1966-05-26

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
*Roger Duhamel, f.r.s.c.
queen's printer and controller of stationery OTTAWA, 1966

i **	:

.	- r ,	r'i*	,	..	- v*v >
[DOT] V >
r
Thursday, May 26, 1966


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G.-C. Lachance (Lafonlaine) presented the first report of the standing committee on labour and employment.
[JVote: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Quebec-Montmo-rency) in the absence of the chairman and with the consent of the house, presented the first report of the standing committee on industry, research and energy development, in both French and English.
[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-187, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act (hail damage).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This bill proposes an
amendment to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Under this act, where the average yield of wheat, etc. is under eight bushels per acre in an eligible block of land, the farmers in that area receive payment. This amendment proposes that when crop loss is due to hail the block provision will be eliminated and payment will be made on an individual basis to the amount of contributions made by the farmers.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Reg Canlelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Forbes) to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of public importance, namely the proposal of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority to recommend the adoption of a new tolls tariff commencing in the 1967 navigation season, such tariff involving an increase in the present tolls of approximately 10 per cent on shipping on the seaway and an escalating lockage charge per vessel using the locks, which will have an adverse effect on Canada's exports. In particular it will lead, according to Mr. Gibbings, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, to a reduction in the returns to western wheat producers by 1J cents per bushel.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to invite hon. members to offer advice to the Chair on the question of urgency of debate.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: In my view this matter is urgent since the board's decision may well be made known within a matter of a few days. The public hearings into the proposal, which started yesterday, I believe, were concluded this morning. It is a matter of importance since the inevitable effect of the tolls will be to increase transportation costs on everything entering and leaving western Ontario and western Canada. It is a matter of urgency since it is quite apparent there are only a few days ^ left before the board will make its decision. It is important that this house should record its views on this matter, so that the feelings of the people in the country may be taken into account by the board prior to a decision being made.
We are concerned, and it is a matter of importance to us; because on two previous occasions I have introduced this matter into the house and have been unable to secure an assurance from the government that this question would be brought before the house for discussion. I consider it is urgent, therefore, and must be attended to immediately
5536	COMMONS
Seaway and Canal Tolls because the government can introduce these changes by order in council without giving the house an opportunity to debate the matter.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the question of urgency is concerned, the hon. member has referred to the fact that the hearings have taken place, and these hearings are a prerequisite to any decision being made in respect of a matter that is of great importance to all Canadians, particularly those who are engaged in the export trade. If any addition is granted to the present rates this would be a further interference with our export markets.
Mention was made of the fact that representations have been made; but the decision is a decision of the government, not of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. If you will turn to Hansard for May 9, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport as reported at page 4866 stated:
It is not a matter for decision by the authority at all; it is a matter for decision by the government, and the government is going to await the hearings.
Then the minister made reference to a statement by Mr. Delmer E. Taylor, a member of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, to the following effect:
There has already been considerable support for the toll increases proposed by the authority.
To this the minister replied:
But it does not seem to me that is any reason why a member of the authority should not point out what the law now is.
This is a matter, Mr. Speaker, that can be simply decided by the government without regard to parliament. The western provinces have already been struck a body blow by the reduction in the price of wheat during the last year of some 17 cents. As already pointed out Mr. Gibbings, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, has stated that over a period of time an increase in tolls of this size will mean 1J cents per bushel. In other words, Mr. Speaker, in spite of objections taken to this increase by various organizations another body blow will be struck at the western farmer who is producing wheat, in addition to the effect on all other industries.
This question is urgent, Mr. Speaker. If the matter is not pursued by the house it can be determined by the government behind closed doors, and a determination will be made on an economic matter that is of first consequence. We should have been given the assurance that there would not be any increases
[Mr. Cantelon.)
DEBATES	May 26. 1966
without parliament being given an opportunity to discuss the question. That we have not had. Under the circumstances I suggest the matter is urgent, for any moment now the government can act.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party believe that the question submitted by the hon. member for Kindersley is of the utmost urgency. As a matter of fact, if this matter is not of the utmost urgency I cannot conceive of any matter which is.
The situation briefly is that the seaway authority is today completing its hearings. Members of that authority have publicly advocated an increase in tolls, and in addition, the introduction of a lockage fee for that part of the Welland canal which is operated by the seaway authority. The effect of this has very serious economic implications for many sections of the Canadian people.
Mention has already been made of what it will do to the farmers by increasing their costs by something in the neighbourhood of 1| cents per bushel on wheat shipped through the seaway. This will mean a loss in income of very considerable proportion to the wheat growers of western Canada.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
For the industries in central Canada it will also have serious implications. I am told it will mean a transfer of iron ore shipments in the neighbourhood of one million tons per year to United States seaports on the Atlantic coast, with a consequent reduction in employment opportunities for Canadians in central Canada. Inevitably, because of the increased cost of shipping goods, it will mean an increase in the price of goods to Canadian consumers and an increase in the cost of our exports which will have a harmful effect upon the growth of the export industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member is now debating the substance of the motion which the hon. member for Kindersley proposes to advance. I ask him to limit his remarks to the question of urgency of debate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I simply endeavoured to point out that this matter is urgent because it affects such a large segment of the Canadian people. It affects the people in western Canada as well as those in central Canada. It will affect the industrial life of Canada, and will have very harmful effects upon the consumer.
May 26. 1966

