It is a question of whether he will be able to carry on both activities or give up one of the two.

February 11, 1966
Supply-Transport AGRICULTURE



MILK-REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN STABILIZED PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. The question is urgent and of great importance to dairy people across Canada. Does the Minister of Agriculture have any plans to raise the stabilized price of industrial milk to $4 per cwt.?


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



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister of mines. Would the minister be in a position today to provide any information at all as to when we may hear something of the Donald report on coal?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, in a few weeks. If the hon. member asks me to guess, I would say six weeks.

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



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

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


Mr. MacEwan:: Mr. Chairman, in my brief remarks last evening I was speaking on the question of possible railway line abandonments. Following the direction of Mr. Speaker, having read Hansard this morning perhaps I could just correct two names which appear at page 1059. What I said was that one line runs from Ferrona; it is printed in Hansard as Vernal. This line runs from Ferrona to Sunnybrae.
Then Hansard says that this is the old line built by the old Nova Scotia Railway Company. That should read the "Nova Scotia Steel Company". This line was taken over by

the "Inter-Colonial Railway"; Hansard records this as the "Colonial". There is an old saying in the maritime provinces-I do not know whether I am paraphrasing it correctly-that there were three things we were sure of-living, dying and having a ride on the old I.C.R.
With regard to these proposed abandonments I should like to say that with the introduction of the $50 million Scott Paper mill in the Pictou county area I hope this short line railway will not be closed down. A spur line has been built to this plant which will connect with the short line, and it is very important to the area to continue the railway connection as is. At one time these railway fines were not used as much as they could have been, though we are now getting out of the troubles which we were in. Undoubtedly Canadian National Railways will have some figures in this regard, but with the present economic upsurge in the area I would hope that no abandonment of this line will be carried out.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
Another matter is this. After reading the press I was advised that an agreement has been reached on special rates between the Scott Paper Company, Scott (Maritimes) Limited, and the C.N.R. for transportation of pulpwood to the United States. This means there is all the more reason to continue the operation of the present short fine running from Stellarton to Oxford Junction.
Another matter which I took up with the vice president of the Atlantic region, Mr. Grayston, not long ago was the operation of the express and freight facilities in Stellarton. The service there has been very poor. I was advised by the vice president that this matter would be looked into and a study made as a result of which a decision would be reached in the new year. I intend to pursue this matter further before the committee on transport. Undoubtedly the officials of the C.N.R. will be appearing before that committee.
I was pleased to note that the Minister of Transport in his release of December 13 announced there would be an integrated study of Atlantic provinces transportation problems. The minister stated in the last paragraph of that press release:
The study will consider the effectiveness of present transportation in the Atlantic provinces, bearing in mind the existing obligations of the federal government under the terms of union with Newfoundland, the Maritime Freight Rates Act and the general policy of the federal government to foster the economic development and well-being of the Atlantic region.
February 11, 1966

This subject was further pursued by my hon. friend from Saint John-Albert when he raised the question in the house not long ago. On that occasion he asked the minister whether the rights of the maritimes would be upheld in the legislation to be put before the house. The minister advised my hon. friend that this would be done. We are looking with a great deal of anticipation to the results of the study which has been set up by the minister. I understand that well known firms are involved. I trust that whatever comes forward will be brought before the house and that we will be able to discuss this vital matter of transportation in our area.
Another matter I should like to raise at this time concerns the Canadian coastguard. I have a question on the order paper in this regard. I am bringing forward these individual matters now rather than on specific items so the minister can reply on a later occasion.
The hon. gentleman made an announcement on May 27, 1965 to the effect that four additional vessels would be constructed to engage in this vital work of providing coast guard facilities in the Atlantic area. We know these vessels are urgently needed. I asked in my question whether the tenders would be regional or national. I should like to know this. In the past, during the days when we were sitting on the other side of the house, coast guard vessels of medium size were built and at that time we were able to construct one in the Ferguson yard in my constituency. The Minister of Transport of that day arranged that the contracts could be awarded regionally, though on a tender basis. I hope the minister will tell us when these new vessels will be constructed and when tenders will be called.
There is another matter of importance to the Atlantic area on which I wish to say a word or two. It concerns shipbuilding subsidies. I recall that a few years ago when Mr. Alex Watson was chairman of the maritime commission he was very anxious to set up a program of shipbuilding subsidies. I remember talking this over with him many times when I visited his office. He was instrumental in setting this up, and I wish to pay tribute to him at this time. The work he did will certainly be a memorial to him.
The intention of the original program was, of course, to assist our shipyards and the workers employed in them to compete with yards in other parts of the world. I enter this caveat about the present plan, having read
Supply-Transport
the minister's statement and noted the questions which have been asked in the house regarding it. My hope is that this 25 per cent subsidy sliding to 17 per cent in 1972 will be sufficient. Some shipyard officials are a little doubtful about this. We must watch it carefully.
There is one specific question I should like to put to the minister, and perhaps he would look into this. He said in his statement, and I am quoting:
At the same time the ship construction drawback regulations which permit drawback of 99 per cent of customs duties paid on imported goods used in the original construction of ships are to be withdrawn except where they apply on military equipment.
I should like to ask the minister what will happen in cases where a shipyard has ordered certain components before January 1, 1966, and still has not received them. Suppose the keel has been laid and the ship is in the course of construction though the actual components needed from abroad have not been received. Will this arrangement apply in such a case, or must the parts have been landed in Canada before January 1? This is of special importance to areas such as mine where the trawler construction program is under way. The minister has given me an assurance that this program will be continued, that the 50 per cent rate will continue to apply to trawler construction.
I should like to know how long this subsidy is likely to be continued. These trawlers are much needed in our fishing industry, as has been pointed out by my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg, and they have provided a lot of work in our area. We hope many more of these trawlers will be constructed and, as I say, we would like to know how long the present policy is likely to continue.
When the minister visited my constituency on a certain occasion in November he landed on a certain airfield. Now, I am always glad to have the hon. gentleman in my area; indeed, I am sure he was of assistance in getting me re-elected. The minister knows Trenton airport. Eastern Provincial Airways maintain a service there. Incidentally, I heard someone refer to E.P.A. as "Eastern Pick-ersgill Airways". I know nothing about that, but I do know that the vice president of that air line was in contact with the Chamber of Commerce in the New Glasgow area and advised its members that certain improvements would be made to Trenton airport. I should like to ask whether there are any

February 11, 1966
Supply-Transport
plans for such improvements and, if so, what these involve and when they are to begin.
There is one other matter I should like to raise. I have had correspondence with the minister about it and I must say I got quick reply to my inquiry about the Pictou Island Telephone Company. The government is now getting out of the telephone service. I should like to suggest once again that it might be possible to put into the supplementary estimates, or some other appropriate place, a small amount in respect of this company.
Pictou Island is a small island, five miles long and two miles wide. Some of its inhabitants move away to Pictou for the winter after the fishing season is over. Those who remain have no means of communication except for the telephone and what is known as "the flying padre". Mail is delivered twice a week by this small plane flying in and out. I would ask the minister again to take a hard look to see whether anything can be done along the lines I suggest. Fifty dollars a month is little enough to help provide essential communications for those hardy folk who carry out lobster fishing in the winter. As I say, their only means of communication apart from the telephone is this small plane which sometimes cannot make its run for weeks at a time.
This is vital and would assist the Pictou Island Telephone Company a great deal.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)
There is another question the minister has not heard much about, and that is the matter of television coverage. During the last election campaign the minister came to my area and said I was so well liked that my neighbours thought I should stay home. I did not hear him say it; I just read the press report, but I want to thank him for saying I am well considered by my neighbours. I think my record here in the last eight years assists me a bit, and I want to let the minister in on a little secret concerning how he can make a lot of friends in Pictou county. I cannot tell him how to make friends in Manitoba. Yesterday he said he still had friends there, but I wish to tell him how to do so in the area I represent.
Many hundreds of my constituents have signed petitions, and the local Chamber of Commerce has been looking into the matter of television coverage from station CHCH, which is on the C.T.V. network, from Halifax.
[Mr. MacEwan.l
We have two satellite stations, one in Anti-gonish and one in Charlottetown, which provide some local broadcasting, but mostly C.B.C. programs. As stated by the president of the New Glasgow Chamber of Commerce we are a captive audience, but we require a T.V. satellite from channel 5. I hope the proposed study by the cabinet committee of the Fowler commission report will not take long in order that the present freeze on new licences can be ended.
I have a friend, Mr. Chairman, a neighbour of mine, brought up in the same town as myself, which is about five miles away. I am worried about him because he is a great hockey and football fan. He tells me that in order to see hockey and football broadcasts over the C.T.V. network he has to travel to the town of Westville, five miles away, in the middle of the night. Some day he may drive his car over a bridge on his way home, but he is only one among the many who desire and believe they should have this necessary T.V. coverage.
I hope some of the questions I have raised will be answered by the minister when he replies later on, and I reserve the right to raise further matters on various items of the estimates. The Department of Transport is important to a constituency like mine, and it is good that we have a chance to study its estimates.


Mr. Brown:: Mr. Chairman, while the
affairs and estimates of the Department of Transport are before us I should like to draw the minister's attention once again to a very important project awaiting attention in my part of the province of Ontario. I have spoken on this subject before, and I wish to speak about it again because of its transcendent importance to my area. I refer to the redevelopment of the lower Grand river from its mouth at Lake Erie up as far as Brantford, so that it may be used by pleasure craft.
The Grand river has been a navigable stream as far up as Brantford from the earliest recorded times. As such, I maintain that its development and maintenance as a navigable stream come under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and in particular of the Department of Transport.
If the river be deemed not navigable now, then I believe it to be a matter or subject of discussion which should come before a meeting of the federal and provincial authorities, that is to say between the government in Ottawa and the government of Ontario, and I
February 11, 1966

am pleased to have been advised not long ago by the minister that this is going to be done in the very near future.
The importance of this matter to the entire population living anywhere near the Grand river watershed cannot be exaggerated or overestimated. The Grand river, in its course across western and southern Ontario, is one of the majestic waterways of our country. In times past, ships on the great lakes made regular trips up the Grand river to Brantford. Going from Brantford to Buffalo by water was a trip regularly taken by many in years gone by, before the advent of the railways.
I am telling the committee right now that if this body of water, scenic from its source to its mouth, were restored to navigable use by pleasure craft it would be of inestimable value to one of the most heavily populated areas in Canada. Today people are having more leisure time than ever before, and will have even more leisure hours in the future. I am, of course, referring to the entire population, to the masses of the people. With this in view, the necessity of readily available recreational centres becomes important and even urgent.
I am referring to places to which ordinary people can resort for recreation in the afternoon or evening. A lot of money is being spent on parks, including wilderness parks, but I am referring to recreational areas accessible to metropolitan centres of population such as the heavily populated districts close to Hamilton and around what is called the golden horseshoe of Ontario. Hon. members know that the highways of western Ontario are crowded with automobiles and other vehicles hauling boats to the lakes and to Georgian bay. Boating has become a source of widespread interest to large sections of our population. For large numbers of them it would be unnecessary to haul their boats long distances when they could so easily put their craft afloat on the waters of the Grand river.
In the centre of my province, and close to the most thickly populated part of it, is the greatest potential area for boating in Canada. I am not referring to boating on the high seas but boating on a magnificent waterway unequalled in beauty from earliest times.
Millions and millions of dollars have been spent by the federal government on the Trent canal and waterway, and upon the Rideau river and waterway. Today I am asking the government to begin giving consideration to the Grand river. I am asking for this today
Supply-Transport
but before long, indeed before even a year has passed, all manner of representations will be made to the minister from many quarters, and all relating to this project. They will be coming from boards of trade and from the Grand river conservation authority. At this juncture I should like to quote from the Brantford Expositor of Tuesday February 8, 1966, which carries a report headed "Grand River Conservational Authority Bill Introduced in Ontario Legislature." It reads:
A bill to establish the Grand river conservation authority was introduced in the Ontario legislature Monday by Energy and Resources Minister Simonett.
The new authority will be a union of the Grand valley conservation authority and the Grand river conservation commission.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
It is proposed on a three year trial basis. The legislation makes allowance for restoration of the separate groups Jan. 1, 1969, if the merger is unsatisfactory.
I have said, Mr. Chairman, that representations will be coming from municipalities in the Grand river valley and from all manner of interested bodies of people and taxpayers. I am told that the Brantford and suburban planning board is asking the new Grand river conservation authority to acquire all the flood lands of the Grand river in Brantford township, in Brantford itself and at Paris, and that proposals are being made to the municipal authorities to create a boating course from the area near the Brantford Golf and Country Club to the Lome bridge dam by dredging the river. The municipality can do this with the help of the province and with the additional help of the federal government.
Recently officers of the urban renewal project at Brantford were asked by me over the air whether the Grand river figured in their plans, and I was advised over the air by these men that a renovation and restoration of the river was necessary and definitely within the scope of their plans.
I have stated that this-and I refer to the valley of the Grand-will become a great recreational area. It has the potential to become second to none in North America, and at the same time it could be a conservation area of great significance. The need for adequate supplies of water everywhere is a matter of concern to all governing bodies today, and here we have one of the greatest sources of pure fresh water available for many uses, that can be found anywhere and, assuredly, close to the centres of population.

February 11, 1966
Supply-Transport
A number of years ago the city of Brantford, pursuant to new provincial regulations, installed a new sewage disposal plant, putting an end for all time to the dumping of raw sewage into the Grand river, that most beautiful body of water. Other municipalities have followed suit, and the Grand river today is being returned to the beautiful stream it once was. The municipalities have been doing their part; the provincial authorities have been doing their part and we are now looking to the federal authority to do its part in respect of this important matter.
Mr. Chairman, I do not hesitate to ask the minority Liberal government to take hold of this matter. I do not believe this house would begrudge any expenditure for this purpose, because I believe that in this chamber we have a lot of very big men today; we have a lot of men and women who take a big view of our country and, no matter what part of Canada they represent, I know they would be only too happy if some of us who come from what we like to call the banner province of this country want to push this province ahead within our confederation.
Mr. Chairman, the installation of low dams at one or two necessary points and the development and reinforcement of the dam at Caledonia, Ontario, would effectively hold back water to the enormous benefit of the agricultural areas on each side of the Grand river, and to the benefit as well of the large sections of the population nearby in the improved facilities for boating. Did you know that in the days before the 1860's people came all the way from the southern part of the United States, through the present inland waterway from Florida up to the Hudson river, across on the Erie canal to lake Erie and up to the Grand river to spend summers in the delightfully cool climate to be found at Brantford, Ontario? The Hotel Kirby and other hostelries were crowded in those days, and many of these visitors brought their slaves with them at that time.
Today in modern times, by the elimination of sewage outlets, the Grand river is being restored to its pristine beauty, and once again modern man in Ontario wants the Grand river back as it once was. It is becoming a challenge to this parliament and in particular to the Department of Transport, to create of it and around it a mighty potential recreational and conservational area.
I must say that I have been urging the Minister of Transport to commence a study of engineering costs of the development of the

Grand river for navigation for pleasure craft, a study to be entered into in conjunction with the provincial government. I am happy to say that the minister has received my representations not only cordially but with considerable interest.
The Grand river flows past the lands of the Six Nations Indian reservation, the home of that magnificent chief and ally of the British crown, Captain Joseph Brant. He and his advisers chose this locality as the heartland of a true British North America many, many years ago. It has both historical associations and current possibilities for our province and for the urban and rural residents of a great part of Ontario.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have been over enthusiastic about this project. If action is wanted there must be enthusiasm to bring it about. We have formed a Company of Young Canadians. Let the minority Liberal government lead them with enthusiasm into the Canada of the future. Is this not the essence of Liberalism, to give leadership in this regard? This is not in my view a government of tired old men; this is a government that can and should have a mind for the future, to create adequate areas of recreation close to the urban centres for the younger people, for the heads of families and for the older people as well, if only to sit on the banks and watch.
To my mind, as the Liberal member for Brantford, this project should be near the top of the agenda of projects to be sponsored by a forward looking government.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Mr. Allard:: Mr. Chairman, it is the first time I have had the opportunity to address myself to the minister since his appointment to the high office of Minister of Transport. I trust that this first encounter will be profitable to my constituents.
I had the pleasure of knowing the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) from 1958 to 1962 when he sat in the opposition. At that time, I admired the vitality, the enthusiasm and the stubbornness with which he demanded and required the carrying out of several projects. I was sorry that his requests were not always dealt with as he wished, but the minister must remember that at that time, from the far corner where I had been seated and due to the lack of authority credited to me, I was unable to help him.
February 11, 1966

I wish to assure him now that if, one day-one never knows the designs of Providence-if I should hold a position of some responsibility, I would listen with special attention to any request he could then address to me.
Today, I am the one to call on his kind attention and urge him to show his utmost liberalism and liberality.
I would call the minister's attention on two points. First, on the increase in air traffic at Dorval during the World Fair and second, on the necessity of making operative to that end, the Sherbrooke airport which is situated in my area.
It has been established that the Dorval airport facilities will not meet Expo requirements. It is expected that, in 1967, there will be three times as many flights coming in daily from the United States alone. Dorval would be limited to the large jets, and St. Hubert airport would be used for additional facilities.
Transportation facilities must, therefore, be provided for within reasonable distance from Expo. The problems will not be limited solely to plane landings. Dorval airport will also be overcrowded with tourists and their baggage. That is why the minister must make immediate plans to improve air traffic and conditions in view of Expo '67.
The Sherbrooke airport, Mr. Chairman, is surely the answer to problems which are bound to arise. With the new two-year-old highway between Sherbrooke and Montreal, the Sherbrooke airport is only one and a half hour's drive to Expo grounds.
The airport is near the American border and air transportation, including helicopter service, will also be readily available to American tourists between Sherbrooke and Expo.
Since Montreal's hotel accommodation and restaurant facilities will surely not be able to cope with the demand, Sherbrooke and adjacent areas will offer good comfortable accommodation as an alternative. A number of other reasons would warrant the completion of Sherbrooke airport and show how important this airport is.
This Sherbrooke airport is fairly important. The minister will recall that it is located on high ground, and that it spreads on a plateau that is very favourable to air navigation.
It was built between 1959 and 1961, and it now includes-although initial plans call for a
Supply-Transport
greater number of runways-a 6,000 foot runway. It has a non-directional radio beacon and an aeronautical station. This work cost the government $1,221,564. An air terminal has just been completed at an additional cost of $115,000. Furthermore, the ground is ready for construction of another runway.
According to information given to the house on June 28, 1965-as recorded on page 2920 of the official report-the Sherbrooke airport can now accommodate DC-9's and could accommodate DC-8's and Boeing 707's, if the runway were 1,000 feet longer.
Consequently, my request to the minister is fourfold:
First, use the Sherbrooke airport as an adjunct to the Dorval airport to provide for the increased air traffic at the time of the world exhibition;
Second, as soon as it is convenient, grant credits to lengthen to 7,000 feet the existing runway, to enable DC-8 and Boeing 707 to land easily;
Third, study the need to build a second
7,000	foot runway.
Finally, pay to the city of Sherbrooke half the cost of the terminal, by increasing the grant from $26,709 to $57,500.
I ask the minister to review and increase the grant for the air terminal because, according to a statement made by the mayor of Sherbrooke, Mr. Armand Nadeau, Q.C., last December 21, 1965, the cubic measurements were miscalculated for the purposes of the grant.
Moreover, on the same occasion the mayor of Sherbrooke pointed out that the minister had promised the last time he came to the Sherbrooke city hall, that the federal government would pay half the cost of building the air terminal.
Those are a few reasons which explain why we consider that airport so important. There is a site which could be put to good use but which is left idle, although it could prove very useful at the time of the world exhibition which will open soon.
In my opinion, to grant those requests would be to comply with the wishes, not only of the population of Sherbrooke, but of the people of the eastern townships and of the province. It would be a good investment for the federal government, because, as head of the Department of Transport, the minister knows that air traffic must be developed as railroad traffic was developed in the past.

February 11. 196$
Supply-Transport
If, when they wanted to increase railway traffic, they had been satisfied with building isolated stations here and there, far apart, today you would not have all those famous railway systems and the people would not be inclined to benefit from railway transportation.
The same thing applies to air traffic. If you want people to wake up and create a strong potential for air traffic, the Department of Transport must provide at various places the facilities which will enable this traffic to grow.
The airport in Sherbrooke is waiting to be opened officially by the minister. We promise him a wonderful welcome. The hon. minister will be happy to see the joyous faces of the thousands of people who will come to express their thanks and gratitude, for there will be people not only from our district but from elsewhere. This would benefit not only Quebec but the whole country, as it would help to increase air traffic in our region and in the whole country.

[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Mr. Keays:: A few days ago, Mr. Chairman, I was telling the Minister of Transport that I was going to endeavour to help him with his estimates. I believe at the time he misunderstood me, but I can assure him that the word I used was "help". I should like, in the few minutes I have at my disposal, to convey the minister on a tour of the Gaspe peninsula by means of the transportation facilities we have in that area. I know it is the lunch hour, but I am sure the minister would get a better sandwich back of the curtains than he would if he were to travel on the Canadian National system which we have in our area.
A region such as the Gaspe peninsula requires a transportation system that is efficient, regular and fast. The main concern must be that goods which are coming into the region and those that are going out must move at the cheapest rates possible. The economy of the peninsula is no longer one of fishing and lumbering only. Although the fishing industry is contributing substantially to our economy, there are fewer fishermen in the trade with a greater output as the result of technological and scientific advances in the trade.
Lumbering is also demanding fewer men, although the output is gradually increasing. There remains for us the tourist industry, the mining industry and manufacturing.

The population of the area demands the right to be assured a way of life equal to that of people in other areas of Canada. Our geographical position, our distance from populated areas of the province which form the large consuming centres, puts us in a rather unfortunate position. This results in our citizens having to pay more for their purchases and receiving much less for the goods they sell. This situation, Mr. Chairman, of course also has the effect of creating a reluctance on the part of the industry to come to the area.
How can some of these inconveniences be overcome? I am sure that to attain that goal we must first of all create a favourable climate for industry to come to the area. Transportation is our greatest problem. As I have said, this is the result of our geographical position and our distance from large consuming centres.
Let us look at some of the transportation facilities which we have in the area now. I will take the south coast of the riding or of the peninsula, and there we have a railroad completed in 1915, running from Matapedia to Gaspe. The facilities there today are, naturally, a freight service and a local train running the 200 miles. The local train carries one passenger car of the vintage of 1915, still with wooden benches and a coal stove in the corner of the car. The other passenger facility is a Budd car running from Gaspe to Matapedia daily. You may, if you are lucky, get aboard that train. Many, many times I have seen that train when passengers were unable to get aboard for some 50 or 70 miles because of the lack of seating capacity. However, it is better than nothing, and we have to travel by that system. You may also buy a sandwich on that train, even if the train is four, six or eight hours late. I think the sandwich is made in Montreal, sent to Campbellton and possibly a week later put aboard that railway car.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the citizens of that area are any different from those in any other area? They are not, and will not be considered, second class citizens. We expect to have a transportation system equal to that which links Halifax and Montreal, the distance being about the same. I will endeavour to tell you how we are treated once we get to the main line. If you are one of those who come, say, a distance of 75 miles from Gaspe to board the train, you naturally have your meal at noon. Then you come to Gaspe and leave there at 2.30 in the
February 11, 196G

afternoon, arriving in Montreal the next morning at seven thirty or eight o'clock. In order to do this you must come by Budd car to Matapedia and there change trains, but not to the Ocean Limited that is coming from Halifax. You board another train which is made up at Campbellton, 15 miles from Matapedia. About 95 per cent to 98 per cent of the people who travel on the Chaleur and who go between Campbellton and Montreal are from the Gaspe peninsula. We have to take a train that is made up 15 miles from Matapedia and we must stay aboard that train.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we are overlapping services there, and the services we are receiving are not the best. It seems to me logical that if 98 per cent of the people who travel on the Chaleur are from the peninsula, the train should run directly from Gaspe to Montreal. Why can we not have the same sleeping facilities as are on the Ocean Limited? Why can we not have the same meals as are available to those who travel on the Ocean Limited? We are paying the same prices; therefore we are entitled to the same services.
Now I am going to try, Mr. Chairman, to tell you what happens once you board that train called the Chaleur at Matapedia. You sit in the car which is probably of the 1925 or 1930 vintage. It is squeaky, and you do not sleep too well.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
However, perhaps you would like a meal before going to bed, having been on that train for six to eight hours. Occasionally there is a dining car on the train, though most of the time it is off. If boards of trade or public bodies complain they will put the dining car on; whenever criticism subsides then off comes the dining car.
When travelling on the Ocean Limited you sit down to a meal with a linen tablecloth on the table and you are given a linen napkin. But when you are a Gaspesian and you travel on the "Chaleur" you are given a place mat like the one I am holding in my hand. On it you read "Welcome. Good food and good service go together at C.N. Sit back, relax and put on your best appetite". Then it asks whether there is anything you need-a souvenir place mat, perhaps.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman table that document?


James Russell Keays: I would be pleased to do so. I would also tell the minister that I picked it
Supply-Transport
up on the "Chaleur" on November 16, 1965. So you get a place mat free. But although I pay the same price as anyone coming from the maritime provinces, I am not entitled to a free meal on that train with my sleeping accommodation. They give me a menu which offers blended juice or soup and then you can have sandwiches; and I told you where the sandwiches usually come from. You have no choice of juice; you take what they give you. This train is made up at Campbellton; 20 minutes after the train leaves you look at the menu and choose a sandwich, but they tell you they are sorry, they have not any. As I say, the train left only 20 minutes before from its starting point in Campbellton, New Brunswick.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this is taking the Gaspesian too much for granted. I object, as do all other Gaspesians, to the fact that we cannot get the same treatment as other people travelling the same distance going west to Montreal. I see the hon. member for Bona-venture sitting at his desk and I am sure he too is very aware of this problem and has made representations to the minister or to the C.N.R. Since he is now on the government side of the house I hope the minister will listen to him and try to put a little pressure on the C.N.R. to give the Gaspesians the service they deserve.
Now, in order to travel you must have money. In order to have money you must work. In order to work in the Gaspe peninsula you must have industry. In order to have industry you must have the encouragement of the government. It is no good doing what the Minister of Transport did a few years ago when there was an abatement in taxes across the country. In order to recover this money, the next day, he imposed additional wharfage charges on all goods on public wharves and also levied a tax on passengers crossing on ferries. This had the effect of paralyzing some of our industries.
I am going to give the minister just one small example. He knows that in his province of Newfoundland there are quite a few copper mines. Copper concentrate from that area goes to the smelting plant at Murdochville. Because we want all that concentrate to be smelted at Murdochville the government, being aware that this is a designated area and one needing government help, an area to which the attention of the government must be directed, imposed these special charges. I am sure that in one case, due to these extra wharfage charges, copper concentrate from

February 11, 1966
Supply-Transport
New Brunswick went to Japan to be smelted instead of coming just 200 miles to Mur-dochville.
In one case Japan overbid one of our Canadian companies for this copper concentrate. I hate to think, having an industry in this area, that government charges are going to forbid us processing our natural resources in our own province or our own country. We have had to send it to Japan, and they send us back the copper plates. This is not paying much attention to a designated area, Mr. Chairman.
Recently we have been receiving concentrates from Newfoundland, and I heard a few days ago that this had stopped due to wharf damage at Tilt Cove. However, these shipments are the sort of thing we want to encourage, ^le want to create an industry which operates on a year round basis. The government should give serious consideration to making it possible for our industries to survive in order that they can give employment to the 25 per cent of our labour force which is now unemployed. When I look at the figure for the total unemployed across the country and find 35.3 per cent are in the province of Quebec, it is an alarming situation. I would ask the minister to use his good graces to see that our area receives some consideration.
I am now going to the north side of my riding which, of course, the minister knows quite well, having heard a lot of debate in this house about a railroad which was supposed to be built in that section. I know this cannot be discussed on the Department of Transport estimates because there is an amount in the estimates of the Department of Public Works in connection therewith, but I should like to get one matter cleared up once and for all. I know that with the wisdom which we attribute to the minister he will be able to clear it up once and for all.
Two former members of the cabinet went on a speaking tour in the Gaspe peninsula. One of them was the then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. He made a speech about the money appropriated by act of parliament for construction of this railway. At one time he said the money was not voted, and the next time he said it was voted. In an article datelined Ste. Anne des Monts-

_Mr. Maurice Lamontagne said, night before last
at the Reform Club in Montreal, that the $7 million which will pay for the Riviere-du-Loup dock will be taken out of the $16 million earmarked for the north side of the Gaspe Peninsula. At an emergency
[Mr. Keays.l
meeting, the Gaspe Chamber asked that Ottawa clear up once and for all the use of the $16 million.

On another occasion the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane made a speech about the $16 million which was intended for the construction of a railway between Ste. Anne des Monts and Matane. He said that-

-the $16 million which were intended to pay for the construction of a railroad between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts will be used directly to benefit the areas concerned, that is to say the districts of Ste Anne des Monts and Cap Chat.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there is a contradiction somewhere, because that amount of money has not been spent on a railway between Ste. Anne des Monts and Matane. The first contracts for construction to be financed by money granted the province of Quebec by this government was outside of this area where there is no railroad. I should like to ask why this work was started in this area instead of the area designated by the government in their good judgment at that time.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
On August 5, 1964, as reported on page 6425 of Hansard, the minister said parliament had already recognized in principle the necessity for Ottawa to take steps to improve transport facilities in the Gaspe area. This 1 agree with. But further on, as reported on page 6426, the minister said:
It will be noted that the federal government does not intend to allocate the complete sum of $16 million to the road; we feel that part of this money could usefully serve for the development of airports and harbours which come under the direct jurisdiction of the federal government.
A number of plans for the development of harbours have been approved in principle and appropriate items will be entered in the supplementary estimates of the Department of Public Works.
Looking back over the estimates, and knowing the riding well, I believe there are two or three major projects which were to be undertaken immediately after that declaration by the minister. Not one of these projects has been carried out. At Ste Anne des Monts the money voted was intended for the repair of the wharf. Because of the bad state of repair of this wharf the ferry service between Ste. Anne des Monts and Sept lies has been discontinued, and any connection we have with the north shore of the St. Lawrence is by means of a detour through Matane. Had we developed Ste. Anne des Monts the people
February 11. 1966

of the peninsula would have been able to send goods to that area. If the railway had been built, goods could have been moved there more cheaply. But this government decided it would not spend the money on the railroad but that it would build a highway instead. Then instead of building it where they should have built it, they went outside the territory.
I should like the minister to clear up another ambiguity. Has any of this $16 million intended for the railway been used to undertake any other project in Quebec? We hear many rumours to this effect. In fact one of the hon. gentleman's colleagues formerly in the cabinet said it was the intention to build a deep water harbour at Riviere du Loup with some of this money. These are matters which are most ambiguous. We would like the minister to clear them up once and for all and tell us whether the money which was provided by act of parliament is still available. We would like his assurance that these projects can be undertaken. We would also like to know whether the full amount given to the province in respect of highways can be spent on highways in this area. Then we should know where we stand.
I have discussed our rail transportation system. I have discussed highway construction on the north side of my riding. I should now like to speak about air transportation. It is true that at this time we are undertaking some repairs to the Gaspe airfield. I refer again to the speech made by the Minister of Transport on August 5, 1964. He said then that the department had undertaken a survey of the peninsula in order to find a proper site for a district airport which would serve the main towns in the county of Gaspe.
I believe this is by no means an easy problem. If we are to build a district airport in the interior of Gaspe it is bound to involve a lot of expense. I believe it would be much better to improve the airfield at Gaspe, to build another at Chandler and a third in the region of Ste Anne des Monts-Cap Chat area. By so doing we would be covering the whole of the lower section of the peninsula. We might then be in a position to encourage travel by air and secure ready access to this whole area.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might make an apology to the committee and ask one of my colleagues to act as Minister of Transport-I do not know whether this is quite
Supp ly-Transport
legal-while I go and get one of those sandwiches the hon. member spoke about so eloquently. I hope it will be a little better than those from Campbelltown.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why don't we all go for a
sandwich?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think there is any compulsion on anyone else to sit here if he does not wish to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which hon. member does the minister appoint?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The President of the Privy Council. He has had his sandwich.


Mr. Carter:: Apart from the Department of Public Works and the Department of Fisheries there is no federal department which touches the lives of my constituents as closely as does the Department of Transport. There are many matters I should like to deal with at this time, but in order not to unduly delay the passing of the estimates I will confine myself to one subject only, a subject which in my opinion is so urgent that I would be derelict in my duty to my constituents if I did not raise it at the very first opportunity.
Before I begin I should like to pay tribute to the officials of the Department of Transport, the officials of the minister's office, the senior officials and heads of branches in the head office here in Ottawa and to the district marine agent at St. John's. I should like publicly to express my gratitude to them for the sympathetic consideration they have always given to problems I have brought before them and for their all-out co-operation in trying to solve them.
The subject I wish to bring to the attention of the committee and of the government today is the urgent need for improvement in the C.N.R. coastal service in the western half of my riding. The constituency of Burin-Burgeo is made up of five provincial districts of which only one, the district of Burin, is accessible by road, and even this district is largely dependent on the C.N.R. coastal service for freight transportation. The other four provincial districts are completely dependent on the C.N.R. coastal service not only for transportation of freight but also for transportation of mail and passengers.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
Of these four provincial districts, only Placentia West has a fairly satisfactory service based on the terminal at Argentia providing a frequency of two trips a week to all communities and three trips a week to the

February 11, 1986
Supply-Transport
larger ones. So far as the other three provincial districts are concerned the picture is vastly different. These three districts extend roughly along the south coast from Ter-renceville to Port aux Basques. This area is served by two C.N.R. coastal boats running between the western terminal at Port aux Basques and the eastern terminal at Argentia, with a weekly frequency in each direction. Except for the fact that these boats are slightly larger and the frequency of trips has increased from every 10 days to 7 days, this service is substantially the same as it was 50 years ago.
The coastline between Terrenceville and Port aux Basques contains some 50 communities with a total population of around 25,000, and it is mainly about the service to this area that I am complaining. On this strip of coastline there are located seven fresh fish processing plants and a number of supply firms and retail stores. All these enterprises are greatly handicapped by the slowness of the C.N.R. service upon which they are completely dependent.
Good, fast, reliable communications are a prime essential for the industrial development of any area, but the Canadian National Railway management think in terms of the nineteenth century. If they do not wake up soon the twentieth century will have completely passed them by without any substantial improvement being achieved. The population of this area about which I am speaking, between Terrenceville and Port aux Basques, has doubled since 1949, and the prosperity of the people has also increased. However, these two facts seem to have escaped the notice of the C.N.R. management.
We are living in the twentieth century and people do not want to spend a week travelling a distance that can and should be covered in a couple of days. Neither do they want to be delayed as they are now for hours and on some occasions for whole days by having to remain in port while the ship takes on and discharges cargo. Neither do they want to suffer the offensive odours and stench which emanate from cargoes such as fish meal, particularly during summertime when the weather is warm and people like to have their portholes open in order to enjoy the cool, fresh air.
Today people want to move as fast as possible. If they have two or three weeks holidays they want to spend the time with their friends and not travelling back and forth on the C.N.R. boats. Those who come

from long distances want to be sure of making connections with the air line services on which they have reservations for the return trip. None of these things are possible at present.
It has been obvious for years that the C.N.R. coastal service is terribly inadequate in terms of the amount of traffic to be handled. People from the United States and from mainland Canada who make their reservations months in advance often arrive at the Port aux Basques terminal only to find that the boat on which their reservations were made has been transferred to another route and the substitute boat provided does not have the type of accommodation they reserved.
Passengers are herded together in small rooms beneath deck or in small deck cabins so tiny that they have to put their luggage outside in order to be able to turn around. Dozens have difficulty in finding even a place to sit much less to lie down. Great credit is due to the crews of these boats; particularly to the captains, officers and stewards who quite often give up their own berths and go out of their way to do everything possible to alleviate the hardships and inconveniences to passengers inherent in these conditions. Without their sympathetic understanding and sacrifices the situation would be quite intolerable.
During the past two or three years I have written a number of letters about this matter to the C.N.R. and to the minister pointing out the deficiency in the service and suggesting remedies, but to date nothing has happened. Dealing with the Canadian National Railway is a most frustrating experience. You write a letter and you wait about two months. Then you get a reply saying they are looking into the problems involved in the matter you have raised. In about another two months you get another long letter defending their poor service. Their attitude seems to be that this service was good enough for our grandfathers and great-grandfathers and it should be good enough for people today.
When we try to pin them down they escape by saying, "Well, we do not own this railway in Newfoundland; we are only operating it for the federal government". Then when one approaches the federal government the answer is, "Well, we cannot do anything unless the C.N.R. management make a recommendation". Thus we go round and round in this vicious circle.
February 11, 1966

What is needed in my constituency is a completely new service based on twentieth century standards. This involves, first of all, separating the freight service from the passenger, mail and express service. Present boats could be utilized for scheduled freight service until more suitable and more economic boats can be obtained. Then they could probably be used in the summer for tourist trips to Labrador and in winter for tourist trips to the Caribbean and West Indies. For passengers, express and first class mail we need fast boats running between Port aux Basques and Terrenceville with a frequency of three trips a week each way.
I stress the fact that Terrenceville should be regarded as a terminal because it has been used as a passenger terminal for the past 12 or 14 years even though the eastern terminal is based at Argentia. There is no point in passengers staying on a ship for two or three days and travelling over rough waters when they can get to St. John's from Terrenceville by road within two hours.
I understand that in parts of Europe governments, travel agencies and steamship companies have utilized hydrofoil boats capable of carrying 100 to 150 passengers at speeds around 30 miles an hour. This is the sort of service that I think would solve the problem I have been describing. I understand that hydrofoil craft are now being manufactured in Italy which are capable of travelling in rough seas with waves up to 12 feet high. This type of boat would suit the conditions under which the people in my riding have to travel for the greater portion of the year. I would therefore urge the C.N.R. and the government to find some solution along these lines. This vicious circle of avoidance of responsibility must be broken.
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)
The premier of the province of Newfoundland has proclaimed 1966 as "come home" year. One may expect the amount of traffic to be considerably increased over that of previous years, and in view of the experience my constituents have had during the past two years the situation will be indescribable unless something is done. I again urge the government, as the owner of the railway system in Newfoundland, to take immediate steps to remedy the situation I have described along the lines I have suggested.


Mr. Fawcett:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few observations on item No. 1 in respect of railway transportation. This is a subject with which I am familiar as a result
S upp ly-Transport
of my employment in the transportation industry with the Canadian National Railways for the last 25 years. I must agree with the hon. member for Medicine Hat that many of the problems facing the industry today are a direct result of a lack of any comprehensive national transportation policy, a lack of delegation of authority and the improper exercise of the authority that does exist. It would appear that the Board of Transport Commissioners are not carrying out their proper function in protecting the interests of the public in respect of railway transportation. Their decisions appear to reflect acquiescence in company pressure and a lack of proper and logical investigation. It seems that they turn deaf ears to the protestations of the public. This is particularly apparent in their decision to allow the discontinuance of the Canadian Pacific's "Dominion".
I think that one of the first questions one must ask is whether railway passenger service is a profitable enterprise. I must admit that the answer of necessity is that it is not an extremely profitable business. There are a great many more costly aspects involved in passenger transportation than in freight transportation. As an example of these extra costs let me point to the necessity of providing sleeping and dining facilities and the accompanying employment of sleeping car porters and dining car staff. In addition, there is always a possibility of a loss in respect of ordering foodstuffs. Public relations efforts must be maintained in order to induce people to travel by rail. In view of all the facts I have to admit that railway passenger service is not an extremely profitable enterprise.
It would appear from the Canadian Pacific's submission that the "Dominion" is not a profitable operation even during peak periods of business. I must disagree with that submission on this basis. Passenger service is not a profitable enterprise when looked at on a full time basis because there are peak periods and low periods. At times during low periods railway companies do only 20 per cent of the passenger business they do during peak periods. This makes passenger business a very precarious enterprise. However, during peak periods there must be a profit or the average loss would be a great deal higher.
I was a little surprised when the Board of Transport Commissioners decided against reinstituting the operation of the Canadian Pacific's "Dominion" during peak periods. The Canadian Pacific suggested there would be a

February 11, 1966
Supp ly-Transport
considerable loss in over-all revenue if they were to reinstitute this service during the peak holiday period from the end of June to Labour Day. It is my impression that the Canadian Pacific is attempting to get out of passenger service completely. If this argument can be successfully applied to the "Dominion" service, that it is not profitable during peak operation periods, it can be applied in respect of the "Canadian" operation. If the Board of Transport Commissioners takes the same view in respect of the "Canadian" as it has in respect of the "Dominion", I am sure the C.P.R. will be successful in getting out of the passenger business.
As an example of the railway company's attempt to get out of the passenger business, let me point out the comparative cost of travel on the two lines. The coach class fare from Ottawa to Sudbury on the C.P.R. is $16.35. The coach class fare from Ottawa to Sudbury on the C.N.R. on a bargain day is $7.65. One can travel from Ottawa to Sudbury and return on the C.N.R. at approximately the same cost as a one way trip, coach class, on the C.P.R. Surely that is an indication that the Canadian Pacific is pricing itself out of the business. I think the C.P.R. has a good reason for pricing itself out of the passenger business. By doing so it will be in a position to capture a larger share of the lucrative freight business, and there is no doubt that the freight business is lucrative. Surely that is the reason for this action on the part of the Canadian Pacific. If this action on the part of the Canadian Pacific is allowed to continue the onus will fall on the Canadian National to assume the overload of passenger business.
Let me direct your attention to one submission made by the Canadian Pacific Railway in its attempt to have the "Dominion" service discontinued. They assessed the road maintenance costs in relation to the operations of the "Dominion" alone at $1,932,657. That figure may be correct as it relates to the company's cost accounting system but it is not a logical figure giving a true picture of road maintenance costs. The company has merely allocated a percentage of the total road maintenance costs to the operation of the "Dominion". To make my point a little clearer, let me say that if the Canadian Pacific is an efficiently run railway, and I am sure it is, it has a program of railroad tie replacement carried on year after year irrespective of whether or not the "Dominion" is

in operation. If the "Dominion" is discontinued the tie replacement program will still go on. I am sure the transposing of rails on curves will continue whether or not the "Dominion" is continued.
[DOT] (1:20 p.m.)
There is snow removal in the wintertime. The cost of this will be exactly the same; there will be no reduction because the "Dominion" has been discontinued. The program of track lifting and ballasting will be exactly the same; the cancellation of the "Dominion" will have no effect on that whatsoever. How they can assess this amount of money for road maintenance against the "Dominion" is beyond my comprehension, if we are to be realistic and logical. Obviously there would be no reduction in staff so far as section crews or extra gangs are concerned.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, let me say I am not going to get into any argument or feud with a mechanical brain or an electronic computer because I do not even pretend to be an expert in economics. But if this one item is indicative of the way the railway assesses costs against the "Dominion", I would have to question the whole list of items because to my mind they are very unrealistic to say the least.
To return to the question of handling traffic in general if the "Dominion" is not reinstated this summer, I notice that in the second judgment handed down by the Board of Transport Commissioners they indicated that buses and the Canadian National Railways can take care of the situation. I am not going to argue the point so far as buses are concerned but I know there are a great many people who do not like travelling on a bus. They would much rather travel on a train. However, Mr. Chairman, this is beside the point because I cannot understand how it is thought that during the peak periods Canadian National can handle this overload of traffic. I happened to be the conductor on one of the C.N.R. transcontinental trains last summer west of Capreol and I have to say that the normal traffic was not handled efficiently. It was a case of there being an overload trip after trip after trip. How they can take on any additional traffic is far beyond my comprehension.
I think Canadian National have been trying to give Canadian Pacific a little help because I notice that in the questionnaire requesting particulars of unfilled reservations in respect of Canadian National there is a statement
February 11, 1966