As I understand the situation at the moment, when the hearings are concluded today the seaway authority will then be making its recommendations to the cabinet through the Minister of Transport. The cabinet then has the power, by order in council, to increase the tolls and impose the lockage fee which will have all the effects I have previously outlined.
It seems to me most imperative that parliament have an opportunity to express its opinion with respect to the effects which any increase in tolls would have. It is important that this question be discussed now rather than after the government has made a decision and has imposed these increased tolls, if the seaway authority makes such a recommendation, which preliminary statements indicate it is likely to do.
We in our party therefore feel that a discussion of this matter at this time is necessary, because this is probably the only opportunity we shall have of discussing this question before the cabinet meets in order to determine whether or not it will implement the recommendations of the seaway authority.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the motion moved by the hon. member for Kindersley invoking standing order 26, I suggest that that motion meets the several conditions laid down in citation 100 of Beauchesne's fourth edition.
The first condition the motion meets under standing order 26 is that the motion involves the administrative responsibility of the gover-ment. Second, I suggest that this motion meets the condition under paragraph 2 of the same citation, in that it is a matter so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention. I think the hon. member for Kindersley, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam have already explained how the public interest will suffer if this matter is not attended to.
I further suggest that under paragraph 3 of citation 100, dealing with the matter of urgency of debate, this motion meets the conditions set out there also. That paragraph says that urgency within the rule does not apply to the matter itself, but means urgency of debate when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought up for debate. Looking at the order paper, Mr. Speaker, and
Seaway and Canal Tolls looking at the business that has been announced and the time available for that business, it does not seem that there will be an opportunity to debate this very important matter before the cabinet may make its decision.
I suggest if the government were to give an undertaking that it will provide an opportunity for this matter to be discussed in this house before authorizing an order in council which would increase these tolls, that would satisfy the matter of urgency of debate. However, in spite of a number of requests by members of the opposition, the government has not so far indicated whether an opportunity will be provided to discuss this matter in the house before the order in council authorizing an increase is made. Unless and until the government does give such an assurance I suggest the motion does meet all the conditions outlined in citation 100 of Beauchesne's fourth edition.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, this is one occasion on which it may truly be said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The house is faced now with this motion put forward by the hon. member for Kindersley. We have heard the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and by the hon. member for Medicine Hat based on citations from Beauchesne. I do not see how an immediate discussion of this subject can be avoided unless the government can suggest an alternative means by which hon. members may make their views known. If it were possible to give an assurance to the house that such an opportunity would be forthcoming, we might possibly be able to dispense with the particular debate which is now being demanded.
It is my belief that the motion before us fulfils all the conditions laid down in the rules. The importance of the subject cannot be questioned, since it affects virtually the whole of the Canadian economy.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: This motion to adjourn the house under the terms of standing order 26 does not, in my view, meet the requirement of citation 100 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, for various reasons.
First, as to the question of the urgency of debate, let me say that the procedure with which we are concerned here is set out in the legislation enacted by parliament. The step now being taken is for public hearings to be

May 26. 1966
Seaway and Canal Tolls held by the authority. These public hearings have been going on for some time and are not yet complete. After they have been completed the procedure is for the authority to make its report. To attempt to debate the subject now, before there has been any opportunity for the report to be made, would constitute an unrealistic approach to this important matter.
I do not understand the proposal that this matter should be debated before the facts are known, or before the information obtained at the public hearings is made available to members of the House of Commons. I am at a loss to understand the argument that this house should set aside the business appointed for today in order to debate this matter without the information given at the public hearings being available to hon. members.
The procedure being followed is set out in section 15 of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act and in section 53 of the Railway Act, where provision is made for the authority to take action in the manner I have indicated. Then the legislation provides that the matter shall go before the governor in council. Surely the governor in council cannot consider this question before the information has been made available, and surely we cannot debate the subject in this house in the absence of this information.
The Leader of the Opposition has suggested that, because the act sets out the procedure I have indicated, the act is a poor piece of legislation and should not be followed-
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: I never made any such suggestion.


George James McIlraith: -and that this house should have the governor in council bound by the wishes of the house in advance of any information coming before the governor in council on the subject.
In addition, there is another reason the subject matter is not proper for an adjournment motion under this standing order, namely that the opportunity for debate is adequately and fully provided in the proper forum on the estimates of the Department of Transport. The estimates of the department were referred to the standing committee on transport and communications on March 22. They are now before that committee, and when the evidence taken at the public hearing is available to hon. members I am quite sure they will wish to discuss the matter rather fully in that committee, and subsequently in the house when the minister is here to deal with his estimates.

There being adequate opportunity for debate on the matter the proposed motion fails on that ground as well as the others.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there are two points which the Minister of Public Works has overlooked. The first is that he has not given us the assurance that this matter will be up for debate in the house before an order in council is passed by the government approving whatever recommendation comes from the seaway authority. A discussion on estimates after the matter has been decided is not satisfactory. The other, more important, point is that the seaway authority has publicly issued a summary of future traffic estimates and toll requirements, which is in our hands. It is in answer to that summary that representations are now being made and have been made to the seaway authority.
Our suggestion is that the opinion of the House of Commons should be made known to the seaway authority at this stage of its proceedings, so that when the members of that body come to make their final decision and presentation to the Board of Transport Commissioners and to the government, they will have the benefit not only of the submissions made to them by private firms throughout this country but of the opinion expressed by parliament itself. That is why we want to discuss the matter today.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I had thought the case was so clear that this would be one of those occasions when the government house leader would stand up and say he agreed with the points of view expressed from the opposition side of the house. Since he likes to save time, this would have been a good way to save it.
The Minister of Public Works argues that because this matter is being considered by the authority, therefore the house should wait until the authority has expressed its views. I submit, knowing this government, that if we waited until such time as we knew what the recommendations of the seaway authority were, and if we then tried to raise this matter in the house we would be told that we should wait until the government acted by order in council.
What is involved in this motion today is the right of parliament, through its members speaking for the whole country, to be heard on these issues that are under consideration. I submit that the arguments of the Minister of Public Works as to why parliament should
May 26, 1966

not debate this matter now, and should not debate it then, all add up to ways and means of preventing parliament speaking on this issue at a time when it may have some effect. The urgency of debate is that we should be given an opportunity to express our views at a time when their expression might have an influence.
The suggestion that this matter might be discussed when the estimates of the Department of Transport are before a certain committee is no guarantee that that will actually happen. I can see a member trying to raise this question on the estimates of the Department of Transport, and I can see an ingenious chairman saying that there is not an item in the estimates specifically relating to this, so that members seeking to raise this issue would find themselves out of court. I agree with those who have spoken from each of the parties on this side of the house that there is urgency of debate on this issue at this time, and I hope Your Honour will so find.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would like to indicate to hon. members that after listening to both sides of the house I am now in a position to reach a decision on the motion submitted by the hon. member for Kinders-ley. There is, of course, merit in the proposition advanced by the Minister of Public Works to the effect that this matter might be considered by the appropriate committee dealing with the estimates of the Department of Transport, but to my mind this does not meet the situation entirely.
I believe a strong point has been made by the hon. member for Kindersley, supported by other hon. members; and, as a few hon. members have said, if standing order 26 is ever going to be used, if there is any time when it is to provide an opportunity to members to adjourn the proceedings of the house to consider a matter which in the opinion of a large number of members is of urgent importance and should be debated, then I believe this is the type of situation, and I would allow the hon. member to proceed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Cantelon asks for leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 to discuss a definite matter 23033-352
Seaway and Canal Tolls of urgent public importance. Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member shall have leave to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the sense of justice which has led to your acceptance of this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows he cannot comment on a decision of the Chair.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: On February 10 and again on May 20 I had some comments to make on this particular matter. I said that the western Canadian sees the great lakes waterway as his doorway to the sea. I want to emphasize that point very strongly. This is indeed the way in which he looks upon the St. Lawrence seaway. It is true that he now moves a lot of goods through the Pacific ports, and some through Churchill, but he still thinks of the St. Lawrence seaway as the main route. So he is very concerned when he is faced with any thought that there are liable to be increases in the costs of what he ships and what he buys.
When Canada was being created throughout the nineteenth century the development of the St. Lawrence waterway system was undoubtedly one of the most important factors to tie the west to the rest of Canada. Cheap transportation through this system made it possible for western Canadians to market their grain at competitive prices on the world market. Also because of it, central Canada was able to ship its manufactured products to the west at cheap rates to meet the growing needs of that area of this great country. I question very much whether the prosperity that is so much in evidence now would be in existence without that waterway.
It is questionable whether the rapid development of the west which took place in the 1890's and the early 1900's which raised the population of the prairie provinces from something like 419,000 in 1901 to 1,328,000 in 1911, could ever have happened without the waterway. The western Canadian is not liable to forget this. Many people went to western Canada because of that waterway. They know the effect it has had on their development and the effect they hope it will have on their future.