that interests me somewhat, it being an observation of a representative of Canadian National Railways:
I am advised that it is our experience that it is indeed an exceptional case when it is not possible to offer some kind of reserved accommodation to to all who apply for it. Admittedly there are instances when we cannot give exactly what is asked for, but invariably we are in a position to offer reasonable alternatives which are accepted in most cases.
I am beginning to wonder whether I worked for Canadian National Railways last summer in view of their assertion that invariably they were in a position to offer reasonable alternatives. I do not think a reasonable alternative to a good coach seat is a seat on the bench in a cafeteria car or in a lounge car or perhaps even in a baggage car. It seems to me that the C.N.R. are certainly not going out of their way to hurt the C.P.R. with regard to this particular matter.
Also, Mr. Chairman, in the transcript of the evidence presented by the C.P.R. the fact is mentioned that previously they handled express and mail cars on the "Dominion" but these express and mail cars have been transferred to freight trains. I should like to give the committee a little indication of what this could mean. They say this traffic can be handled on the freight trains, that it means a little added expense so far as the freight trains are concerned but does not constitute a matter worth mentioning. However, if their express and mail business is what it could be or what they are trying to make it, I would say that if they are going to handle this traffic efficiently they will have to put on extra trains.
This is very profitable traffic, and in fact Canadian National Railways operate express freight trains Nos. 103 and 104. These handle express and mail; they do not carry passengers except incidentally. They do not have passenger equipment. However, here again I would argue that Canadian National Railways should provide decent equipment on these trains because they are definitely paying for themselves in respect of mail and express. If they can provide an additional service to the public by putting on extra cars,
I think this should be done.
However, the fact that they operate this train and are leaving it in operation seems to imply that the business is profitable and it could be used to help meet the over-all operating cost of a train which also included passenger service. I have a strong feeling that
23033-69J
Supply-Transport
the effect of the reduction of Canadian Pacific Railway's passenger service on their main line is going to have a very detrimental effect on the publicly owned C.N.R. After all, Canadian National Railways belongs to the people. This effect would apply particularly if it develops that passenger business is unprofitable on the whole, because I can see the great possibility that Canadian National will become loaded down with passenger business.
In my opinion Canadian National will not be able to slip out from under the passenger business in the way Canadian Pacific has and as a result Canadian National will have to give up a good deal of its lucrative freight business in order to handle the passenger traffic. I believe this is a very realistic approach to the situation and I do not think even the management of Canadian National would give me an argument on this proposition. I am quite sure that some of the minor officials are concerned about this problem at the present time.
In that event we will be faced with bad publicity so far as Canadian National Railways are concerned, namely, that passenger traffic is not a paying proposition and all the rest of it. But is this being fair to Canadian National? I shall not try to defend Canadian National even though I was an employee of that company. I would have to say that many of their policies do not make good economic sense in my opinion and I have questioned them on numerous occasions. I am not entirely happy with many of their policies. But I still have a certain loyalty to Canadian National and I think it will be placing an unfair burden on them if Canadian Pacific more or less slough off the passenger business to Canadian National.
I wish to refer to another question that I think is very important in respect of railway transportation. I refer to labour peace. I do not think I need go too fully into what transpired prior to the Freedman Commission being set up, but I would say briefly that due to the unilateral institution of certain runs or attempts unilaterally to impose certain runs on Canadian National employees, which runs were not accepted, and also because of the very poor employer-employee relationship in Canadian National at that particular time, there was a "book sick" withdrawal from service. As hon. members probably recall, Canadian National Railways were tied up for a number of hours because of this situation. As a result of the "book sick" procedure the

February 11, 1966
Supply-Transport
Hon. Mr. Justice Samuel Freedman of Winnipeg was given the job of investigating this problem. He was to investigate the reasons for booking sick and come up with certain recommendations.
[DOT] (1:30 p.m.)
Some of his recommendations, I think, are very significant. I should like to turn to page 135 of the report and read what he has to say with regard to run-throughs. He is referring to the right of the Canadian National, Canadian Pacific or any other railroad to impose such things unilaterally:
44. Should it continue to have that right? The question here raised lies at the heart of this Inquiry. The Commission is satisfied that it must be answered only in one way. The institution of run-throughs should be a matter for negotiation. To treat it as an unfettered management prerogative will only promote unrest, undermine morale, and drive the parties farther and farther apart. In that direction lies disorder and danger. By placing run-throughs, on the other hand, within the realm of negotiation a long step will be taken toward the goal of industrial peace. More than that. Such a course will help to provide safeguards against the undue dislocation and hardship that often result from technological change.
I think that this recommendation by the Hon. Mr. Justice Freedman should be kept in mind in this session of parliament because I believe it should be given proper consideration if we hope to have labour peace in the railway transportation area.
Mr. Justice Freedman also refers to the matter of providing compensation to employees who are affected. On page 139, Clause 54 of the report, I read:
54. On the Issue of providing compensation for losses on real estate the Commission has reached the conclusion that the company's present policy is unsuited to the contemporary industrial scene. A technological advance whose benefits accrue to the employer but whose burdens fall on the employee is unacceptable in a society which is concerned about human welfare.
The Commission accordingly recommends that any employee who is required to change his place of residence as a result of a run-through should be compensated by the company for financial loss suffered in the sale of his home for less than Its fair value. Fair value should * be determined as of & date sufficiently prior to the announcement of the run-through to be unaffected thereby. Any dispute on value should be resolved by a majority decision of an evaluating committee of three persons, one designated by the company, a second designated by the employee or his authorized representative, and the third designated by the two first named. The company should in every case have a right in priority to anyone else to purchase the home at its fair value as so determined.
If the dislocated employee is not a home owner but occupies his residence under an unexpired
IMr. Fawcett.]
lease he should be protected by the company from monetary loss arising from the need to terminate it.
As I said before, these recommendations must be kept in mind if there is to be labour peace in the railway transportation field.
I should like to conclude by speaking briefly on the subject of box cars or grain cars. I should like to clarify one small point, the difference between box cars and grain cars. I am not trying to get the railways off the hook as you will see as I go along. Box cars and grain cars are two different things. The fact that there is a large number of Canadian box cars in the United States does not mean that there is a large number of grain cars there. The percentage of those cars used for transporting pulpwood and other rough materials is large. Some of them are used for transporting flour and such material. They are not grain cars and some of them would not be suitable for carrying grain. I would say that on the average 20 per cent to 30 per cent of those cars might be suitable for carrying grain.
The point I am trying to make is that it is not because we have so many cars in the United States on foreign lines that there is a shortage of grain cars. I believe the shortage results from the fact that the companies have not interested themselves in having box cars built for this purpose because the grain carrying business is not a highly profitable one. I believe there should be more pressure put on the railways to ensure that a proper number of box cars are built to handle grain. Certainly there is every evidence that this is going to be one of our major transportation items when we have such immense sales of wheat as we seem to have at this time.
I am going to conclude now, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me there is a necessity for an over-all transportation authority with the power to institute comprehensive transportation policies embracing all modes of transportation and with the idea in mind of coordinating them for the benefit of the public as a whole.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw to the minister's attention a situation which I think is very important. It is not only important to my area but it affects the Prime Minister's area, Manitoulin Island, the area of Parry Sound-Muskoka, Algoma, and the ridings of Fort William and Port Arthur. It is related to tourism. Basically the problem is related to the fact that two Canadian Pacific boats plying from Port McNicoll to Port
February 11, 1966

Arthur and Fort William have been withdrawn from passenger services. They have made their last run carrying passengers.
I believe the minister appreciates as much as anybody the value of the tourist dollar. A tourist dollar coming into this country is as valuable as any of the dollars we receive for industrial material that we sell outside of this country. I do not believe I have to draw the minister's attention to the fact that this region is a designated area. The minister will recall also that in 1961, if my memory serves me correctly, we had our first positive balance with the United States on tourism in over ten years.
I believe the minister will agree also that this is vitally important when one considers the big deficit we have today. I believe he will agree too that tourism is the third largest business in Canada. These boats are not running any more because the Department of Transport said that certain regulations were going to be enforced. The Canadian Pacific said they could not afford to make these necessary changes because they would cost over $1 million.
The point I want to make is that I should like the minister to say whether or not there was any consultation or policy of conciliation in talking over this situation. Was there a time limit given to the Canadian Pacific or were they told that if they fixed one boat they would be given a year or two to fix the other boat? I say to the minister that this is a very important matter. These boats carry 200 passengers per trip and make two trips per week for the summer season from July 1st to the end of the tourist season. They carry these passengers at $100 each and carry automobiles at $25 each.
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)
I do not think it takes much mathematical figuring to find out how much this means. Let me tell the minister, who I am sure must have looked into this problem, that two thirds of the passengers carried are United States visitors.
Every one of these people crossed into Canada at some port of entry. Every one of them travelled hundreds of miles in Canada. Some have come up through the province of Quebec, some through the province of Ontario and from other ports of entry across Canada and all have bought services as they travelled. The ships sail from Port McNicoll which is about 85 miles north of Toronto just off Highway 400. The ships also carry freight
Supply-Transport
and one of them is continuing to do so. The ships were built in 1907 on the Clyde. They came across the ocean under their own steam, were divided to go through the Welland Canal and put together in the Buffalo shipyards. Since that time they have sailed the Great Lakes without accident. They came through the great storm of 1913 which caused such havoc and tragedy on the Great Lakes. The boats are equipped, so experts tell me, with one of the finest sprinkler systems that can be provided. They have lifeboats which are checked regularly, either weekly or twice weekly, and the boats are excellently manned.
This is not only a question of tourist dollars, Mr. Chairman. All of the men employed on these boats come from a designated area, where new industry that qualifies is subsidized.
I also want to say to the minister that the regulations which were put into effect after the investigation into the Noronic fire in Toronto were based on the fact that the passengers on that boat had slept aboard in port at night. I am told that the C.P.R. disembarks all their passengers. These are the last two Canadian boats sailing the Great Lakes. I should like the minister to tell the committee what went on in the conversations with the Department of Transport when they discussed these regulations. Did they say that the government would give help or would subsidize this operation? The government are subsidizing industry in one place to the tune, according to the department from which I inquired, of $5 million. There is another case of a boat that was purchased in Miami, Florida, at a cost of $1,250,000 but by the time it was repaired and altered it finally cost the government around $4 million. If this can be done in one instance surely it can be done in another. I want the minister to tell us what conversations he had with the C.P.R. Did the government say that they would not do anything or was any conciliatory effort made to come to an amicable agreement? Was the C.P.R. told to carry on and that the government would partially subsidize the change-over because the operation brings in tourist dollars just as much as any manufactured article? I want to make it perfectly clear that I am in favour of the government doing something in that respect.
I now turn to the Trent canal system. This again concerns all members from Lake Ontario to Georgian Bay. I have gone from Port

February 11, 1966
Supply-Transport
McNicoll on Georgian Bay right to the head of the lakes. The minister has on his side of the house some members from this area who I am sure are or should be as vitally interested in this matter as I am.
The minister will recall that the Trent canal system was almost forgotten for over 40 years. Only repair jobs were done in order to keep it hanging together. There was poor morale among the members of the work force. He will also recall the day in 1960 when he spoke on this matter on estimates. He was on this side and we were trying to get the whole system jacked up so that we could remodel, rebuild and repair the Trent canal and make it the waterway it should be, for it really is one of the greatest fresh water, canal waterways in the world. It caters to the greatest concentration of small boats in the world. I remember what the minister said on that occasion. I thought it was a terrible thing that this clever fellow would get up and cut my argument to pieces. I say that with respect because the minister is very able and capable and he did do a good job trying to sabotage. On that day he said that it should all be let go down the hill and given to Uncle Leslie as a birthday present. I think the minister will recall that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He did not take it.


Philip Bernard Rynard: In any event we went ahead and got the plans through the house to do a remodelling job which will probably run around $20 million. When the present government came into office they did go ahead with this plan. I am very proud of this canal system. If the minister were to go up there, boatman that he is, he would go through the locks and see the personnel all dressed up today in nice uniforms whereas they used to wear overalls and go around sometimes without shirts in the summer. Now they wear sailor caps and Department of Transport shirts and trousers and are very respectable looking, which gives us a great sense of pride. Therefore I compliment the minister in following up this plan, but he only went half way. He did finish the Swift locks according to our plans and did a wonderful job. I hope he will come up and see them; his deputy did.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So did the Minister of National Defence.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Yes, and he did a nice job for the minister. I hope the minister did not stay behind because of what he said about giving

the system to Uncle Leslie. I had looked forward to seeing him there with some anticipation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had to go to Newfoundland.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I will accept that excuse. I will also give him an invitation to come there and be my guest. I should like him to see the finished canal system because I am very proud of it, as are all the people that travel it. The finished lock is a beautiful 60 foot lock with no swirling water or foam. Boats rise slowly. It is all power operated and there is a nice brick office at the top. You will find nothing better anywhere else in Canada or the United States. If the officials here of the Department of Transport could see it I am sure they would be as proud of it as I am.
The marine railway was taken out but there is another one at Big Chute. Why in the world did they move this number one priority at Big Chute? Why did they not get ahead with the job? I should like to get an assurance from the minister, who is as interested in Canada as I am, that he will leave the old marine railway at the big chute because it is a terrific tourist attraction. We do not see such things anywhere else now. The old marine railways screeched, grunted and broke down. For a period of 40 to 50 years they carried the boats across. Finally they got down to being able to carry only 15 tons, which is not big enough today. The boats used to come up and then had to turn around because they could not go through. This condition still exists.
I say to the minister that we are anxious to get these tourist dollars. I saw Americans turning back last summer because their boats were too big to go through. I am sure the minister knows as well as I do and perhaps better what these American tourist dollars mean to us. I am also sure that if he looks at this marine railway he will grasp the significance of preserving this great tourist attraction which worked so long and so well for Canada after the first great war. It was just put in as a stopgap.
[DOT] (1:50 p.m.)
I have spoken of two matters which concern my riding. Nevertheless they are as important to hon. members sitting on the other side of the house as they are to members sitting beside me. They affect constituencies right from Trenton to Port Arthur at the head of the lakes. I should like the minister to make a real effort to see that these two
February 11, 1966

Canadian boats, the last in service, are allowed to continue. Let him give effect to a policy of conciliation and see whether something cannot be worked out with the C.P.R. Then let him take a look at Big Chute, and the marine railway. I am sure he will not allow the marine railway to be taken out.
In saying all this I know there is a lamprey problem. The experts have told me over and over again that the lamprey spawns in the months of April and May. The experts say this is true with the exception of one man who said they could spawn any time. This would be a case of reproduction without the two parties and that is rare.
I say that this marine railway could be used up to July 1. The boats which go through before July 1 are the small boats of the local people. The lock could be kept closed until July 1. In the meantime the lamprey would have spawned and would be no threat to the inland lakes. I want the minister to consider this. Possibly the provincial government in Toronto is not moving fast enough. I will leave it to the minister. I am sure he understands the problem. I also extend to him a pressing invitation, when the Big Chute is open, to come and stay with me. There will be no mention made of that birthday present.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he agree to prod his friends in Toronto into co-operating with us?


Philip Bernard Rynard: I will do everything I can to help the minister. I know he is on my side now. He realizes the importance of this matter. I will go along with him and do anything I can to keep these boats going, protect the fishing and build the lock. I will give a prod to my friends in Toronto.


Mr. Laprise:: Since we are now considering the estimates of the Department of Transport, I should like to take this opportunity to make a few remarks to the minister concerning the development which should be going on in certain parts of my riding which covers nearly a third of the province of Quebec and which has vast forests, streams and all sorts of minerals.
More particularly, I should like to remind the minister today of a request which goes back several years and which has to do with a grant for the construction of an airport to serve the towns of Chapais and Chibougamau and the mining communities of the northern
Supply-Transport
part of the riding of Chapleau so that those districts can develop at the same rate as the other sections of the country.
There are now a few good roads and a railway. There is also a road to Albanel lake. Considerable development could take place as far as mining, tourism and hunting and fishing are concerned. I mention this because it is important for people to be able to travel by air. That is why I urge the minister to favourably consider applications submitted by those cities so that adequate air service may be provided in that part of the country.
There is also another area in full development north of Amos, that of Mattagami lake, which would need government financial support and assistance to build an airport so that people interested in developing their country can reach that area quickly.
I know that the time of these people is valuable and that they must move about quickly. There are two mining areas in full development, one in Mattagami and another in Poirier-Joutel. A mine has just started operations in this area lately.
I should like to remind the minister that the possibility of establishing air service between Senneterre-Amos, with a stop in Mattagami, and up to James Bay, is still under consideration at present. I know that requests have been submitted to this effect, and I feel that the minister should take them into consideration and make the appropriate recommendations to the Air Transport Board for the granting of such a permit.
Another city, located in the centre of my riding, namely Amos, is also asking for a grant for the construction of an airport. I know that the work is already under way, but it seems that the minister has not finalized the project. The minister should consider this request favourably, so as to provide the city of Amos with a proper airport without delay.
[DOT] (2:00 p.m.)
That makes several requests for the same riding at one time, I agree, but I point out to the Minister of Transport that with regard to rivers and streams, the government has not spent much in our region. Since we do not have great rivers or streams, or coastlines which are being developed or will soon be developed, I think we should look to the air to get what we need so as to attain some degree of prosperity in this new area.
I want to bring another thing to the minister's attention. He might tell us that it does

February 11. 1966
Supply-Transport
not come directly under its jurisdiction but it deals with the granting of radio and television licences in part of my riding, namely in the Chibougamau and Chapais area. The minister will recall that I made numerous interventions-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to limit the hon. member in any way, but may I remind him that the minister responsible to the house for policies in the field of radio and television is my colleague the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh).
I believe it might be preferable for the member to make his remarks on this matter when the estimates of that department come up for study, because the minister is not here at the present time; for greater impact, I am sure it would be better for him to speak to the minister.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister of Transport most sincerely for the worthy effort he has just made in my mother tongue. I really thought that the granting of licences, with regard to radio and television, was the responsibility of the Department of Transport.
As far as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is concerned, I will certainly have some observations to make, when the estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State come before the house.
At this time, I do not intend to talk about the quality of programming. But, on the other hand, there is one thing on which I should like to draw the minister's attention concerning the issuing of such licenses. The towns of Chibougamau and Chapais are now served by someone holding a permit to operate cable television. Now, those people have to pay twice for television services and, then again, they get poor service.
I think that the minister should recommend that the C.B.C. serve those areas. The report of the Fowler Commission contains a recommendation to that effect.
There is a very interesting article on this subject on page 74 of the report. It says that all Canadians pay for the Canadian radio and television networks, not only for C.B.C. networks but for the whole complex including private radio and television stations.
Their tax contributions represent about one third of the total costs. They pay for the remaining two thirds each time they buy a can of soup, a loaf of bread and, I might add, a cake of soap. Many of them, therefore, pay for a radio and television service that is not

provided to them. There is obviously a great deal to do.
I suggest to the minister that the people of Chibougamau and Chapais are paying twice for those services. To begin with, like everybody else, they pay through their taxes and their purchases, and then they have to pay for the installation of the cable bringing in the programs, plus $7 a month in rental fees, plus 42 cents a month for the provincial tax, for a total of $65.04 a year to be served by a television channel which is not always first rate.
Mr. Chairman, those are the facts I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister so that he would recommend the required appropriations to enable an expanded C.B.C. to serve the people of those areas as well as possible.
Knowing that the Minister of Transport advocates equality and justice for all Canadians, I am sure he will give special consideration to my representations.
I do not intend to speak any further today on the administration of the Department of Transport. I will have other remarks to make when the various estimates are called-which, I hope, will be as soon as possible.


Mr. Ormiston:: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to pour yet another transportation problem on the shoulders of the Minister of Transport even if they are wide shoulders. However, even though the problem I wish to talk about may not be a burning issue at the moment it could very well become contentious if action is not taken at the right time. I refer to the C.N.R. run-through program which was mentioned briefly a few moments ago.
The minister will recall the situation which developed in 1964 when the C.N.R. tried to institute run-throughs at Nakina and Wain-wright. Because of the action taken in this chamber and the strong representations made by the opposition, which were listened to sympathetically by the then minister, the government appointed Judge Freedman who made a very exhaustive report on the situation, which report was subsequently presented to the government. But up to the present we have no guarantee that the interested parties will tend to abide by the recommendations of Judge Freedman.
It would be some satisfaction to those of us concerned with this problem to get the minister's viewpoint. I am sure he is showing sufficient interest even at this moment to
February 11, 1966



enlighten the committee on the attitude which he feels should be taken in regard to this problem.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, in the best possible spirit, and without raising a technical point of order, may I venture to make a suggestion to the hon. member for Melville? I can give him an answer to one question. The railway does intend to have a conference with the unions on precisely the subjects mentioned in the Freedman report. I have been assured of that. Today the house leader told us that the estimates for all departments for the fiscal year 1966-67 will be tabled on Monday and I feel quite certain that this subject will still be a very active one when we reach the estimates for the forthcoming fiscal year.
I am not seeking to restrict the hon. member for Melville in any way but I was wondering whether members of the committee generally might think that subjects which could equally well be discussed on the 196667 estimates could be held over until we reach those estimates, thus allowing the committee to concentrate its attention at present on those things which hon. members feel would not be current after March 31. If hon. members feel that their speeches will have the same effect on the government after March 31 as before, then with a view to getting the whole business of the session through they might consider that suggestion.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, might I comment on the remarks of the minister apropos of the question? I simply wish to discuss his suggestion.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is this on the point of order?