May 26, 1966
Seaway and Canal Tolls [DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
However, they now feel that hope is imperiled by the suggestion that the waterway rates should be raised now and possibly raised again in the future. If they are raised on the grounds that we need the increase to meet rising costs, then we can be sure this will happen again some time in the future. So Canada's long held principle, when the waterway first went into operation, that it should be toll free will be gone by the board forever.
It is possible too that this imposition of tolls would lead to some restriction of traffic along the seaway. If it did it might force traffic into other methods of movement and this again would lead to an increase in the cost of living; not only in western Canada-let us not suffer from that delusion-but also it would lead to an increase in the cost of living in eastern and central Canada. Because the articles which you ship could not be sold as readily in western Canada, it would lead to a decrease in the quantity of business that would be done. Therefore the business that is left would have to charge more for its products, and the cost of living would be bound to rise.
People in all parts of Canada should view with suspicion any attempt to raise the tolls on the waterway. For a long time, while the seaway was being built, it was our traditional policy to have toll free waterways. Sixty-three years ago Canada abolished all tolls on the waterways. In 1909 the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act declared:
All navigable boundary waters shall forever continue free and open for the purposes of commerce to the inhabitants, ships and vessels of both Canada and the United States.
But what do we find has happened? In 1959 we find that the seaway had tolls imposed, by the agreement of 1951. I know, and everyone knows, there were very powerful forces operating to see that these tolls should be charged, and those powerful forces still are in operation today. I do not need to name them; I would hesitate to do so, but I am sure those who are familiar with the situation-and I think everyone in this house is familiar with it-knows what areas and what types of persons would like to see these tolls increased.
If the tolls are increased these persons know it will help their business; but it will not help western Canada, and it will not help central Canada. I should like to say right here that I do not think it will help any part of Canada. It will not help the Atlantic
[Mr. Cantelon.l
provinces. The danger to the Atlantic provinces does not lie in seaway tolls or in a lack of tolls; the danger to the Atlantic provinces lies in the period during which this seaway operates, and in particular the time the port of Montreal operates. I do not think there is any loss to the maritime provinces through seaway tolls.
In 1959 these tolls were imposed in an attempt to do two things. First of all they wanted to recover the cost of operation of the seaway and, second, they hoped that in a period of 50 years they would be able to recover the cost of building the seaway. Forecasts seemed to indicate that this could be done, but they were much too optimistic. We find that the traffic has not been sufficiently heavy to do this. Nevertheless, whether or not this actually was successful, it avoids the main point. The main point is that there should be no tolls at all, and that so far as this nation is concerned it is greatly to our advantage to have a toll free waterway. As I hope I have to some extent indicated, it is to the advantage of all Canada that this should be so.
On more than one occasion in this house it has been pointed out what the cost of this will be to the farmer. Mr. Charles Gibbings has suggested it will be 1J cents a bushel. If this is true-and I do not see any reason that his figures would be very far out-then we can expect that the cost to the farmer will be something in the order of $5 million a year. The individual farmer who, after all costs are taken off, has been getting, about $1.40 will find he is not getting $1.40 but rather $1.39. He will be losing 1 per cent of his gross income in grain; and 1 per cent is a very serious matter, because actually when you take the net income that 1 per cent is magnified greatly.
These I think, Mr. Speaker, are some of the reasons it is so important that this matter should be debated and that the importance of this proposal should be emphasized for all to hear. Definite detailed arguments have been presented to the Board of Transport Commissioners, and I do not intend to reiterate those arguments. I am sure, however, that you will hear some of them as this debate continues this afternoon.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is one of the first occasions on which members of parliament will have an opportunity to express their views about some proposed action by an agency or commission which is responsible to or reports
May 26, 1966