Frank Howard: I understand that originally the matter was raised as a point of order so that the minister might make his suggestion, and I should like to follow that line. It should be first understood that when the 1966-67 estimates come before us they will be subject to the restricting rules of time allocated to their consideration. The only way we might be able to agree to restrict our remarks on the 1965-66 estimates, would be if the government would agree to an extended time limit for discussion of the 1966-67 estimates. Otherwise, undoubtedly what will happen is that in discussing the 1966-67 estimates there will not be sufficient time available to raise these important matters. I think the minister should have raised his point about restricting 23033-70
Supply-Transport
our remarks on the 1965-66 estimates when his friend, the hon. member for Brantford, was talking about the Company of Young Canadians, which has nothing to do with the Minister of Transport except that he himself might fit within that company.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will leave that innuendo aside, sir, and say I understand that when the new rules were adopted it was the intention to send the 1966-67 estimates of most departments to committees because of the restriction of time in committee of the whole under the new rules. I certainly hope that will be done with the estimates of the Department of Transport for 1966-67. I have no desire to restrict any hon. member either now or later but there obviously is a limit on the time we can spend on these estimates, considering the moneys must be voted before they can be spent. I would not like to feel that, because of my engaging personality, my department was taking up so much of the time that others of my colleagues would be spared the attention I am receiving.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, in regard to the minister's remarks let me say that I am sure none of us wishes to deny the fact that he has an engaging personality. It is true that when the estimates of the next fiscal year are referred to the appropriate committees a more detailed consideration will be undertaken than at this stage. However, I think the minister might be inclined to agree that there are a great many broad and varied fields coming within the general jurisdiction of his important department, and that by and large those who gave participated in the consideration of his estimates have done so in respect of broad policy issues. There has been no opportunity to deal with those issues because of a variety of circumstances upon which I will not enlarge at the moment.
It does seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that if the minister has a bit more patience and the members of the committee agree that this is the type of discussion we should have at this time, this will shorten considerably the consideration of transportation matters later this session.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am only a suppliant before the committee and it does not matter whether I agree. When I was on the other side of the house I often pointed out that ministers were only suppliants and I now know that much better than ever. However, you cannot blame me for trying.

February 11, 1966
Supp ly-Transport


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add a small contribution to this interesting discussion by stating that the minister should remember that it has been a long time since his department and many others have had a complete and thorough examination of their estimates. There is a great backlog of questions that have arisen in the minds of hon. members and we are most anxious to have these questions answered.
The minister spoke of confining our remarks to current matters so that continuing situations could be taken up during the consideration of the estimates for the following fiscal year. He should not lose sight of the fact that there are a great many questions which were current a year or many months ago which still have not been answered. Members have a moral commitment to the people they represent to seek answers to these questions and I feel that any time spent at this stage will lessen the time necessary for the consideration of the estimates of this department for the next fiscal year.


James Norris Ormiston: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for his very kind suggestion, and I do so with all sincerity. I have already achieved part of my purpose by bring-in this problem to his attention. Knowing the minister as I do, I am sure he will keep it in mind. I think he realizes, as all of us do, that the C.N.R. is going to proceed with these run-throughs. When they do the recommendations contained in this report should be taken into consideration. I hope that when this takes place in due course Judge Freedman's recommendations will be acted upon. With the minister's assurance that he will act in the most beneficial manner to all concerned I will defer any further remarks to a later time.


Maurice Rinfret: I recognize the hon. member for Skeena.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Out of the frying pan into the fire.


Frank Howard: You surprised me, Mr. Chairman, because I did not really anticipate that you would recognize me.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I did not hear the hon. member.


Frank Howard: It is of no moment, Mr. Chairman.


Maurice Rinfret: I should like to hear what the hon. member said.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: He said he is of no
moment.


Frank Howard: I do not think it is within the rules for the member occupying the Chair to engage in a conversation, Mr. Chairman, but I do say-


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I was distracted and did not hear what the hon. member said at the beginning of his remarks. I should like to hear what he said.


Frank Howard: I was expressing appreciation for your recognition, Mr. Chairman. I want to raise a matter concerning the west coast which is also of concern to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. It is a matter of vital interest and one which has been discussed before both in this house and through correspondence. I intend to spend only a few minutes posing some thoughts about it. It has to do with the operation and collection of wharfage fees. These are collected under the authority of the government wharf regulations, I believe.
Over the years the Department of Public Works has built floats at certain communities along the coast primarily for the use of fishermen. Within the last few years the Department of Transport, which administers these floats or wharf systems, has entered into contracts with certain groups to look after this operation in exchange for a certain fee. For every dollar that fishermen on the west coast pay to tie up to one of these floats 85 cents is expended in the collection of that dollar with 15 cents eventually going to the Department of Transport.
Eighty five per cent is a hefty chunk to be consumed by administration and collection costs. Even credit agencies, which are notorious for the way they prosecute their collection of unpaid bills, usually take only one-third of the amount of the bill as a collection fee. In this case the agencies or contractors of the Department of Transport take 85 per cent of the amount collected for the use of these floats and in some instances transmit only 15 per cent of the amount collected plus one dollar per year.
There is tremendous objection on the west coast to this system, as I am sure the minister is aware. Most of it is based on the fact that this money is only collectable at certain government floats and not at others. It is also based upon the fact that there is no similar charge for the use of facilities on the east coast of Canada. I realize, of course, that there are no facilities there of a comparable
February 11, 1966

type but west coast fishermen reluctantly accepted the idea that they would have to pay side wharfage rates for the use of these floats with the initial understanding that the payments they made would go toward the establishment of additional facilities such as electric outlets, water and toilet facilities and land parking facilities.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
It was the hope initially of the fishermen, albeit a faint one, that the money they paid for tying up to these floats would be reflected in increased services and facilities. But when 85 per cent of the money if gobbled up in collection fees and administration, it does not leave very much for providing additional facilities.
A number of suggestions have been made to the minister by way of alternatives to the existing system. I shall not go into extensive detail about those alternatives at this time except to point out that I understand that within the next couple of weeks a delegation of west coast fishermen is coming to Ottawa to discuss a variety of subject matters with various departments. This is one matter they will be raising.
I only mention the subject now to show that it is not a matter which should be treated lightly, and I seriously hope that because of the discussion which will take place the minister will be able to come to a different conclusion and establish a different system for the use of floats on the west coast. I say this, Mr. Chairman, because this problem is naturally causing a tremendous amount of resentment amongst fishermen and is resulting in a fair degree of inequity amongst fishermen in the application of the rules. Perhaps the minister at some convenient time would comment on his own desires and the desires and hopes of his department in this respect.
I wish now to raise a matter with respect to shipping in general, the Seaway, the Canada Shipping Act and the position in which Canadian sailors find themselves especially in so far as their lives and safety are concerned. Last year's shipping season was perhaps the most tragic we have had in Canada, with accidents and collisions between ships, injuries and deaths reaching a peak far surpassing anything that has previously occurred in Canada, and with property damage running into millions of dollars. As a result some representations have been made to the minister and his department. There have
Supply-Transport
been meetings and discussions about safety measures, but so far nothing has been done to put the very worth-while recommendations into effect. On July 8 last year the Seafarers International Union made a presentation to the minister. Enumerated therein were some six or seven points to which I shall not refer in any great detail except to say that they were extremely worth-while, well thought out suggestions.
One suggestion related to radio telephone communication between ships navigating the Great Lakes and the Seaway. Another related to Canadian helmsmen at the wheels of these ships primarily for the purpose of communicating in a language familiar to the pilot in particular and to the skipper. Another suggestion related to the assignment of lookouts on these ships. Another related to competency standards and training and safety measures relating thereto. Another had to do with the broader question of manning requirements in so far as ships are concerned. Another related to the updating and improvement of inspection procedures. Finally, there was a recommendation with regard to a joint labour-management advisory board being set up to deal with safety measures and manning requirements and in order that the various changes which may be necessary in the future may be made on an up to date basis and on the advice of people who are working on the Seaway every day of their lives.
On November 26 this brief was followed by another brief presented by the Seafarers International Union to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour. It was a sort of addendum to the one of July 8. It concentrated its attention on certain matters arising out of what they called the continuous history of ship fires, ship explosions, collisions, groundings and other accidents.
I noticed a newspaper report in the Globe and Mail of November 27 referring to the November 26 meeting. The Globe and Mail report indicated that there was agreement among labour, management, the Seafarers International Union, the shipowners and the Underwriters Association in so far as at least three of the proposals were concerned. One of the proposals involved the use of radiotelephones between ships in the Seaway so there could be constant communication between ships as they navigated the Seaway. The second proposal upon which there was agreement involved the question of a traffic control arrangement for the Seaway and the third

February 11, 1966
Supply-Transport
involved the development of an upstream and a downstream channel below the port of Quebec.
The article goes on to say that the minister agreed with these proposals, that the deputy minister had indicated that studies were under way already within the department with respect to the feasibility of dredging the St. Lawrence below the port of Quebec in order to have a two way channel, that regulations with respect to radiotelephone communication were already being developed and put into proper language, and that a study of a traffic control system was under way. My memory is, and I think the newspaper article confirms this, that there was a press conference of sorts after the meeting at which the Minister of Transport said his department planned to call the various groups of the shipping industry together for further general meetings. At the press conference a most unwise statement, unwise because I think it is deleterious to the safety of sailors, was made by the former minister of labour who said that so far as he was concerned the question of manning requirements should be the subject matter of collective bargaining.
In passing may I say that in labour-management negotiations and so far as the lives of workmen in this nation are concerned, we simply do not follow the practice of bargaining away an individual's life. We simply do not follow the practice of making safety measures the subject of collective bargaining except in so far as they are bargained upwards from a certain base established by government. In nearly all types of work workmen have safeguards in this respect. In the provincial field workmen's compensation boards establish the minimum requirements for safety precautions, safety factors and safety measures. Collective bargaining only takes place to improve beyond the point established as minimal by government. For the former minister of labour to have suggested that this sort of thing should be the subject of collective bargaining in the shipping industry is really playing fast and loose with the lives of sailors in this nation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit me to intervene since the former minister of labour does not happen to be in the chamber. Though I do not think this appeared in the press report, my recollection is that what happened was this. The former minister of labour said, immediately before he made that

particular statement, that provisions with regard to the safety of the crews and ships should be incorporated in the law in the Canada Shipping Act but that apart from that the question of manning was a matter for collective bargaining. I believe this is precisely the position which the hon. gentleman himself stated should be the position with regard to these matters.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Frank Howard: The article does not say that but if that is the correct position, all well and good. The article does say that the former minister of labour stated there was no plan to bring forward legislation to deal with the problems of manning at this time. If the government agrees with the principle that the Canada Shipping Act should cover the matter of safety and should set out the standards to be met by ship owners and sailors from day to day in order to ensure that safety measures are carried out, I commend them. If that is their position, I wish they would come forward and change the rules in order to put that policy properly into effect.
For donkey's years now the Canada Shipping Act, Section 407, Subsection 1 has stated:
Every steamship registered in Canada shall be manned with a crew sufficient and efficient from the point of view of safety of life for the purpose of her intended voyage, and shall, during such voyage, be kept so manned.
This sounds very well; they are fine words -"sufficient and efficient from the point of view of safety of life". Subsection 2 reads:
If any of the provisions of this section are not complied with in the case of any steamship, the owner ... is liable ... to a fine not exceeding $500, and the master, if in fault, is liable ... to a fine not exceeding $250.
There is a requirement and there is a penalty to sort of act as an incentive to meet the requirement. However, nowhere in the Canada Shipping Act is there any determination of what is a crew sufficient and efficient for the purposes of safety of life. Those are mere words in the act; that is all. Who determines this and how is it to be determined? The only determination that is ever made is made after there has been a collision, after there is a board of inquiry and after lives have been lost. Then there is a determination that perhaps a ship owner should have had a lookout or the ship's master should have done so and so. However, prior to that time there is no determination, no regulation
February 11. 1966

at all which says what is a crew sufficient and efficient from the point of view of safety of life.
When the minister says it is the intention of the government that this should be covered by law, then I say, for heaven's sake get cracking on this matter. I would have thought the government would have moved long ago because the minister has authority to develop proper safety rules so that everyone can clearly see what is required.
Section 410(1) of the Canada Shipping Act reads as follows:
The Governor in Council may make regulations respecting-
There are a variety of things in the list but paragraph (m) reads:
The manning of steamships, the number of certificated lifeboat men to be carried, and the qualifications for and the granting of certificates to lifeboat men.
The Governor in Council may make regulations in respect of the manning of steamships. Here is an opportunity for the Governor in Council to declare, in so far as safety is concerned, what the minimum requirements are for the manning of certain ships. Every other shipping nation in the world has developed safety regulations. Many of these regulations were developed a long time ago and they determine what is a safe crew level, what is an adequate level of manning for that particular ship and so on. Canada has not got a single word about it.
When the minister stands up, as he did a while ago, and says so far as the government is concerned this is a matter that should be determined by regulation, then he is talking through his hat because he has not done it. The regulations under the Canada Shipping Act are silent on this matter and have been for years. The Governor in Council has authority under Section 410; the minister has had it for a long time but he has not used it. Why has he not used it? The minister said this is what should be done. I am not going to attempt to correct him and outline what is correct government policy, but why does he not do it?
The minister will not mind if I make a reference to the fact that a few years ago we used to call him "Sailor Jack". This was because of the experience he had with a yacht which sank off Newfoundland some place.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I never had a yacht, I had a schooner.
Supply-Transport


Frank Howard: All right, he had a schooner. I wonder whether that schooner was ever manned with a crew sufficient and efficient from the point of view of safety of life?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I risked my own life
aboard her.


Frank Howard: The minister's own life was at stake and I will bet you she was a safe ship. Why don't you do the same thing for the sailors of Canada? Why don't you think about their safety? This is not a matter to be tossed off lightly because the lives of Canadians and others are involved. We have had a tremendous number of wrecks in the seaway, a tremendous increase in traffic through the seaway.
If I may draw a comparison, I would say that when there is an increase in the use of automobiles, large trucks and so on, the various highway departments get busy and impose speed limits, erect warning signs and set requirements for safety belts and other safety factors in automobiles. We build better highway systems. We build new highways and divide them so that traffic is not on a collision course but rather there is a division between lanes of traffic going in opposite directions.
In so far as the seaway is concerned we do not do that. We have a great increase in ship traffic through the seaway and these ships are always headed on a collision course. No steps have been taken by the government to do a single, solitary thing about it except to undertake some meetings and to promise that they are going to do something. I point out again that on the three matters of vital concern there was not one iota of difference between the ship owners, the Seafarers International Union and the underwriters. They were unanimous from the point of view that there should be radiotelephone communication systems between ships and with the Seaway system.
What happened? We were told regulations were being drafted. We are told that there should be a traffic control system installed What happened? I am told that the matter is still under study. There was also an agreement to develop a two way channel in order that ships may not always be on a collision course in certain parts of the seaway. What about that? Those are questions which I think should be answered and answered as quickly as possible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I assume that when the hon. gentlemen keeps referring to the Seaway

February 11. 1966
Supply-Transport
he really means the St. Lawrence ship channel below Montreal?


Frank Howard: In so far as the question of traffic control is concerned and the agreement to develop a two way channel it is below the port of Quebec. I made reference to that. The question of travelling in the lakes system is a different matter. Safety factors are involved there too but I am talking about these other aspects.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rose because the hon. gentleman may not know that there is probably as complete a traffic control in what is normally called the Seaway as exists anywhere in the world.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Frank Howard: The Dominion Marine Association under date of September 22, 1965, made a presentation to the minister in which they dealt with this and other matters. I make reference to it merely to point out that here is substantiation again, if it be necessary, that these matters are of great concern and that something should be done about them. The minister said there is as good a traffic control system as exists anywhere in the world.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the Seaway.


Frank Howard: On the Seaway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not on the ship channel.


Frank Howard: On the Seaway. In that case what is the difficulty in using the experience gleaned in order to institute a traffic control system somewhere else in Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely what we are trying to do.


Frank Howard: What is the difficulty?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will have to make a speech to explain that.


Frank Howard: Speeches are not good
enough. Speeches are cheap. They come easily, especially with the Minister of Transport. He has had many years experience of making speeches. It is action we are concerned about. I can only resort here to the making of a speech about these matters but if the minister wants to give me any authority within his department so that I do not have to make a speech but can get something rolling, then I would be glad to shut up and come over and bell him how to run things if that would help.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will send the hon. gentleman a Civil Service application form on
Monday.


Frank Howard: I do not know about this business of civil servants having any great authority. This is a ministerial decision. It is true that the minister is a former civil servant but former civil servants are not the Governor in Council. Under section 410 of the Canada Shipping Act the Governor in Council makes regulations concerning safety. A civil servant cannot do it.
I have correspondence about this matter from a civil servant, especially on the question of lookouts. This is correspondence between the deputy minister, Mr. Baldwin, and the Seafarers International Union on the question of lookouts on ships. I am not going to read the preliminary correspondence. It all deals with having a lookout on a ship in order to see what is taking place in front of the ship. The last letter is from one of these individuals who presumably at one time or another filled out one of these civil service examination forms and is now the deputy minister, Mr. J. R. Baldwin, who reached that post by prime ministerial appointment. This letter relates to the very important question of having a lookout on board to make sure you can see ahead in bad weather, at sunset or at sunrise when visibility is limited or when there is a bit of a mist or fog. The lookout is there to make sure that anything ahead is detected.
Incidentally, reliance on the use of radar will get you into even more trouble. As any fisherman or sailor will tell you, if you rely exclusively on radar it will get you into difficulty. What you need are the eyes of an individual.
On December 28, 1965, Mr. J. R. Baldwin, deputy minister, wrote to L. J. McLaughlin Esq., president of the Seafarers International Union, a sort of last letter relating to a series of letters on this question of lookouts. This is what he said:
In your letter of December 1 you referred to your previous letter of October 18 and to your inquiry at the meeting on November 26 concerning the interpretation of the collision regulations in respect of the keeping of a proper lookout.
At the present time there is no requirement in the Canada Shipping Act nor in any of the regulations made pursuant to the Act for a lookout to be posted or even to be kept.
As we are both aware, the keeping of a lookout is part of the ordinary practice of seamen, bearing in mind that "keeping" in this context is not synonymous with the "posting" of a particular man in a particular place.
So that here, Mr. Chairman, after some months of correspondence the final comment is made that there is no requirement or
February 11, 1966

regulation in this regard. It is a simple matter to make a regulation. Even though the minister told me that safety measures should be a matter of law or a regulatory requirement, not a thing has been done. All that has taken place is a series of meetings and press conferences, with glib, trite statements from the minister and his colleagues about what they would like to see happen. When it comes to action, nothing is done. This indicates a conspiracy of inaction, a conspiracy to do nothing. It is a conspiracy to gamble fast and loose with the lives of the sailors of this nation who have gone through years of this sort of delay and procrastination. It really is about time the minister did something.
Let me just recapitulate, Mr. Chairman, some of the immediate matters which require attention, matters upon which there has been agreement and upon which there has yet been presented no reasonable excuse why something has not been done. Let me refer again to the necessity of a two way channel, to the question of traffic control, to the question of radiotelephone communication. These matters are bare essentials. Let me refer again to the question of taking immediate action to establish some safety measures and some manning requirement under section 410 of the Canada Shipping Act and to define under section 407 a crew sufficient and efficient from the point of view of safety of life.
As the minister will undoubtedly agree, these are extremely important matters because the lives of human beings are involved. Speeches are very cheap. We are not interested in speeches; we want action. The minister has the ability to take action. We would rather have action than any speech on the part of the minister explaining why he cannot take action.


Mr. Habel:: Mr. Chairman, I should certainly not want to be blamed for delaying consideration of the estimates of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), but may I, at the outset, congratulate you on your great ability in maintaining perfect order in the house.
May I also thank the minister who last year, at the request of the Chamber of Commerce of Kapuskasing, made it a point to visit us and see for himself the need for improvements at the Kapuskasing airport. On behalf of my constituents and of the Chambers of Commerce of the area, I should like
Supp ly-Transport
to thank him sincerely for the improvements carried out at the Kapuskasing airport following his visit.
I hope the minister will not be surprised if, later on, he receives further suggestions from Chambers of Commerce and municipal councils to further improve air services in our area which offers tremendous possibilities for the future and which would add to a very active economy in the northeastern section of Ontario, that is the riding of Cochrane which it is my privilege to represent in this house.
I said I would be brief and so I shall be. secure an airline capable of really giving a minister will understand that the Chambers of Commerce as well as the municipal councils will shortly present further requests to secure an air line capable of really giving a daily service to meet the needs of the area.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)

Now I want to refer to the Canadian National Railways. In 1962, having been deprived of passenger train service for a number of years, the area I represent was able through the efforts of the Chamber of Commerce and the municipal councils to convince the C.N.R. that we were entitled to a through train from Toronto to Hearst and vice-versa. This service was inaugurated in October, 1962, and the population once more felt they were part of Canada, receiving a service to which they felt they were entitled. Lately the C.N.R. has made an application to dispense with the passenger train service between Kapuskasing and Hearst, a stretch of about 62 miles, leaving the town of Hearst without a train service.
Today, on behalf of the people of the district of Hearst, I say that the C.N.R. should reconsider this decision and remember that in the early days of this century a great man, the late Right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, had sufficient faith in the northern part of this country to decide to build a transcontinental railway from Quebec city to Winnipeg, a railway which would serve the northwestern part of the province of Quebec and the northeastern part of the province of Ontario.
This decision was taken having in mind the possibility of opening a vast territory where many promising developments were to be expected. Many of these developments have since taken place. I am reminded of a story which was related to me some years ago. This is a fact. In 1912 a man who was living at the

February 11, I960
Supp ly-Transport
time in Amos felt that the government of Quebec should consider the opening up of northwestern Quebec. The Premier of Quebec went to visit Amos, Quebec. On June 2, 1912, when he woke up in the morning in his private car he found there were two inches of snow on the ground. Immediately his reaction was: It is impossible to open a country of this kind; we had better forget about it. But it was opened because of the insistance of the pioneers and of those who had faith in the district. This confidence has proven that they were right. This applies to the northwestern part of Quebec and also to the northeastern part of Ontario, which are full of more development possibilities.
I represent a riding in which there are two paper mills and one sulphite mill. The freight movements from this area are considerable and there is no doubt in my mind that the railway revenues are high. If the C.N.R. should cancel its passenger train service to a town which has no other services apart from a bus service, such an action would, I feel, be completely lacking in foresight, completely lacking in confidence in a district which promises so much for the future.
At present the C.N.R. is operating two transcontinental trains between Montreal and Vancouver and one between Montreal and Saskatoon. It is time for the company to reconsider its position and return to the line which the Laurier government built in the early years of the century. Why not have a direct train from Quebec to Winnipeg

as used to exist in the early years? The C.N.R. would soon find out that the business from the north western part of Quebec and the northeastern part of Ontario would make this decision a profitable one.
As things are now, anyone from our district who wants to go west has to travel to North Bay and board the transcontinental train there. The alternative is to take a way freight from Hearst to Nakina, a train which takes 24 hours to cover about 150 miles. People who live east of Hearst have to get to Hearst, stay there overnight and board the train for Nakina early next morning.
I appeal to the minister to give this matter his attention and give to it the same consideration as he gave to the air travel situation when that was brought to his notice. I hope that with his help and under his surveillance, to use a word favoured by the Leader of the Opposition, the people I represent in this house will be given the service to wh'ch they are entitled.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I wish to detain the committee for but a short time in order to discuss three matters on this general item which are of concern to my constituents, and I think that in this respect my constituents share the concern felt by the whole of Canada. The first is the problem in connection with the decision of the C.P.R. to discontinue the "Dominion" trans-Canada train.
I feel I must say something about this, in part because I referred to it in the course of the election campaign. This is the first opportunity I have had to bring the matter quietly but, I hope, firmly to the attention of the government and to ask the minister, as the member of the cabinet who will bear the primary responsibility for leading the discussion and assisting his colleagues, to arrive at a decision on this matter to see that the decision is made on the basis of certain principles and considerations which I should now like to put before him.
In discussion of this matter both inside and outside the house to date a great deal of the argument in favour of the retention or reinstatement of this service has been based on legal grounds, an argument based on an interpretation of the legal obligation of the company dating back to the time when it was first incorporated and given its charter as the first transcontinental railway. I do not suggest for a moment that that is not a valid and strong argument and that it should not be carefully investigated, and I do think that the company has been tending to interpret much too narrowly the word "efficient."
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
However, I do not rest my case on legal grounds alone, although as a lawyer I certainly do not overlook them or suggest they are of no importance. I base my argument- and I hope the minister will persuade his colleagues that their consideration and decision should be so based-on the question of obligation, not in the legal sense but in the general sense of an obligation owing to the nation. This is not a strict legal obligation but, if you like, a moral obligation and a sense ef public interest.
On this basis, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that it is perfectly proper for the cabinet to conclude that the advantages which have been derived by the C.P.R. and its related corporations over the generations, out of the public domain of Canada, advantages derived because of the advantageous position they were placed in by the parliament of
February 11, 1966

Canada, have the result that they have incurred an obligation to make a return to the people of Canada, even though some of that return in furnishing the services involves operating at a loss.
There is no question but that the C.P.R. has derived enormous benefits from its position-enormous benefits out of the public domain, such as the land grants, and oil and mineral rights that they were given. The position in which they were placed enable them to take advantage of other opportunities, and in saying this I recognize credit must be given for able and farsighted management. It did not happen by accident.
Through able and farsighted management they were able to take advantage of these opportunities but they got the opportunities because of the preferred position in which they had been placed as a matter of public policy, as it was interpreted in those days, to the point now where the C.P.R. is making enormous profits-profits out of its freight operations, out of its land holdings, big profits out of its oil rights, big profits out of its substantial ownership of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, and big profits out of the Pine Point position in which it was placed, again as a matter of public policy-all these profits being reflected in the size and diversity of its holding company through which they are paying substantial dividends.
I do not resent this. I am not saying this is improper. I am sure I do not know how many of us are exactly aware of the extent of the C.P.R.'s holdings, but I am saying that when a company has achieved this position because of the advantages it derived from the position in which the people of Canada placed it, then it owes it as a moral, if not legal, obligation to those people to make a return in terms of services, services which are legitimately desired by the people even though some of those services may, viewed in isolation, result in an operating loss.
It may be, Mr. Chairman, that the C.P.R. can prove that to continue the "Dominion" at an acceptable level of service would involve it in an operating loss, although this is an accounting wilderness-this matter of rate structures and the returns on operation-a wilderness into which I am not going to attempt to go. It well may be it would result in incurring an operating loss to continue the "Dominion," but it is far more certain that there is a demand for the continuation of this passenger service.
Supply-Transport
Oh, I know the company will say, "Those who come down here to make representations before the Board of Transport Commissioners arrive by air or in automobiles, even though we are running trains." Those who come for that purpose may do so, but there are many other members of the Canadian public who want, and need, and have a justifiable demand for the continuation of such services.
I am going to suggest also, Mr. Chairman, that the C.P.R. is not able to make a valid case as to the extent of its loss on that train in the last 12 months because there is a strong, and I think justifiable impression, that the C.P.R. deliberately curtailed the services on the "Dominion" to the point where it became unpleasant to travel on it. I do not think they should be allowed to use the figures for the passenger traffic using that train over the past 12 months in any argument to show that there is not a public demand for it.
I know whereof I speak because that train ran through my constituency and my home city, and I know how unpleasant it would have been to travel on the "Dominion" from Vancouver to Revelstoke and spend all the hours that would be necessary before one could get a cup of coffee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Much less a sandwich.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Much less a sandwich. How then can the public be expected to use that train? Under circumstances such as that the company can not base its argument on the loss incurred during the past 12 months.
We are entitled to look at this from the viewpoint of the national interest. I know the C.P.R. is a private company. It has always been a very well operated private company, and a credit to Canada, and to the corporate system in Canada. But it is something more than that. It is not just a private company, because it was placed in an advantageous position as a result of public policy, to the extent that it has become truly a national institution.
I say that the directors and management of the C.P.R. owe something to the Canadian nation in terms of a responsibility to give public service. They owe something to this parliament and to this country in terms of maintaining the good will of the public and in terms of maintaining the morale of their employees. It is an unfortunate fact that as a result of the kind of policies followed by the C.P.R., in particular over the last two or three years, a company which enjoyed an

February 11, 1966
Supply-Transport
extraordinary and enormous measure of good will generally has just jettisoned that good will and thrown it right out the window. I think we are entitled to show a very serious concern for this development because if great institutions which, in the sense I am talking about, are in part national institutions-if these great institutions follow policies which incur ill will, then this affects far more than the particular company concerned. It is a matter of national concern.
If they follow policies, as they have been doing, which result in the lowering of morale on the part of their employees so that there is criticism, as there is bound to be, of the corporate and private nature of the enterprise, then again I think persons who have concern for the over-all structure of our society and economy are entitled to have a real concern as to the effects of that sort of trend.
What I am suggesting is that it is all these factors which must be taken into account by the minister and his colleagues when they consider the appeal now before them with respect to whether or not the C.P.R. is going to be required to reinstate that service. They must take into account the national interest and the right of the people of Canada to demand this service, although in isolation it may not be able to show a profit-especially when there are other operations of the company which do make a profit, operations which they have acquired because of their undertaking to give railway service.
They must take into account this question of the good will and the relationship generally between the C.P.R. and the nation. They must also take account of the morale and the welfare of the employees of this great Canadian company, especially in so far as those matters lie directly within the responsibility of the government. I feel quite certain that if the government gives the proper emphasis to these factors it will come to the conclusion that the C.P.R. should be required to reinstate that service.
Now I want to speak just briefly on the question of television, and government policy with respect to television and its relationship to the use of cablevision. As I understand the situation, there has been a freeze placed on all applications for licences for new frequencies in television channels.

[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Maybe I can clarify that for the hon. gentleman. There has been a freeze of alternate originating channels, not all channels.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thank the minister for helping me to state the situation correctly. Accepting it then within the terms in which the minister has stated it, this is the point I want to get at, that it has created a very serious problem for operators of television stations who wish to extend their operations and who are confronted with a position where they must decide, as a matter of management policy what they should do with regard to cablevision. This is aggravated by the fact that, again as I understand it-and I have tried to make myself familiar with this situation-an extension of an existing cablevision service does not require an application for a licence of any approval by the government of Canada. That is to say, if there is an existing pick-up station and a cable distributing this service, then the extension of that cable even into other communities does not require any approval by the government of Canada. I am informed that that is the situation.
You will see then, Mr. Chairman, that operators of television stations are faced with a very real dilemma. They have applications for the extension of their services for new outlets-I do not mean satellites, but outlets of a different nature-which are frozen on the one hand, yet they are faced on the other hand with the distinct possibility that others may bring in a service by cablevision, for which no government licence is necessary.
The question then in the minds of these operators is: What do we do? Do we wait for our applications which are frozen and which are simply not being dealt with, or do we join with those who are now operating cablevision services and bring this service into the community instead? When you realize that another important feature of this dilemma is that not only is the matter of extending cablevision outlets not one requiring a licence, but whatever is put over a cablevision system is entirely free of the regulations of the Board of Broadcast Governors, you can see the problem with which they are faced. I am not suggesting this is a simple matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It certainly is not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I feel that the government has good grounds for saying that it is not going to modify or make final decisions on broadcasting policy until it has studied the Fowler
February 11, 1966

commission report and reached a conclusion in that regard. But in the meantime these operators are faced with this continuing and growing dilemma. If we have, as most of us do have, a real concern about the question of Canadian content of broadcasting, it will be seen at once just how serious this is. If an operator should perhaps be compelled by economic threats from rivals to operate ca-blevision service and to abandon or curtail his existing television service, let alone extend it, keeping in mind that on a cablevision service the great bulk of programming will be from the United States, one can see the serious problem which faces not just the operators but Canada as a whole.
What I am saying is that there is an urgent necessity for the earliest possible action on this matter. The earliest possible decision on broadcasting policy must be made. In addition, in my view the earliest decision possible should be made to accept one very fundamental recommendation of the Fowler commission report, and that is that cablevision should be placed on all fours with broadcasting in so far as the control of its content is concerned, bringing this under the broadcasting regulations. I do not think I have to elaborate on the view I have arrived at after considering all the implications of the situation I have outlined.
In this connection I want only to refer to the Prime Minister's undertaking given as a result of a question I asked as recorded at page 37 of Hansard for Thursday, January 20, 1966. At the top of page 38 the Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, I think I can give my hon. friends the assurance that parliament will have a chance to consider broadcasting before a final decision is taken.
I know the Prime Minister is not a man who says a thing which will have an implication he does not intend. The obvious implication of those words is that the government in making a decision on broadcasting policy will place the matter, perhaps by way of a report, before this house so that the house will have a chance to pass opinions and suggest amendments or modifications before action is taken that will fundamentally alter or commit the country to a new policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I would not like to quibble with the hon. gentleman, and I do not think he will think that I am, but I am sure he will agree that the Prime Minister's statement does not preclude the government from making decisions on one or two
Supply-Transport
isolated aspects of the matter that may prove to be of great urgency, without necessarily bringing the whole policy in at once. I would like to enter that caveat so there will not be a suggestion of bad faith.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course this must be a matter of good faith. I think I have correctly stated a reasonable interpretation of the Prime Minister's words. The government must take responsibility for decisions made from day to day to deal with situations as they arise. I believe the government will find that we will be reasonable about this. I was talking about broadcasting policy generally which would commit the country to far-reaching decisions which could not be revoked, and things that might happen which could not be changed before parliament has had an opportunity to consider the whole question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: With the reservation I have made I completely agree with the hon. gentleman's interpretation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad that we are in agreement on that. I hope the minister will agree that I am not overstating the case when I say there is the greatest necessity for an early decision, for the reasons I have given and for many others that might be advanced.
The third matter I want to discuss on this general item is the problem in connection with the pension of employees of the Canadian National Railways, for which the minister reports in this house. These railway employees throughout the country share a problem which this government has almost deliberately created. I refer to the difficulty confronting employers and employees as they attempt to adjust their existing pension plans to the situation created by the adoption of the new Canada Pension Plan. I think the government is open to the very harshest condemnation for the careless way in which it has dumped this problem in the laps of the country, of employers and employees alike.
The government has said: Here is the Canada Pension Plan; take it and deal with it; do what you can with it; we are going to enact it and push it off on you before we give you any opportunity to iron out any of the important details in respect of the difficult problems now confronting you in relation to existing plans. C.N.R. employees, among many others, are experiencing this difficulty now, and there is going to be a chaotic situation arise in the field of labour relations, in so far as this matter is one of negotiation.

February 11, 1966
Supply-Transport
I know that other members are in the same position as I am, and have been receiving many submissions from C.N.R. employees, especially those from western Canada, with regard to what they consider their right; what they think should be their right-an option as to whether their existing pension plans and the Canada Pension Plan should be decked or co-ordinated.
I have had some discussion with the legislative representatives of the brotherhoods on this matter and I am told that, as is understandable, there is no unanimity on the part of the men or the men's representatives. But certainly on the basis of the correspondence I have had there is virtual unanimity among the C.N.R. employees in my area that they should be given an option, and this is not beyond the bounds of possibility to work out. They should be given the right to choose as to whether their existing pension plans and the Canada Pension Plan should be decked on the one hand or co-ordinated on the other. I agree with this point of view although I know it will create some extra problems in administration for the company. I do not think it should be open to unilateral decision, nor do I think that these employees should be confined in the matter of choice. I do not think they should be told that they can only do one thing or the other. A choice should be made available to the men as to which alternative they wish to take.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I hope the minister will bring this matter also to the attention of the management of the C.N.R. and urge upon them that in pension negotiations and discussions which are now current the company should take the point of view, that although they have been placed in this very difficult position by the indifference of government, nevertheless as good employers they must now make the best of it and offer to their employees the option as to which form of settlement they will take.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Chairman, I also wish to say a few words on the subject of railroads in Canada and particularly about the C.P.R. I said a few words on this subject in my speech in the house a few weeks ago and perhaps I will just gloss quickly over the question of the "Dominion". Before doing so I should like to put myself on record as agreeing fully with the remarks made last evening by my friend and colleague the hon. member for Port Arthur concerning the C.P.R., and

railroad problems generally as they affect northwestern Ontario.
In my opinion the "Dominion" is only one aspect of a whole series of problems that we face with respect to the railroads in Canada. It is an attempt in part by the railroads to improve their revenue situation. The cancellation of the "Dominion", it is claimed, is going to provide more revenue. Last November shortly after the election the two railroads jointly announced an increase in the rates of certain lumber products from northwestern Ontario. In fact they increased them to a level that made these products non-competitive, and after a great deal of pressure and letters going back and forth the rates were lowered to their previous level.
The basic problem seems to be the great change that is taking place in transportation services in Canada and which have taken place particularly in the last 10 years. We all recall the period from 1959 to 1961 when the railways had their worst years. Out of this the former government saw fit to appoint a royal commission, the MacPherson Commission, to look into the problem. From that commission came certain recommendations and we are told that legislation is to be brought forth that will deal with railway problems. This legislation is being based on the MacPherson Commission recommendations.
To improve their situation the railways have fought back against increasing capital costs, increasing costs for materials and manpower. They have attempted to utilize their capital equipment in a better fashion, which has meant run-throughs and longer runs. They have attempted to deploy their employees in a better fashion and to rationalize their services.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this problem has not been handled well; as a matter of fact it seems to have been botched at almost every level. One has only to consider the conditions that gave rise to the government setting up a one-man royal commission, the Freedman Commission, to look into the question of run-throughs at Nakina. We are all aware of the pension struggles going on between the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific and their employees, partially because of the unrest that exists between the railroads and their employees. The employees on the runs, the non-ops and the operating trades are worried about what the future may hold for them. In particular, Mr. Chairman, the communities that are served
February 11, 1966

by these railroads are vitally concerned about the future they may or may not have as a result of actions the railroads are taking.
When dealing with the problems of the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. I think there is one basic thing that should be pointed out. The C.N.R. is basically a transportation company; its only concern is the business of transportation. On the other hand the C.P.R. is concerned with much more than transportation. It is a world wide transportation company; it has interests in rail transportation, steamship, air and water transportation; it also has vast interests in such diversified things as potash, oils, minerals, land and lumber, all of these -as the previous speaker said-acquired through grants given to the company in order to encourage it into existence.
We are now in the position in our history where the old methods are no longer sufficient. In other words, perhaps the carrying of passengers is not a profitable business any more and the C.P.R. wants to get out of it. Acting like a good, corporate citizen it attempts to make a profit for its shareholders and cut its losses. There are tremendous economic pressures on this company and there is a legitimate desire on its part to cut off what it considers to be parts of its business which are a dead loss, and to a certain extent I am in sympathy with this point of view. _
However, Mr. Chairman, as an historian I am also aware of the fact that the C.P.R. was founded basically on generous grants of land and other rights which were given to it by the government of the day in order to encourage its establishment. Now these benefits are beginning to pay off and to pay off handsomely. I am told-I am not too sure how accurate this information is and I am ready to be corrected-that approximately 60 per cent of the C.P.R.'s profit last year came from other operations outside those of the railway. In other words, 60 per cent of their profit last year came from such diversified matters as Canadian Pacific investments, land holdings and the mineral and potash developments the company is now bringing into production.
Coming back to my original point, Mr. Chairman, that the C.N.R. is only interested in transportation, I think this indicates why the C.N.R. has been willing to gamble, albeit with the money of the taxpayers, on producing an acceptable passenger service. Until I have seen the C.N.R. report I shall not say whether this is a good policy. It is my understanding that the C.N.R. is still losing a
Supply-Transport
great deal of money and that the gamble they are taking to provide a passenger rail service may not come off. I think this is something we shall all have to consider when we deal with the discontinuance of the "Dominion". If we want this passenger service, and if it is not profitable, then we in this house will be responsible, presumably, for making up the deficits which are incurred. This means, in blunter terms, providing a subsidy for passenger services.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This sounds like counsel for the C.P.R. talking.


John Mercer Reid: Well, Mr. Chairman, I certainly wish I were getting the wages paid to C.P.R. counsel. If I may return to home problems for a moment and deal with northwestern Ontario, perhaps extending my remarks a little further to include communities that are completely dependent upon the C.P.R. and C.N.R., I would bring these points to the attention of the committee. I refer to those communities which were called into existence in order to serve the needs of the two railways. I believe some points should be made when dealing with the question of these communities. Implementing changes in railway services, the withdrawing of passenger services, the cutting down of freight and express services-which is probably more important than the passenger services-has been carried out at the stroke of a pen by the company without any warning being given to the men employed running these trains or to the communities affected by these reductions in service.
I think this is a most disgraceful method of dealing with this problem. These communities have no means with which to fight back. They are just informed of a decision, the decision is implemented and then they must try and fight it. Sometimes they are successful but most of the time they are not. An example of this disruption is pointed up by what has happened to the "Dominion". This service was cut off and now we are in the position where, if we want it back we must try to reverse the decision of the Board of Transport Commissioners, as well as that of the C.P.R. This is a very difficult thing to do.
I would suggest that if the railways are going to run through and cut off trains, they should, if necessary by statute, be forced to give at least two years advance warning so that the people concerned in the communities affected could look at their budgets and their future plans and be able to make decisions

Februarr 11, 1966
Supply-Transport
based on the realities of the moment rather than on the status quo ante. Second, Mr. Chairman, something must be done about the railways pulling out of different towns.
As an example I would draw attention to Rainy River in my riding, and Schreiber in the riding of the hon. member for Port Arthur. Something has to be done to compensate people who have invested money in houses, businesses and other ventures. These people have every right to legitimate compensation for the money they are losing because of the unilateral action of the railway companies when they pull out of these areas.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
If you own a house now in one of these towns, you will find that property values have fallen. It is all very well for the Canadian National to offer, as they did in Nakina, to buy the homes of Canadian National employees. What about the homes of the people who are not connected with the Canadian National, people who are engaged in providing support services for the railways? There should be some protection for them, too.
There should be an undertaking by the railroads that if they buy this property they will not dump it on the market and thereby depress property values in the area to an even greater extent for the other people in the community. I feel there has to be some careful consideration given to these communities which were brought into existence to provide places for the employees to live. These communities were designed to serve the needs of the railroads and, in many instances, have no rationale for their existence other than the railroads.
Again dealing with the community situation, I believe that the railroads have an even further responsibility to the communities than I have so far outlined. Most of these communities along the lines of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific were brought into existence to serve the needs of the employees of the railroads. In order to do this, these communities had to float debentures, go into debt to provide schools, sewage systems, roads and so on. When the railways pull out, Mr. Chairman, they take away a good part of the tax base and make it less possible for the communities to pay the interest and principal on this indebtedness which was incurred to provide services for the employees of the railroads. I feel that when the railroads pull out they should be obliged to pick up a certain amount of the capital cost that has been incurred in making these
rMr. Heid.]
communities into places where the railway employees could live.


An hon. Member:: I hope the minister is listening.


John Mercer Reid: He can read it tomorrow. When the railways withdraw from these communities, we often find that there is no industry left in some cases, or if there is industry the railways do not help to preserve it. I completely absolve the Canadian National from this charge because they have gone out of their way to be generous. However the Canadian Pacific has deliberately attempted to block any industry coming into these areas. When I spoke before I referred to the example of a company which had spent $100,000 in capital costs and then had gone to the Canadian Pacific to arrange for transportation facilities. The Canadian Pacific said they were not interested in that business. Well, the company has survived and is producing a product. The point is that when railways do move out of town, they ought to give those towns an opportunity to survive, perhaps on another economic base, and to attract industry if they can on the basis that good, cheap transcontinental transportation is available.
The Canadian Pacific seems to be going out of its way to discourage these industries. I think that they ought to be forced to provide support, for at least a limited amount of time, to these communities in order to give them a chance to survive. They may not be able to do so. They may wither up and die. At least, Mr. Chairman, an opportunity ought to be given. I am not one of these who are enamoured of city living. I should like to do everything I could do to achieve more decentralization than is being achieved in this country. There is too much centralization going on and we people on the outer fringes, if you like, are not getting a fair shake from the Canadian National or Canadian Pacific because they are cutting us off from the main centres of the country.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have just one other brief point to mention and it concerns the C.B.C. Specifically, it concerns satellite television transmission which comes into my riding. We are in a clear position because we get our television service from the C.B.C. in Winnipeg. Then, it is piped through a series of repeater stations and we get national television on a Winnipeg local basis. Nobody is complaining about this, but I have two comments to make.
February 11, 1966

The first is that, because of this arrangement, the people in my riding are not getting the Ontario Department of Education broadcasts which are provided by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I have had several complaints. I understand that the physics course-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, especially since he is a new member, but does he think he could exercise his blandishments on the hon. lady who reports for the C.B.C., and not on me?


John Mercer Reid: I certainly look forward to trying to convince, in a very quiet way, the hon. lady. If I did, I would have to be much quieter than I have been. However, if that is the case, I am quite content to wait until the estimates of the hon. lady are before us.


Mr. Watson (Assiniboia):: It is a pleasure for me, Mr. Chairman, to take part in this debate on the estimates of the Department of Transport. I am going to confine my remarks mainly to the movement of grain in western Canada. Before I start on those, I do want to say a few words regarding the passenger service. The hon. member for Kamloops has given us the picture in the far western part of the Dominion of Canada, and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has just referred to the problems in his part of the country.
The removal of the "Dominion" has been a matter of great concern to all the residents of western Canada. Our train service is not what it could be. I am speaking mainly of the area between Calgary and Winnipeg. A good many of the people in my part of the country prefer to travel by train because it is more convenient. The cancellation of the "Dominion" certainly represents a cut-back in the services that the people of this area desire. I believe there is a genuine desire on the part of most people to have an efficient passenger service. This would include the service of meals, the provision of berths, etc.
I recall being in Toronto about two weeks ago and having to come to Ottawa on the evening of January 31. If you have ever seen confusion in transportation, it was that train. We came to Brockville, were put off the train at that point to get on another section, and found that the section we got on was the one we had just got off; and at the end there were 200 passengers standing in the aisles for the last two hours coming into Ottawa. I feel there is a definite onus on the railways to provide an efficient service between a city
Supply-Transport
like Toronto and Ottawa the capital of Canada. I feel this is something the department should consider carefully. Perhaps we should have a dayliner service, or some service of that type, so that you could commute between these two cities very quickly.
So far as the movement of grain is concerned, Mr. Chairman, this has always been a problem in western Canada. I have never felt we have had the complete co-operation of the railways, or other people who are responsible for the orderly movement of grain. Practically every year the railways can produce box cars to move the grain in the last months of the crop year.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I am going to compare the quota system with how grain was moved over the last four years, which I think is the only way we can understand the complete picture. I should like to refer to the two western provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and briefly to Manitoba. This province does not fit into the picture at the present time as much as it did before, I understand that the grain is moved out of that province to the Lakehead for the late fall shipment, because of the short rail haul.
I have in front of me the Canadian Wheat Board statement of quota distribution as at February 24, 1964, which gives the comparable figures for 1962-63 and 1963-64. There is also a statement showing a comparison as at February 7, 1966 of the last two crop years.
In Saskatchewan in 1962-63 there were only two points on a three bushel quota. In 1963-64 there were seven points on a three bushel quota. Last year, the crop year 196465, there were 14 points on a three bushel quota. Today there are 157 points in the province of Saskatchewan still on a three bushel quota.
Now let me turn to the province of Alberta. Four years ago there were no points on a three bushel quota. In 1963-64 there were 37 points. A year ago there were 17 points. Today there are still 128 points on a three bushel quota; or less and in the province of Alberta today there are still 74 points on a two bushel quota.
I think I should point out what this means to the farmers when they try to dispose of their grain, which in a good many cases is their only source of income. I refer to the 1964 Saskatchewan Farm Business Summary which gives the size of various farms. I think this illustrates the entire situation.

February 11, 1966
Supp ly-Transport
The average size of farm in the province of Saskatchewan is 492 cultivated acres. This following illustration is based on a three bushel quota, this being half of the highest quota at the present time, which is six bushels. A farmer who has 492 cultivated acres and a three bushel quota at this time will have received an income of $2,000. I might point out there are today 411 points in the three western provinces which are on this quota. There are 577 points on a six bushel quota, which would give farmers with this same size farm an income of $3,800, to the present time.
The point I am trying to make is that this is the sole income of these farmers. This is similar to someone working in the labour field who receives half the amount for the same work as his fellow worker, and has to wait until more products are sold.
I feel that under the present set-up, where the Department of Agriculture is responsible for agriculture in general, as long as we have three or four ministers looking after various functions we are continually going to have this sort of trouble.
A few weeks ago our new Minister of Agriculture made a trip west, and I have a few clippings from the press about his visit. I must say he got a great deal of publicity. The farmers thought the Minister of Agriculture was really going to get the grain moving. I am going to refer to a few headlines which started on January 12. Here is one datelined Edmonton: "Grain handling called pitiable". It continues:
Canada's grain-handling system was described as "pitiable" Tuesday by J. J. Greene, federal minister of agriculture...
Mr. Greene, accompanied by about 60 persons, arrived on a department of transport plane from Vancouver.
Here is another headline on the same day taken from the Ottawa Journal: "C.P.R. shirking its public duty, Greene charges". Here is a paragraph from the article:
This is an incredible and tragic situation. We might as well be back in the stone age if we can't move our commodities.
I would say that if ministers would get up in this house and make statements such as this I feel we might get results, and the people across Canada would know there was a genuine desire for action on their behalf.
Then on January 13, the next day, the Citizen carried this headline: "Greene blasts C.N.R. grain handling". The article goes on:
Mr. Greene told a press conference Wednesday that it made him "see red" when famine relief

supplies for India were held up by a shortage of rail transport within Canada.
I might say that, other than press reports, we have had no information on this subject since.
Here is another headline carried by the Star-Phoenix on January 15, which was getting close to the end of the week: "Greene raps C.P.R. on grain, urges new railways board". Then on January 14 there is the headline: "Emerson answers Greene" and another which says "Greene chided by C.P.R.". Since that time we have not heard too much about the Minister of Agriculture in his dealings with the C.P.R.


Mr. Deachman:: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question. When he considers that the Minister of Finance appointed a coordinator in Vancouver to co-ordinate the movement of grain, does he not think that the words of the Minister of Agriculture had a pretty good effect?


Lawrence E. Watson: I did not catch the last part of the question. The western farmers feel that the commodities they sell should come under the control of one minister who has authority and can take action. I refer to the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for agriculture in general; and the commodities we sell are grain, cattle and the other farm products.
We have to transport our grain. This is a matter for the Minister of Transport, and properly so. Who handles all our grain? The Canadian Wheat Board. Who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board? The Minister of Finance. I am sure that if responsibility for the Wheat Board were taken away from the Minister of Finance and given to the Minister of Agriculture, one or two good officials could keep in continual touch with the grain trade and the quota situation at all points and could see that the quotas were spread out evenly, and this would alleviate half the trouble we get into under the present set-up.
Now I want to say a brief word about the charges made by the railways. I am referring to what they call a stop-off charge. These are figures with which I am sure very few of us are familiar. I intend to refer to one of the terminal elevators at Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, which has a capacity of 5,500,000 bushels, and another of almost the same size in Saskatoon. My understanding is that these elevators are at present practically empty and that they have been empty for some time.
February 11, 1966

The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre endeavoured, along with myself, at the end of the crop year last fall to have these filled and the space utilized. One of the reasons given for the present state of affairs was the charge made by railways in connection with dropping this grain off.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
For a 2,000 bushel car for the first year, the railway gets three cents per 100 pounds. If the wheat stays in the elevator for a second year the railway charges 5J cents per 100 pounds, and for the third year seven and a half cents. These charges increase progressively; I do not have the further figures. But I feel this is a completely unfair charge because only one movement is involved; the grain is dropped off and unloaded, and the cars are moved out.
The argument in favour of this pricing system is that it is intended to compensate the railways for revenue lost temporarily by not being able to transport this grain to the ports. This brings me to the present situation in western Canada. The grain is not being moved and the railways, for some reason or another, seem to prefer not to move it. I suggest that these charges should be looked into immediately and that the Board of Transport Commissioners who are, I believe, responsible, should take action to revise them so that no railway can charge in respect of more than one drop-off. As I have explained, at the present rates the charge for the first drop-off is three cents per 100 pounds. If there is to be a drop-off charge, and if that is considered a fair figure, I suggest it should be the only charge, and that the railways should not be allowed to collect higher sums as time goes by.
We have to realize that this is a direct charge against the farmers' wheat. It is not in the form of a storage payment or anything like that. It is a deliberate charge and one which results in a smaller net return when the final wheat payment is made.
I referred earlier to the quota situation on the prairies. I should have called attention then to one particular station I had intended to mention. I think this example will illustrate the inequity of the delivery system at the present time. Today, as I said, there are 74 points in the province of Alberta still on a two bushel quota. I should point out, first of all, that in the 1964-65 season the first bushel quota was announced on September 14, the second on October 19, the third on November
Supply-Transport
23 and the fourth on January 4, 1965. One particular grain company had shipped, at that point, a total of only 104 cars of wheat from Aug. 1st 1964 to June 23, 1965, compared to 103 cars in the period Aug. 1 to Dec. 18, 1965.
Let us consider what has happened during the present crop year. This is the same town. It had a one bushel quota on August 30, a two bushel quota on September 27, a three bushel quota on October 25 and a four bushel quota on November 8. And it had lots of room. I am sure it is by mere coincidence that November 8 was the day on which they had the fourth quota. However, on January 10 my home town had a quota of six bushels, which is very good. It is on a C.N.R. line and I certainly cannot complain.
I should like to say a word or two, now, about one situation which I understand very well. It concerns the inefficiency of the railway, in this particular case, the C.N.R. I wish to refer to a question which I placed on the order paper on April 28, 1965. It is question No. 52 and reads as follows:
1.	What are the names and business addresses of the various tenderers for the installation of sewer and water systems in the section house at Avonlea, Saskatchewan?
2.	What were the amounts of each of these respective bids?
3.	To what firm or person was the contract awarded?
4.	When will the C.N.R. be calling for tenders for the installation of sewer and water systems in the station at Avonlea, Saskatchewan?
The answer I received was this:
The Management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows: 1, 2 and 3. Only Moose Jaw Heating and Plumbing Company Limited, of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, responded to the invitation to tender and contract was awarded to that firm. It is not the policy to disclose the amount of tenders for railway contracts. 4. It is not known at the present time when such installations will be made.
My second question was on the same subject. It will be found reported in Hansard of June 10, 1965-question No. 424.
1.	Who were the C.N.R. officials responsible for calling tenders for the installation of sewer and water systems in the section house at Avonlea, Saskatchewan?
2.	Is it the practice of the C.N.R. to instal such facilities on C.N.R. properties for appearance sake only?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
3.	Are there sewer or water connections available for this property?
4.	What is the deficit in this department of the C.N.R.?

February 11, 1966
Supply-Transport
The answers were:
1.	The company's engineering officers in Saskatchewan.
2.	No.
I may say that one is a very reasonable and sensible answer.
3.	Sewer and water connections are not available on railway property; however, application has been made for an easement through school property to enable connections being made to the town facilities. Approval is expected momentarily and until received, the regular country convenience is being used.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is the grassroots.


Lawrence E. Watson: What was that -grassroots, did you say?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I don't think we should pursue the subject.


Lawrence E. Watson: This is where the inefficiency arises. They knew there were no sewer or water connections within 700 feet and no way in which they could possibly hook on to any. It was a legitimate question for any plumber or contractor who wanted to know where to hook on the connections. The C.N.R. officials in the city of Saskatoon were advised of the situation but they completely ignored it. Tenders were called and the facilities were installed. I am advised the contract price was approximately $1,000, though apparently the department does not divulge such figures. There was no reason in the world for this being installed until arrangement had been made for connections, and as long as we have officials, heads of departments, doing things like this, then God help the people of Canada who are paying subsidies to the railways.
I know only $1,000 is involved in this case, but $1,000 multiplied by the number of other places where such things occur constitutes the reason that the people of Canada have to dig in their pockets to pay for this type of absolutely useless facility. I would like the minister to check into this. I do not know why officials of his department and of the C.N.R. let contracts such as this when they are advised of the situation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is a question of principle involved here. It has been the practice since the C.N.R. was first established immediately after the first world war to have the C.N.R. management come to Ottawa and account for their affairs directly to a committee of parliament. The Minister of Transport, or his predecessor the minister of railways, was not to be answerable to parliament for

the internal management of the C N.R. in the way in which a minister is answerable to parliament for the expenditures of his own department. I think the hon. gentleman might wish to pursue this matter when the management of the C.N.R. next come before our parliamentary committee. Meanwhile I am sure officials of the railway will have read what he has said.


Lawrence E. Watson: I thank the minister for his suggestion, but if I may add one more word, I think this was possibly a mistake which somebody in the department was too proud to admit.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not the department, the railway.


Lawrence E. Watson: It should have been placed in the station instead of the section house, but I will be pleased to go into the matter on another occasion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Since the hon. member for Assiniboia has raised the question of the differential in quotas on the C.N.R. and C.P.R., would the minister not admit this afternoon that the situation is such that there are ships waiting empty at the docks in Vancouver because the grain has not been got off the farms in western Canada to the Vancouver docks, and thus we are paying thousands of dollars a day for demurrage so far as those ships are concerned? I may tell him I have a letter from some people in Vancouver to this effect. I hope he will have this in mind when he inquires into the failure of the C.P.R. services to western Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman knows that the Minister of Finance announced the other day that following the meeting which my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and I, had in the office of the Minister of Finance with the president and the vice president of the C.P.R., we decided to do in Vancouver what, at the instance of the Minister of Finance, who was then Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I did in Winnipeg with respect to the lakehead, in arranging to set up a committee on the spot in Vancouver. We have got Mr. Riddel, a retired, and highly respected member of the Canadian Wheat Board to head that committee, on which will be represented the railways, the Canadian Wheat Board, the elevator companies and everyone concerned with the transit of grain to and through Vancouver, with the committee to meet regularly in order to keep the subject under review and try to end every bottleneck as fast as
February 11, 1966

possible. Perhaps this should have been done earlier, but it has been done now and I think it will help.
As nearly as we could discover-I am not talking about the broad situation-the immediate problem in Vancouver was not so much that there were not enough rail cars coming to Vancouver but that when they got there the switching was too slow. They were not getting to the elevators or the dockside in time. It would be quite improper for me to go into the whole broad subject, but I did want to refer to what the hon. member has said. There has been a marked improvement both in the movement of grain to Vancouver and, I believe, in expediting the switching at Vancouver. One other thing I should say in extenuation of both railways is that neither was responsible for the simultaneous avalanches on both lines at the beginning of January, which created an impossible situation for one week.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, in the last two days we have heard a great deal about sewers and sewage. A few moments ago we heard about sewers at some spot on the C.N.R. lines, and yesterday we heard about sewage in the city of Montreal. Sewers and sewage are very smelly but in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, the sewers and sewage mentioned during the last two days of this debate cannot possibly be as smelly as the policies of negligence of the government with respect to the province of B.C. and the port of Vancouver.
My purpose in rising to take part in this debate is to add my words to those already spoken on two matters of major importance to Vancouver and B.C. I refer, of course, to the development and the redevelopment of the port of Vancouver, so eloquently mentioned yesterday by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, and second, I refer to what I maintain is the persecution of the government of B.C. in connection with the shipbuilding subsidy policy of the federal government.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
On January 17 of this year the Minister of Transport issued a press release on this matter. Before I read one paragraph of that may I make it clear that, while the members on both sides of this house differ a great deal on many occasions in their thinking, policies, programs and philosophies, 1 am absolutely safe in saying that on the matters I am about to discuss, and the minister might as well
Supply-Transport
note this, irrespective of the party to which we belong, we are united and will maintain an offensive against the Minister of Transport until we get corrective action beneficial to Vancouver specifically, and the province of British Columbia generally. All the members representing British Columbia ridings, regardless of party affiliation, are united in this regard.
On January 17 in a press release the Minister of Transport said this:
It is the government's intention to resume, effective January 1, 1966 subsidy payments on ship construction at a level of 25 per cent for a period of three years. This amount would then be gradually reduced by two percentage points annually until a subsidy level of 17 per cent is reached in 1972. This level is roughly equal to a 20 per cent tariff protection for the shipbuilding industry. The new subsidy rate will not apply to vessels built for the federal or provincial governments or floating structures which are not considered to be vessels in the orthodox sense.
The new subsidy will not apply to the provincial government. Immediately this policy was announced I took the first opportunity during the question period to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In the formulation of my question I suggested that this policy was aimed at the province of British Columbia and was a persecution of that province. The Minister of Transport replied in his customary facetious, clownish manner, with a sneer, laughing it off, that the hon. member for Vancouver East-that poor fellow-did not know that this could not be aimed at a persecution of British Columbia because, did he not realize, every other province has a ferry service. Of course I know that every province has a ferry service, but the Minister of Transport knows that there is only one province in Canada that has a complete ferry system operated by a crown corporation, so large that it is sometimes referred to as being almost as big as the Canadian navy. This is a complete ferry system of which the private enterprise province of British Columbia is justly proud. It is proud of this publicly owned operation. There is a $48 million investment in the British Columbia ferry service operated under the provincial government system.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask a question. Will he tell us how much of that $48 million was contributed by the federal treasury in shipbuilding subsidies? Has the premier of British Columbia ever at any time admitted that even one dollar came from the federal treasury?

February 11, 1966
Supply-Transport


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, may I in answer to the hon. gentleman say that that question was asked during the last session, and that complete information was given by the federal treasury board as to the amount of money that was contributed to the construction of those ships. If the hon. gentleman truly wants an answer to his questions, let him consult treasury board or look up Hansard for last year. The federal government did contribute under the shipbuilding subsidy system, but why is there now a change in policy? Why will this subsidy, which seriously affects one province, the province of British Columbia, no longer apply?
Mr. Chairman, is this change in policy not peculiar or do many of us just have suspicious minds in thinking this policy change, as announced on January 17, is a result of the outcome of the election on November 8-an election in respect of which the premier of the province of British Columbia went out on the hustings throughout the province telling the electorate: For God's sake, do what you want, but don't vote Liberal?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And he tried to defeat the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Harold Edward Winch: Is this change a form of retaliation? Is it persecution? Mr. Chairman, it is only my opinion, but it is my opinion, that this is retaliation against the government of British Columbia, and persecution of the ferry system of that province. It is my opinion that behind all this lies a Machiavellian-Liberal plan of retaliation. If you look in a dictionary of the future, to which an hon. gentleman was just referring, you might find that one of the definitions of a Machiavellian-political plan is a "Pickersgillian plan".
We have invested $48 million in the British Columbia ferry service, and that is not the end of our investment. Already there is in the planning stage a number of new ships. Why should the government of British Columbia not be able to utilize the B.C. shipyards to get the same advantages offered private enterprise? The C.P.R. operates a ferry service between Vancouver and Nanaimo. Under the new policy, if the C.P.R. wants to extend its ferry service by building new ships, it will be entitled to the subsidy, if the new ships are built in Canadian yards. Why should a crown corporation owned by the people of British Columbia not have the same right and privilege of operating under the same policy as private enterprise? I said I could see a "Pickersgillian-Machiavellian" policy here.

Do you know what I think it is? I believe that because the government knows that British Columbia is going to advance, and that its ferry system is going to advance, it is endeavouring to place the government of British Columbia in a position where, on a costing basis it will have to go outside British Columbia for the construction of these new ships-perhaps to Japan. Then the government could point the finger of scorn at British Columbia. I would not be surprised, if we could get some honesty from the other side, to find that this thinking has been and still is in their minds.
I want to repeat with all the force at my command that every member from British Columbia, irrespective of party, takes the position that we do not want anything extra for that province. However, we do ask for equity of policy and treatment in British Columbia. We ask that an end be put to discrimination against this province because we happen to be in advance of other provinces, and have a publicly owned and magnificent ferry service. We hope there will be a reconsideration by the Minister of Transport in the immediate future.
I said I wished to refer to two subjects, Mr. Chairman. The second relates to the lack of any policy for the development or redevelopment of the port of Vancouver. As I mentioned earlier, this matter was referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra last evening during his very well thought out and factual presentation. We have not been talking about this subject, but the lower mainland members undoubtedly have reached the point of such ultimate concern about this situation that they have all been making investigations.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra told us that this dispute of ownership of properties on the foreshore of Vancouver harbour dated back to 1934. Apparently I delved a little further back than the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra because I discovered, and I know my information is factual-it must be because I got it from the legal department here in Ottawa-that the dispute in respect of the ownership between the Vancouver Harbour Board, the Federal Government and the C.P.R. dates back to the year 1900.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
There have been 65 years of dispute as to who owns this valuable waterfront property in Vancouver harbour. Successive Liberal and Tory governments for 65 years have not been
February 11, 1986

able to resolve the problem of ownership. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I raised the matter with the legal department of the Harbour Commissioners and asked, "Is anything being done now?" I was told, "Yes, six months ago". Sixty five years and six months after the dispute started they appointed a joint committee of the Vancouver Harbour Commission and the C.P.R. to decide who owns this valuable waterfront property. I wonder how many months or years we shall have to wait for a report of that committee and how long after that we shall have to wait for action.
I hope, and I think we all anticipate, that the Minister of Transport will give us some answers on this disputed ownership, about the committee, what it is doing and when it will report. I also hope he will tell us a few other things. The finest pier we had in Vancouver was pier D of the C.P.R. It burned down-I was going to say, to the ground-to the water's edge in 1938. It was totally destroyed and has never been rebuilt. Why? Is there involved, again, the question of ownership? Does the C.P.R. actually own this most valuable piece of property at the foot of Granville street? If they do, why has there been no construction there since 1938?
If the C.P.R. are not prepared to build there, surely we have the right to say: Let the federal government do what it has done so often before, namely expropriate the property of the C.P.R. and build a new pier in this location. This is a disgrace to this parliament and successive governments of Canada. As the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra pointed out yesterday, a P. & O. liner from Australia had to go down to Seattle because there was not room for it to berth in Vancouver. The C.P.R., out of the bigness of their heart, have now said, "Although we lose money because it is far more profitable to have freighters in, we will allow you exactly 12 months to dock here. After that go somewhere else".


An hon. Member:: You cannot even get a hockey team.


Harold Edward Winch: No; we cannot get piers and we cannot even get a hockey franchise. We have a hockey team, but we cannot get a franchise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Edward Winch: This is no laughing matter, Mr. Chairman. The lack of shipping facilities has an effect on employment. It has the same effect as the removal of the shipbuilding
Supp ly-Transport
subsidy in connection with the major firm building ships in Vancouver. I did not mention this matter before and I wish to mention it now. Mr. Minister of Transport, do you know that since January 27, when you came out with this presecution of the ferry system of British Columbia, the personnel managers of the shipyards of Seattle have been in Vancouver interviewing the skilled shipyard personnel. One personnel manager alone stated that he interviewed 165 of our key shipyard personnel in Vancouver and Victoria and offered them security of employment if they would work in the shipyards of Seattle.
So here we have a government policy of neglect on the Pacific coast, both with regard to shipyards and harbour development, which is having a most serious effect on a city which is our export avenue for the Pacific ocean. This detrimental effect has been occasioned by the apathy that has existed toward this problem since 1900. The minister cannot say it is a new problem to him; it should not be because he has been a member of the cabinet for a long time and this is not his first parliament as Minister of Transport.
As I said before, Mr. Chairman, we are not asking for anything more than any other province. We are asking only for decency, equality, respect and understanding. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra asked the Minister of Transport to go to Vancouver and see for himself the situation that exists there. The minister has been in Vancouver many times before. I imagine that what the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra wanted to say was, "This time go with your eyes open and your ears clean".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: "Then you will both see and hear and, we hope, understand and come back and take action rather than giving us fine, flowery speeches." I say to the minister, give us the policies and the money in order that we may develop the wonderful city of Vancouver in the way it should be developed; so we may progress in British Columbia according to our potential.
This is not a threat, Mr. Chairman, because I never make threats, but we have remained, shall I say patient, as long as we intend to; and unless action, and speedy, constructive action, is forthcoming then politically the Minister of Transport and his government will follow the road of the minister's late, unlamented schooner right down to the bottom of the sea.

February 11, 1968
Supply-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could adopt the expression of the hon. member for Winnipeg South. As a quiet Manitoban I should like to say just a word in reply to a patient British Columbian. I am not sure that the adjectives suit either of us. In respect of the persecution of British Columbia, I do not think I should really comment on that phrase. It is too flattering to me to think I could persecute that great and booming province or anybody in it.
As I said the other day in response to another question, after the hon. gentleman asked his, the purpose of the shipbuilding subsidies when they were originally brought in by the government of the right hon. gentleman opposite, and as they are to be revived as soon as parliament acts, is to encourage shipbuilding and provide employment. It did not seem to us likely that it was necessary to provide shipbuilding subsidies in order to have the provincial government in British Columbia build its ships in that province. It did not occur to us that they would consider building them anywhere else. However, if there is any serious consideration of that course, I feel quite sure-as I indicated the other day that if the government of British Columbia wishes to make representations that these subsidies would be necessary in order to ensure the building of the ships in British Columbia, the government would listen, as it always does, to the representations of the government of that great province.


Harold Edward Winch: I know you will listen, but you don't act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is parliament that has to act, and I am sure the hon. gentleman will have something to say when the particular item comes before parliament for consideration. With respect to the port of Vancouver, my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, announced some time ago that I had agreed to go at the first convenient opportunity to Vancouver. I can assure the hon. gentleman that I shall go with my eyes open and I shall do my best to keep my ears clean. I shall also do my best to keep my mouth shut, though that has always been very hard for me in British Columbia, as some hon. members with long memories will recall.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Above all, I shall try to get a clear understanding of what new things need to be done and what improvements need to be made to

old things. Everybody in this country knows that the port of Vancouver is growing more rapidly than any other port in the country. It is just at the beginning of its progress. Everybody knows that we have not developed this port rapidly enough, just as we have not developed rapidly enough the facilities for getting things to that port, as most of the speeches this afternoon have indicated.
Perhaps if I were to be partisan I might say that three or four years ago none of us would have calculated that this twentieth century historical phenomenon, that whenever there is a Liberal government the country grows faster than we believe possible would have happened again so quickly.


Harold Edward Winch: You had better take your own advice and keep your mouth shut.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps that is right. I really felt that I should not let something else go by that was said by the hon. member for Skeena in his customarily able manner this afternoon. He left the impression, I think, that because there were no regulations made under section 407 of the Canada Shipping Act, nothing had been done by the government or my department to insure the safety of the crews of ships. I should like, in the briefest way possible, so that that impression will not go out over the week end without some correction, to point out that section 464 of the same act calls for a customs officer to detain a ship on the complaint of any person if he has reason to believe it is unsafe by reason of undermanning. The section provides that a steamship inspector rules on the question of whether a crew is sufficient before the ship is cleared. It would be open, therefore, to any member or officer of a union, or indeed any other interested person, to make a complaint to a customs officer about any ship. There is a duty on the steamship inspector to take the matter under consideration at once and he has the power to detain the ship until it is properly manned.
There is a specific provision in section 164 requiring qualified masters and mates. These are constantly checked, of course. Under section 115 there is a specific provision requiring qualified engineers and clearly specifying the qualifications required. Even under section 232-I do not know why I said "even" because this is just as important on a ship as anywhere else-there is a provision requiring qualified cooks on certain kinds of ships. The hon. gentleman himself referred to section 51 of the lifesaving qualification regulations
February 11, 1966

requiring certified lifeboat men. I should point out also there are examinations required of foreign going masters and mates. I have all the documents here for the hon. gentleman to inspect at any time he desires.
Now, whether or not the regulations, which are very stringent and which are enforced by the Board of Steamship Inspection, a body completely independent of the minister, are adequate to meet modern needs is something we are constantly studying in the department. We are seeking constantly to make changes wherever they may be required.
At a later time, I should like to go into some of the other points raised by the hon. gentlemen regarding the S.I.U. representations and the meeting at Montreal about radio. A great deal has been done. On another occasion I should like to put the record straight, but I did not think the hon. member for Skeena would want the impression to be left that there were no regulations at the present time or had not been in the past for the safety of crews on ships, because that would not be in accord with the facts.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wonder if I might ask the minister a question? I wanted a statement from him on the question of shipbuilding subsidies. I have no desire to make another speech on the subject unless there appeared to be some useful purpose to be served by it. Did I understand the minister correctly that if the government of British Columbia makes representations they would be considered? I ask that, in light of statements which have been made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs in British Columbia to his constituents, stating that at least two new ferry services would not be inaugurated because there are no shipbuilding subsidies. Has the government of British Columbia made any representations to the federal government on this subject?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No representations have been made to me. I have not checked in the last few days with any of my colleagues, but the last time I did raise the matter I was not made aware of any representations other than the slightly extravagant ones, I thought, made in public by the Premier of British Columbia which I read in the newspaper. He seemed to share the views that were expressed here in this house about my malevolent influence. I can assure hon. members that the statement of policy I made was the policy of the government. I had no more to do with it than any other member of the
Supply-Transport
government. I really would not like any serious minded person to think that a province in which a great part of my family has lived for many years, and which I have visited almost every year for the last 25 years, is a community for which I have anything but the same admiration I have for any other part of Canada, with the exception perhaps of two places to which I am especially sentimentally attached.
[Translation1
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Vincent:: Mr. Chairman, last year, on June 28, as reported on page 2968 of Hansard, I raised a matter brought to my attention by a group of Canadian employees of the C.N.R. It concerns C.N.R. stationmasters across Canada who, last year, and rightly so, complained about the treatment they were getting as concerns their salaries. I said at that time that I had written to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) concerning their representations and that he had replied to my letter. I raised the matter in the house but, because of the dissolution of parliament, or perhaps because the minister did not have yet the opportunity to consider the matter fully, I did not get a definite answer.
Here is the background of this matter: Last year, following long and arduous negotiations, the C.N.R. stationmasters' union was compelled to accept $375,000 in compensation for a loss of commissions amounting to more than $1 million they collected each year.
Those $375,000 were distributed as follows: 6 per cent for the Atlantic provinces, 25 percent for the lower St. Lawrence area, 25 per cent for the Great Lakes area, 24 per cent for the Prairies and 11 per cent for the Mountain area. At that time, I mentioned that some of our stationmasters would lose $100 or $200 in salary every year, while others would lose over $1,000 every year.
When I communicated with the Minister of Transport in that connection, he told me to ask the stationmasters involved to ask their union, the Order of Railway Telegraphers, to make the usual representations to the company. They asked the association but they were compelled to accept the C.N.R. offer of $375,000 and not a penny more. The railway told them they had to take that because it wanted to eliminate commissions through negotiation or otherwise.
Mr. Chairman, I have three letters selected among a quantity I have received from stationmasters. We see for instance that, in 1962,

February 11, 1066
Supply-Transport
one stationmaster received a salary of $4,189.26 plus a commission of $442.08; in 1963, the same stationmaster had earned a salary of $4,105.28, plus commission of $500.05; in
1964,	his salary was $4,277.97, plus a commission of $486.78.
For the reason I have just given, those commissions were cut to about 25 per cent of what they received before. Instead of paying a little over $1 million, they paid $375,000. This stationmaster lost, in his one year, an amount of $400 on the salary he had been paid in the previous three years. This is a first example to confirm what I advanced last year, when I said that stationmasters would sustain a loss varying between $100 and $1,000 a year.
I have another case here: A stationmaster writes me that he used to receive a commission of $70 to $89 per month and that, under this new arrangement, he would get only $27 per month, which means that he would sustain a loss of approximately $500 to $600 per year. I have here the case of another stationmaster who told me that, since August 31,
1965,	on which date the commissions were abolished, he has been losing what will amount to $1,800 a year. He added:
Since I am to retire in September 1968, I shall lose in all about $4,000.
True, we have received a salary adjustment which in my case came to $660, but it was badly divided.
Well, Mr. Chairman, this is a group of Canadian citizens who work for a crown corporation which receives grants from the federal government.
While tradesmen everywhere are getting pay increases, you have there a group of citizens who, instead of receiving a raise, suffers a cut in salary. Such a reduction is quite important and when I see a stationmaster being paid between $1,000 and $1,500 less this year than last year or two or three years ago, I try to picture him preparing his budget. While this man thought he could count on annual statutory increases, he has to put up with a pay cut of $1,000 to $1,200.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is an intolerable situation. In my own riding, eight stationmasters have had this thing happen to them. The same situation exists in several other constituencies of Quebec and throughout Canada.
Today, what I would like to ask the Minister of Transport is that he consider this matter and have the C.N.R. review their policy to see whether there really is discrimination against stationmasters who have been working for the C.N.R. for 15, 20 or 30 years.

If our stationmasters are to suffer such big losses, I suggest that he has the C.N.R. guarantee to those employees at least the average salary and commissions they received over the last three years.
If, over the last three years, a station master earned an average of $5,000 or $5,500 in salary and commission, I cannot understand why, this year, he gets only $4,500 or $4,600. It should be possible, in my opinion- and I think the minister should get one of his officials to study this matter-to submit to him a report and have him make a recommendation along the lines I mentioned a few minutes ago, so that our station masters will get this year at least the same average salary they received over the last three years.
Mr. Chairman, this matter may not be of national importance, but it is as important for that group of Canadian citizens as other matters which might be of general interest fo rthe population as a whole.
I think that, as representatives of the people, it is our duty to see to it that our workers, particularly those who worked during 15 or 20 years for the same company and who are about to be retired, do not have to take a cut in salary, which is what is happening right now to hundreds of employees.
Mr. Chairman, I would have liked to raise another matter but I think that I will get an opportunity to do so when we study the departmental estimates in detail. Before resuming my seat, I ask the minister to give his undivided attention to this very important matter and, if he is in a position to do so, to let us have his version of this C.N.R. policy.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Winkler:: I have an extremely brief intervention to make in this debate but I should like to get this on the record today.
I am pleased that the Minister of Labour as well as the Minister of Transport are present in the committee, since I wish to discuss the serious situation which currently exists in the province of Ontario, one which affects the economy of the area I have the honour to represent, especially the county of Grey and the county of Bruce, in addition to several other large manufacturing centres dependent upon railway lines for the carrying of their goods. I refer particularly to the furniture industry. I have before me the embargoes which have been issued by the C.N.R. as well as by the C.P.R. with respect to L.C.L. shipments. It must be remembered that by far
February 11, 1966



the largest percentage of business done by these companies is carried out with buyers outside the province of Ontario, so it is vitally necessary that they should have means of transportation for their goods.
All this, of course, relates to the truckers strike in the province of Ontario. I have placed this in its proper order of precedence by requesting the Minister of Labour to intervene to bring negotiations to a successful conclusion, such negotiations having broken down. I now bring this matter to the attention of his colleague the Minister of Transport, since responsibility for both these means of transport, as far as Parliament is concerned, belongs to him. I now ask the Minister of Transport to intervene and to use his good offices, along with the Minister of Labour, to see what may be done at the earliest possible date to bring this strike to a conclusion, or to find some means of alleviating a situation which adversely affects the people who live in communities over a broad area from Owen Sound to southern Bruce and southern Grey, down as far as the cities of Kitchener, Stratford and many other points too numerous to mention at this time.
Their livelihood is as important as the livelihood of the men who are engaged in the trucking industry. I think this matter is of such importance that both the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour should get together in an effort to bring about a settlement which would be to the satisfaction of everyone and to the advantage of the economy of this large area of Ontario.
Mr. Chairman, there are a few moments left-probably too few for anyone else to intervene. I should like, therefore to refer to the abandonment of railway passenger service on the C.N.R. line between Toronto and Owen Sorund, particularly between Palmerston and Owen Sound. The figures in this regard have been placed before the Board of Transport Commissioners. An application to withdraw the service has already been made.
I should like to suggest to the Minister that some of the profit made on this divisional line is made, as is well known, not from the passenger service but from the other services provided to this area by the C.N.R. Over the years in this area, as in others, the railway has carried on a unified service. With the advent of dieselization the situation changed. Express was taken away and carried by trucking services. In addition, the passenger 23033-71
Supply-Transport
service was whittled away from the unified trains. Now we are faced with the application to which I refer.
Of course the railway authorities present figures indicating that they are operating at a loss. But there are other lines operating in this area and comparisons can be drawn. I suggest there is a greater area of profit in other spheres of the operation. Officials of the C.N.R. have used the argument that the service east of the line of which I am speaking is still being maintained. I should like to put it on record that the operations on this line have been reduced until they represent less than 50 per cent of what they were at one time. It is wrong to use this as an excuse for abandoning service on the other line.
I think it is the intention of the railway company to seek to abandon this other service in the future. I am therefore asking the minister to use his good offices to see that this particular service is maintained.


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the Minister of Labour could also say a word.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I would not want the committee to leave here today with the impression that negotiations in this unfortunate labour dispute, which exists in Ontario, and which affects other parts of Canada and in addition our neighbour to the south, have broken down. On at least three occasions within the last two weeks I have referred to the fact that negotiations are continuing and that a senior official of my department and senior officials of the provincial department of labour are in close contact with both labour and management.
My latest report is that a further meeting will be held, if not over the week end then on Monday next. The unfortunate incidents referred to in the news today disturb us all, but I am pleased to say that negotiations are still continuing and I do not think this is the time for me to intervene, as long as there is any chance of the parties coming together and agreeing on a solution between themselves.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Eric Alfred Winkler: But the minister will reiterate that the officials of his department are working toward a settlement at this time?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That is correct.
Progress reported.
February 11, 1966

Consumer Credit Control FINANCE



PROVISION FOR DISCLOSURE AND RESTRICTION OF INTEREST IN CONSUMER CREDIT

Mr. Reid  Scoll@Danforih: the second reading of Bill No. C-4, to provide for the control of consumer credit.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving this bill to provide for the control of consumer credit I do not believe it is necessary to speak at any great length upon it. Also, probably there are other hon. members who have a contribution of their own that they want to place on the record.
The purpose of the bill is twofold. Its main purpose is to provide for the disclosure of the actual amount of interest being charged on the sale of real property and personal property. Second, it provides for the restricting of the actual rate of interest which may be charged. The bill also seeks to broaden the definition of what constitutes an agreement, and includes any deed, assignment, mortgage, agreement for sale, conditional sales agreement, chattel mortgage or any instrument or contract whatsoever.
I have introduced a similar bill on various occasions in other parliaments, and of course I claim no originality in this one. If one looks at the order paper it will be seen that there are a great many bills on it covering a similar field, including Bills Nos. C-l, C-17, C-20, C-25, C-30, C-35, C-49 and C-61. All of these bills deal in the general area of consumer credit and are proposed by members in every section of the house, members who represent all of the parties in the house. Therefore it is clear that the whole broad question of consumer credit and its effect upon the public is one of great interest to members in all parties, and is not confined to any one group or any one individual.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, we will be able to have all these bills referred again to the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on consumer credit as soon as that committee is reconstituted. This is a committee which was set up several years ago and which has held many sittings, which has reviewed the whole field of consumer credit, which has heard a great many witnesses, which has given very detailed study to the problem and which, upon its reconstitution, would like to meet and later present a report to this house for its consideration. The committee has done a great deal of useful work under the chairmanship of Senator Croll, who has been a pioneer in Canada in this whole


field of interest control and consumer protection. I note that the notice of motion for the reconstitution of the committee is on the order paper. I would hope it could be reconstituted early next week, perhaps without debate, so that its members could meet and get on with their important work.
At this time I do not want to review all of the background of consumer credit. We have found out that it is not as simple as it looks, that great problems of jurisdiction become involved, that problems of conflict exist between the laws we propose and many of the statutes on our books, so that all in all it is a very comprehensive and difficult subject. I suspect that if we are to achieve any real accomplishment in this field it will require co-operation with the provinces, some of which already have had committees established like ours, and it will require some form of joint legislative action so that the problem of jurisdiction under the B.N.A. Act will not arise.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary to say much on this bill. All of us in the house are well aware that consumer credit is one of the largest businesses in Canada. The total outstanding consumer debt runs into two, three or four billions of dollars. It is a field which has been poorly regulated in that there have been conflicting statutes governing it.
The subject is too technical and difficult to cover in private members' hour. I see the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) nodding his head in agreement. He served on the joint committee and concurs in the statement I have just made. I conclude by expressing the hope that the special committee which served so well during the past two parliaments may be reconstituted soon so that it may get on with its important work.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, as a new member I regret I have not had an opportunity to read fully the reports of the committee on consumer credit. However, I did have an opportunity to read some of them and I was most impressed with the work that had been done. Like my hon. friend across the aisle, I too hope the committee will be set up quickly in order that it may continue the work it had begun.
When I first started to do a little bit of work on this subject, to find out what was the competence of this parliament in comparison with the competence of the other legislatures, and to discover where the
February 11, 1966	COMMONS
responsibility for direction lay, I was disappointed to find that this house is not overly competent to deal with all aspects of consumer credit. As the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) said, it is a very tangled field indeed, and it is going to require a great deal of hard work and good will on the part of all parties to work out a mutually acceptable system.
I feel that Bill No. C-4 in many cases does not go far enough, and in other cases goes too far. For example, I feel this is only one aspect that has to be taken into consideration. It is difficult to deal with consumer credit unless you go into the manner in which the companies giving this credit raise their money. This is an extremely technical field. It also involves the whole credit structure of the country, and when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) introduces his amendments to the Bank Act I hope the question of interest rates will be gone into in quite some detail.
[DOT] (5.10 p.m.)
On just a preliminary discussion or investigation, it seems to me that the question of what constitutes an interest rate and what does not constitute an interest rate is an extremely complicated one. The situation is complicated by another factor. Our whole economy to a large extent is based on credit. We do not always have the money we need to buy certain things so we go out and buy them on credit. This whole aspect of credit extends into almost every phase of business life. Therefore, it is not a subject that can be taken in isolation as this bill takes it. This is a matter which will have to be given consideration when we are dealing with the Bank Act and, more important, when we are dealing with regulations in relation to trust companies, finance companies and acceptance companies. I hope we will be dealing with those regulations at some stage.
Another form of consumer credit not mentioned in this bill relates to the credit one gets when he goes to a large department store and buys something on a revolving budget plan, or whatever it is called. This is also a large source of consumer credit.
Not only do all these factors have to be considered, we must also consider that, as far as the ordinary individual is concerned, the greater part of credit business has been done within the last ten years. To a great extent the people using credit who are getting into difficulties are those people who have no experience in the field of credit and do not know what credit is all about. I would go so
DEBATES	H23
Consumer Credit Control far as to say that the greater percentage of individuals who borrow money from finance companies do not know the interest rate they are being charged. If they are aware of the charge they relate the payment rather than that interest charge to their ability to pay. They say to themselves: This payment is $45 per month; the payment on the T.V. is so much; the payment on something else is so much. Then they decide that they can afford the payment to the finance company, and they sign on the dotted line, not knowing exactly what the interest rate is. The unfortunate thing is that these people in many instances do not care what the interest rate is. This is one of the great tragedies of this whole credit situation.
Most of these people purchase on credit because of a desire created by advertising, or to keep up with the Joneses. This is a sad situation and I think the answer to it lies in education. We must educate these people in the ways of credit buying. We cannot continue to have an economic system based on this continually expanding credit system without providing some education for these people who are using this credit. We must teach them what is involved in the cost of borrowing money, and that they should not sign on the dotted line without finding out the implications of their acts. As I say, it is a sad fact that in an economic situation such as exists today people pay little attention to these important points.
When I was doing some research in conjunction with this bill I read an article which suggested that if 100 people were given $1,000 each, within a month that money would all be in the hands of three or four people-not because of anything unjust, not because of any exploitation, but simply because the people do not know the value of money. Most people feel that money is to spend or to lend to friends. It is a terrible commentary to make, that people do not know the value of money, particularly when one realizes how hard many people work for their money. These people are prepared to squander it without taking into consideration what they pay for it.
Mr. Speaker, not only must we perform a service in this house by adopting bills such as that presented by the hon. gentleman, we must bring the circumstances of credit purchasing to the attention of the people. Many of us have attempted to provide guidance to our constituents in the ways of credit buying. This can be very dangerous, I know, because
1124	COMMONS
Consumer Credit Control I attempted to do so during the election campaign. I now receive six to eight letters per month asking for advice on financial matters. I have been placed in some embarrassing situations as a result.


Robert Norman Thompson: Do you charge a fee?


John Mercer Reid: I did not hear the hon. gentleman, but I was wondering if perhaps his party ran its election campaign on credit.


Robert Norman Thompson: I was wondering whether you charged a fee for your advice.


John Mercer Reid: No, I do not, but I hope these people will vote for me the next time around.
In any event, in respect of the first part of the bill covering the disclosure of interest rates and the amount of money being paid for credit, I think this is a good idea. Surely no one could take exception to it if it were simple or easy to implement, because everybody in the country would be better off as a result of it. However, while doing some research in respect of interest rates I found that I became very confused. I went to a bank to obtain a loan. I was charged 6 per cent interest, but when I went to pay off the loan I found there was something called a deposit at one end and a service charge at the other. On working out the effective rate of interest I found it ran in the neighbourhood of 10.9 to 11 per cent. I was amazed, and I am supposed to be advising my constituents about this subject which I do not fully understand myself. One must be very careful when borrowing money because the cost of that borrowing can be confusing and one can end up paying through the nose.
One finance company at the present time in its advertising campaign relates interest rates to rent, suggesting that the interest one pays for moneys borrowed can be likened to rent paid for an apartment. That seems to be a reasonable definition. However, the method of calculating the interest rate is very confusing, particularly when one considers the technical gyrations employed by finance companies, banks and trust companies in arriving at the effective rate of interest. When I attempted to discover the method of calculating an interest rate I found that every lending organization has its own method-trust companies have one method, insurance companies have another, banks have another and department stores have an even different method. It is very difficult to work out an effective interest rate, and it is extremely difficult to do so in respect of a bill of this nature.

DEBATES	February 11. 1966
During my research on this subject of calculating true interest rates I came across an article written by Martin Dewey, which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of June 9, 1965. In this article Mr. Dewey outlines what he claims is a foolproof method of working out a true interest rate. It might be of interest to hon. members to have this method placed on the record. The formula looks extremely complicated but in fact is not difficult to work out. That formula is:
200 md
d
p(n+lH

(n-1)
That formula looks complicated, but when the symbols are replaced by numbers it becomes simply a matter of multiplying and dividing. The letter "m" becomes nothing more than the number by which the payment period must be multiplied for a full year. If weekly payments are involved the "m" would be 52; if a monthly period is involved the "m" would be 12. The letter "d" is the cost of the credit, which means the total payments plus the deposit, minus the original cash price. The "p" is the cash price less the deposit. The "n" is the number of instalments.
In order to find out how effective this formula was I tried to compare it with the interest rate I was paying on my bank loan. When I worked out the figure, lo and behold it was 10.9 per cent. Out of curiosity I phoned my bank to find out the effective rate of interest I was being charged. They would not tell me over the phone and I had to go down to consult with the accountant. He worked the figure out, using a formula that seemed to be much more complicated, but the net percentage was almost identical to what I had arrived at.
Mr. Speaker, when the joint committee on consumer credit reconvenes its hearings I commend this formula for its consideration. If such a formula were made standard in the field of credit purchasing it would eliminate the variation in calculating interest rates which now exists.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, there is one other matter with which I should like to deal and it is the limitation of interest rates to 10 per cent. We all know that the question of the limitation of interest rates will be dealt with when the Bank Act is introduced this session by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). It is a
February 11, 1966
subject that is caught up with a great deal of emotion and a great deal of conviction, too, on both sides. It is a question with regard to which I have not arrived at any definite conclusions; I am still waiting to be convinced. One argument, however, that moves me against the application of an interest rate ceiling is this: Often the little man, the small businessman, the man who is not a good credit risk, is the person against whom an interest ceiling works. It is not very difficult to ascertain the reason for this. The simple reason is that if I have money to lend to my hon. friend the member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), I will lend it to him at a low rate of interest if I think he is a worth-while risk. If I think he is not a worth-while risk and I am still willing to give him an opportunity to borrow this money, I will charge him a higher rate of interest in order to cover the possibility of my not recovering the money. I believe this is the usual understanding of interest rates and how they are arrived at. It depends upon how good a risk you are.
In many cases the person who has a great deal of money, a sizeable income and can afford to put money aside to pay off his debt and has not defaulted in respect of any loan previously, will be able to get a loan without too much difficulty. But a person like myself, who does not have any great financial record, who has not any great resources behind him, will have to pay a higher rate of interest in order to obtain a loan. This is because I am not considered to be a good risk. I believe there has to be some variation of this principle.
At a rate of 10 per cent I may not be a good risk, or the hon. member for Danforth may not be a good risk, but at 12 per cent or 13 per cent the person who has the money to lend might be willing to take a gamble because the hon. member is a man of good character. I see the hon. member is smiling; I suppose it is because he is a man of good character. Therefore you must have a certain amount of flexibility built into this situation. When a ceiling is laid down in respect of interest rates you are eliminating this flexibility and allowing only those who are good credit risks, who have a good background, who have something to mortgage or something with which to back up their loan, to obtain a loan.
The man who has none of these advantages, who does not have great resources but who wishes to use the money for some worthwhile purpose, is denied the opportunity of
Consumer Credit Control obtaining a loan at a rate that may be considered advantageous, but at least he could obtain money when he wanted to use it. This is the whole purpose of providing a graduated ceiling of rates.
Another factor has to be considered in this regard, Mr. Speaker. Everybody knows there are classes of risks. They are sometimes referred to as A, B, C and D or 1, 2, 3 and 4. The person who is going to be subject to an interest ceiling of this nature will be the person at the bottom level of risk. This person will not even have the opportunity to obtain a loan.
In my opinion the solution to the problem is twofold, and it is not achieved by imposing a ceiling on interest rates. First of all there is the question of disclosure, which is the main point in my hon. friend's bill, perhaps using the formula that I have outlined. Second is the question of the education of the consumer so that he understands precisely what he is getting into. I should like to see a delay of perhaps a week imposed before the contract goes into effect. If there were this delay a person would have an opportunity to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of obtaining a loan. All too often when you are borrowing money and go to the offices of the finance company, the bank, or whatever it happens to be, you sit down and the person interviewing you will say, "Yes, we will do this and we will charge you so much". Then one signs the note before realizing what is happening. Once you have signed it, you are dead: it is a legal contract that is binding and you cannot get out of it. If a waiting period was imposed there would be an opportunity for one to go back home and size up the advantages and disadvantages of obtaining the money. He would say to himself, "Do I really want this new car?"
Another problem, as I mentioned before, is caused by the fact that the consumers of this country are not sufficiently educated in this regard. We are living in a consumer society and that society is being financed with ever-increasing amounts of credit. But the people using this credit do not know exactly what is involved in their using it and are therefore open to all sorts of abuses. Finance companies, banks and other lending institutions seem to take advantage of them. We must provide a certain amount of education so there will be a built-in resistance to this sort of hard sell from which we often seem to suffer when dealing with money, durable goods, or whatever it is.

1126	COMMONS
Consumer Credit Control
In addition, Mr. Speaker, our society is perhaps losing its sense of restraint and discipline. People do not seem willing to save for something; the attitude is, "I must have this new car now", or whatever one is thinking of purchasing. People are not willing to save for perhaps a year and say to themselves, "If I save for a year I can make a bigger down payment and save money on interest". No, they have to have it, and have it now.
It is understandable but slightly regrettable that people in this position leave themselves open to abuses on the part of finance companies and other lending institutions. The best way to describe the situation in which they are placed is, I suppose, to say they leave themselves open to these vultures to pick at the marginal ends of our society, financially speaking, and those people who do not have sufficient education or perhaps have never bothered to look at the situation too closely. They are the ones who pay.
Therefore it seems to me that sending this bill to the committee on consumer credit would provide an extremely good forum in which to deal with this question, wherein we could discuss the question of educating society with regard to the advantages and disadvantages of the indiscriminate use of credit. Many members of this house have had an opportunity to use credit. Some of them may even find they have been driven by necessity to use it. I am one of the latter, Mr. Speaker, and from my point of view it is no great pleasure to face a cold-hearted bank manager or finance company manager and ask for a loan. Once they agree to give you a loan you are put through the wringer very quickly. You come out of the office in perhaps five or ten minutes having signed a document which contains a lot of fine print and you do not know what you have got into. Perhaps we should pass a regulation to provide that the fine print that is used in these documents should be much larger, in order that people may read it without having to carry a magnifying glass. This is one of the great complaints against the legal profession-the fact that they allow these documents to be printed with such fine print that people cannot read and understand them properly.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


John Mercer Reid: My hon friend says, "Shame". I think one of the great disadvantages of speaking in this house is that there are perhaps too many lawyers who are notable for the ability they have to diffuse things.

DEBATES	February 11. 1966


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Mercer Reid: One would expect, Mr. Speaker, that after the training they receive they would be able to shed light, but instead my experience in the house has been that they diffuse and confuse things. They are masters of confusion. Legal contracts, also, particularly those dealing with loans, are matters of great confusion.
I do not wish to take up the time of the house any further. I have said what I wished to say on this matter, Mr. Speaker, and I know my hon. friend from Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) would like to say a few words on this subject. Therefore I give the hon. member the floor.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to say to the house and particularly to the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) that we in this party support the position and opinion expressed by the hon. member who suggested that this bill, together with a number of others that are on the order paper, be sent to the special committee on consumer credit where all of them could be studied in the detail they deserve. Then, the committee could report back to this house and we might get into one bill the kind of legislation we think is proper to deal with the abuses that have crept into the consumer finance business, or what might be more properly called the consumer finance racket in Canada.
I was very interested in some of the comments of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) about his study of this problem of people getting into difficulties with credit. I believe it is a very sad commentary on our financial system in Canada when we find thousands or even millions of Canadians who have to mortgage their future to pay for the things that we as a nation have produced. I wonder if the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River felt perhaps that there was something wrong with our financial system when it resulted, as I said, in hundreds of thousands of Canadians being in this situation in order to buy the goods and services that we, as Canadians, have already produced. They have mortgaged their future income for years in order to pay for them.
Surely, if there is not something wrong with the whole of our financial and monetary system we should not be in this unfortunate position. However, the hon. member admits his studies have indicated to him that most of
February 11, 1966	COMMONS
the people get into difficulties so far as credit is concerned because they gradually become poorer and poorer credit risks and thereby have to pay higher and higher interest rates. These people-


John Mercer Reid: May I clarify what I said?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; the hon. member for Medicine Hat has the floor. If the hon. member wants to clarify what he said there will be an opportunity to do so after the hon. member has completed his contribution to the debate.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If the hon. member would like to ask me a question, perhaps that would be acceptable to Your Honour and to the house. However, he has made his contribution to the debate and it is against the rules for him to speak again. I would be prepared to answer a question, with your permission, sir.


John Mercer Reid: I ask the hon. member for Medicine Hat if we would not agree that a great part of my argument was to the effect people get into this position because, first of all, they do not know how the system operates. They lack education in it. Second, they do not exercise the proper restraint. They want things now without having the knowledge or perhaps even the ability, to wait and save.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I agree completely; but if you follow the hon. member's suggestion through, what would happen to our whole economy? The results would not be very good for the immediate or long range future of our industrial establishment. I should like to suggest to the hon. member that if everyone in Canada waited and used that restraint he talks about before they bought the products of our industrial output, we would have such a slowdown in consumer demand that there would be a slowing down of our whole industrial machinery. I do not believe this would be very good for the nation because it would be reflected in employment and all the things that keeps our economy going.
What I am suggesting to him is that these purchases by consumers in Canada at this level are a good thing for our whole economy. They are a good thing for our standard of living. Anything that would shut that down would not be good. The unfortunate part of it, and I appreciate that the hon. member has looked into this, is that following these purchases of our total industrial output we seem to have this problem of people mortgaging their future income for many years. Surely,
DEBATES	1127
Consumer Credit Control this must mean that there are some very serious flaws in our whole financial and monetary system to cause this kind of effect through trying to keep our industrial establishment going. I should like to suggest to the hon. member, although he may not like this, that I hope he continues these studies because his conclusions are probably very close to what the Social Credit Party has been advocating for a number of years. Whether or not he would like to come over and join us is not important. The thing that is important is that he seriously continue these studies and do whatever he can to impress on the members of his own party that this is a serious problem and that, as the government, they have the responsibility to try to do something to correct it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take a lot more time. I simply wanted to commend the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River for his serious, and I think intelligent, study of these problems. I should like also to assure the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) that we support the principle of this bill and perhaps when it reaches committee we can receive a report from that committee that will meet the problems in the consumer credit field.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: I rise as a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, and with all due respect to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), I feel that if he reads his speech in Hansard tomorrow he will And it just as confusing as any conditional sales contract. It is notable that he has already felt it necessary to interpret his remarks to the other side.
Without discussing the constitutional validity of this bill I should like to say that I think it is good in principle but I do not think it goes far enough in protecting the consumer. There are many aspects of it which still leave the consumer open to the finance companies. I should like to deal with certain sections of the bill. Section 4 of the bill attempts to restrict the rate of interest to 10 per cent.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River said that if a man wants credit and cannot get it because of his credit rating, he will attempt to get credit at a higher rate of interest than that permitted by this bill. If such a contract did provide for a higher rate of interest, the sanctions in this bill are set out in sections 5 and 6. Section 5 states that the agreement, as regards interest and the payment thereof, shall be void. Section 6
1128	COMMONS
Consumer Credit Control states that if any contract is made in violation of this agreement with regard to interest and the payment thereof, it shall be void.
I know that in the province of Quebec most conditional sales contracts contain a clause which allows the seller to retain full ownership until the last payment. They also allow the seller to revindicate the property, and the seller may keep all the instalments if there is any default in the payments. It would seem to me that if the sanctions that are set out in section 5 were applied the poor buyer would still stand to lose his property under the revindication clause, and all his instalments to date, by virtue of this clause.
It seems to me if this bill were to be truly effective, it should have contained in sections 5 and 6 a provision to the effect that not only the agreement with regard to interest should be considered void but that all parts of the contract that would favour the seller should be considered void. As I say, this is my principal objection to the bill. I do not think it does enough to protect the consumer, especially under a conditional sales contract as I know it in the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
With respect to the constitutional validity of such a bill in our civil code in the province of Quebec, we have complete sections dealing with instalment sales covering almost the entire subject matter here set out. I must admit that our civil code does not control the rate of interest in as strict a form as is suggested in this bill, but I am doubtful whether the bill would lie considered constitutionally valid. However, I approve of the principle it enunciates.
I should like the hon. member who has put the bill forward to advise us whether he has any comments to make on the loopholes I see in it.
[Translation1


Mr. Auguste Choqueite (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make about the bill now under discussion. However, I should like to allow the hon member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), who is vey competent in this field, to express his views.
I am somewhat hesitant to deal with such a matter because my former law teacher, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau) is here, and I believe I could easily misrepresent his teaching or make statements he would consider erratic. At any rate, I shall try to restrict my remarks as much as possible, pointing out first of all that this bill is
[Mr. Allmand.l
DEBATES	February 11. 1966
surely interesting. However, some reservations should be made under the point of law providing that in matters of civil law, the agreement is binding on the parties. That is a basic principle of contractual relations, it is practically a sacred principle; and legislation outside the normal scope of contractual relations, statutory legislation, should interfere as little as possible with that area.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to some sections of the Quebec civil code to show that the hon. member nevertheless made a praiseworthy effort. Section 3 of the bill suggests that widespread publicity be given to certain conditions of the contract, obviously conditions to protect the consumer.
We have in the Quebec civil code, section 1561(c) which was introduced in 1947 and which provides for the protection of both seller and buyer.
Section 1561(c) reads as follows:
The contract must mention:
a.	The regular cash sale price, as it appears in advertisements, labels, price lists, catalogues and other price marks of the seller and such is exacted from the cash buyer, including, if there is any exigible from the buyer, the cost of transportation and installation of the thing sold;
b.	the sale price on the instalment plan;
c.	the amount of the initial payment required, with separate mention of the amount received in currency and of the amount received by the giving in payment of a moveable, as the case may be;
d.	that of each of the deferred payments.
The contract shall refer only to things sold on the same day.
A duplicate copy must be given the buyer.
Obviously, the legislators were careful to provide for publicity in connection with agreements which may be arrived at in those specific cases, a publicity which does them great credit for it protects, to a certain extent, the consumers' money.
I draw a parallel between section 3 of the bill now under consideration and this provision contained in the civil code of the province of Quebec, to say that the intention of the sponsor of this bill was surely a generous one.
Now, as far as rates of interest are concerned, the hon. member made a reservation a moment ago when he referred to the possibility of a constitutional objection. Referring once again to the civil code of the province of Quebec, it is seen that, in matters of interest, our provincial legislation is somewhat silent.
It is seen that Section 1785 of the Civil Code is practically the only provision dealing
February 11, 1966

with interest. This section deals with interestbearing loans and reads as follows:
The rate of legal interest is fixed by the law at five per cent yearly:
The rate of conventional interest may be fixed by agreement between the parties, with the exception :
1.	Of certain corporations mentioned in the law respecting interest, which cannot receive more than the rate per cent, therein mentioned;
2.	Of certain other corporations which are limited as to the rate of interest by special acts;
3.	Of banks, which are not subject to any penalty for usury, but which cannot recover more than seven per cent.
Mr. Speaker, now I should like to refer to another section of the Civil Code of the Province of Quebec which deals with usurious rate. It reads as follows:
However, if the debt is made up of interest exceeding the legal rate, and seems to the court to be usurious, or if it includes such interest, whether such interest is called interest or be claimed under the name of discount, reduction in the advance, commission or otherwise, such court may order that such usurious interest, or such portion of usurious interest, be paid by instalments, and fix the amount of such instalments and their term of payment, at its discretion, according to circumstances.
Therefore, we find in the Quebec legislation, as in other statutes, a desire on the part of the legislator to protect as much as possible the humble consumer against the ruthless exploitation of some financial interests who do not hesitate to oppress those who are unable to benefit from production, and who are short of the necessary purchasing power to satisfy their essential needs.
In spite of all that, it remains that this bill could not be passed as it is now, because it contains too many arbitrary proposals, for instance it limits the interest rate to 10 per cent. There again, is that provision based on a careful and detailed investigation?
All in all, its objective is to prevent the unfair exploitation of small wage earners. In that regard, the anxiety of the mover of the bill is very understandable. But, on the other hand, I think it would be very interesting and very important to institute a general inquiry which could establish how to divide adequately the national heritage and how to give enough purchasing power to the consumers. I would not want you to think that I have some sympathy for the ideas of Social Credit, but it remains that any government should worry about dividing the national heritage as fairly as possible and allowing each and everyone to benefit from national production.

Consumer Credit Control
Everyone knows that enough purchasing power is necessary for that and I think that it would be very interesting to institute a detailed inquiry to establish how the small wage earners can be favoured, how they can be given enough purchasing power to benefit from production in general.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, in beginning my remarks I should like to echo some of the observations made by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) with respect to the value of having this difficult subject studied by a parliamentary committee or rather by having a continuation of the committee's previous studies. As the hon. member pointed out, there is now a resolution on the order paper. It is hoped that within a short time this resolution will have an easy passage through the house so that a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons of the kind we had in the last session may be set up. The bills relating to the subject matter of that resolution and in particular the subject matter of the present bill would be referred to that committee for further study.
Perhaps as a member of the committee which sat in the past session on this question I might make one or two comments on the procedure at that time and particularly on the demeanor of some of the people who appeared before the committee. We received briefs from a variety of people representing a variety of interests, mostly in the business and financial field. These people appeared to be distressed by the general tenor of the bills which had been referred to committee, namely that there should be some further measure of protection for the consumer.
I do not know whether my remarks will reach these people, or people like them, who will ultimately be appearing before the committee but it seems to me there was a degree of shortsightedness in the somewhat negative approach taken at that time toward the subject we were considering. I have forgotten the name of the famous economist who coined the phrase about bad money having the effect of driving out the good, but I would point out to some of these prominent gentlemen in the business field that those representing the firms with most prestige stand to lose more than anyone else by dishonest or marginal practices in the field of moneylending. I hope that when this subject comes
February 11. 1966

Consumer Credit Control again before the committee we shall hear constructive suggestions regarding the legislation which this parliament might enact.
This brings me to a second point-the problem of the division of jurisdiction between the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of the various provinces on questions relating to consumer credit. On another occasion in debate in this house I had the opportunity of giving details of particular consumer credit contracts and describing the various aspects of the transactions. Some fell within provincial law and others fell within the federal field. It appeared to be completely arbitrary. In this regard I should like to echo the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott). If anything has become clear from the work of this committee-and this also applies to the discussions in the Ontario committee which has recently completed its report-it is that complementary legislation will be required at both provincial and federal levels to deal with this difficult question.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) touched on a subject which is also related to the necessity for complementary legislation. I refer to the desirability of providing for those in the community who may have resort to consumer credit some education as to the consequences both legal and financial of embarking on such a course. For my part I am a strong supporter of the proposals in various types of legislation requiring greater disclosure in consumer contracts not only with respect to interest rates but with respect to other rates and obligations arising under those contracts.
The argument was often presented to us in committee that people who came to borrow were not interested in knowing interest rates. It is interesting that those making presentations agreed that as businessmen they would

not finance any transaction without understanding perfectly clearly the cost of the loan and the interest rate. But they were of the opinion that it was not important that the consumer with whom they were dealing should also have this information. Again and again we heard this response: Consumers do not want to know what the rate is; they are not interested.


Reid Scott: They said it would only confuse the poor consumer.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: One way of preparing a speech on the subject would be to make a list of all the non sequitors given to us in the committee. As the hon. member reminds us, it was suggested that consumers would only be confused by being given the kind of information which those gentlemen who appeared before use would insist on having before entering into a transaction.
Of course, there are difficulties in persuading the buying public to look carefully at these questions, but I do think the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has a sound point when he says there should be an obligation at government level, perhaps a joint obligation on the part of federal and provincial governments, to embark on a program of public education so that people who do resort to consumer credit may have the opportunity of finding out how the effective interest rate is to be calculated, and judge for themselves whether they are entering upon a good or a bad transaction. I see it is six o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.