through the government tor its activities. I believe it is appropriate that today should be our opportunity to make comments in this regard because, as I understood the minister, he said the hearings of the seaway authority still are in progress, although I suspect perhaps today is the last day and that the hearings on the proposed toll increases are about to conclude. So it is fitting that we should be able to give the authority the benefit of the reaction Canadians have to the proposed toll increases.
As we all know, probably no one is more sensitive to the reactions of the Canadian public than a politician; because if he is worth his salt at all he must keep in touch with people, keep his finger on the pulse and find out what they think concerning the effect of any proposed action such as this.
The applause from all sides of the house when the hon. member for Kindersley first raised this matter indicates the deep concern Canadians have about this proposal. I hope today's discussion is more than an exercise in expressing views. I hope it will have an impact upon the seaway authority and cause the authority to reverse its decision. I hope at least it will leave the toll structure as it is at the moment, and take steps to reduce the toll structure to the point where we will have a toll free system. It is my understanding that this is the only place in North America where tolls are charged for-
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the hon. member would permit a question for clarification. I understood him to say that the seaway authority would reverse its decision. My understanding is that the matter had not yet come up for decision and that the seaway authority is conducting public hearings prior to making a decision and a recommendation.


Frank Howard: In a technical sense this may be absolutely correct, but it is a fact that officials have been making quite a number of public declarations in support of their proposal to increase tolls. In view of the manner in which this organization operates there is no question in my mind that the authority has made up its mind about this particular proposed increase and is merely going through the motions of listening to argument before it formally announces the verdict.
In this regard I should like to quote from a telegram apparently sent on May 6 to Hon.
Seaway and Canal Tolls J. W. Pickersgill, Minister of Transport. It
says:
The Canadian Press on May 5, 1966, carried a Winnipeg despatch quoting Mr. Delmer E. Taylor, a member of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, as saying: "There has already been considerable support for the toll increases proposed by the authority". In light of the numerous assurances you have given to parliament that no decision with respect to recommended seaway tolls and Welland ship canal lockage fees will be reached by the cabinet until after the conclusion of public hearings scheduled to commence on May 25, the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association vigorously protests this reported effort of an official of the authority to influence public opinion in favour of higher tolls.
That telegram is signed by Stuart Armour, president of the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association. It was for this reason that I said the authority had made a decision, and that perhaps this discussion in the house today will help it to reverse that decision and not recommend that the proposed tolls be put into effect.
In the last couple of days numerous corporate organizations and public spirited bodies such as chambers of commerce, and the union in one instance, have appeared at the hearings of the seaway authority and presented their opposition to the proposed increase in tolls. Of the many, many briefs which were presented, some merely filed with the authority and others presented orally, there was only one which favoured the increase in tolls. That brief was from the Railway Association of Canada. I think it is significant that this one group in Canada with a particular axe to grind would favour the proposal to increase tolls.
I submit that all that one exception does is underline and underscore the virtually unanimous opposition that exists in this nation to the proposal of the seaway authority to increase the tolls. The seaway authority published a document called "Summary of future traffic estimates and toll requirements" under date April 13, 1966, with respect to toll increases. I should like to quote from page 3 of this document a sentence that appears under the heading "Traffic forecasts and their relation to the proposed tolls increase":
In order to examine as objectively as possible the tolls question prior to reporting to governments by July 1, 1966, the two seaway entities agreed that each would obtain the services of independent economic consultant firms to make estimates of traffic development on the Seaway and to assess the impact upon such development of possible increases in the existing level of tolls.
Those consultant firms carried out their studies and made reports to their respective

May 26, 1966
Seaway and Canal Tolls principals. I think it is significant to note that to date those economic surveys and studies have been kept secret by the seaway authority. I submit that they have been kept secret because the studies partially give reasons why tolls should not be increased and because they point out the potential detrimental economic effects of increasing the seaway tolls. The authority, on the one hand proposing an increase in tolls, did not want to release any information contained in these economic studies which would be deleterious to the proposal of the seaway authority.
However, sometimes such studies are not as secret as one would like them to be, because an extract from one of the economic surveys provided for the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and the following to say with regard to the commodity studies. This was with respect to iron ore movement, and I wish to deal just briefly with this matter. The study deals with the impact of toll increases and whether they would affect the competitive position of hauling through the seaway as compared with hauling cargoes in some other fashion, and one comment is as follows:
The one significant borderline situation is the ore movement through the seaway and lake Erie ports into the Pittsburgh area. This area can be supplied for about the same price via U.S. Atlantic ports and currently about one million tons of Canadian ore moves into this area through Conneault.
In the main conclusions of the study we find the following with respect to iron ore shipments:
Currently, there is about one million tons of ore routed through the seaway for steel mills in the Pittsburgh region which could almost as easily use the Atlantic route.
In other words even a 10 per cent increase in toll charges could have the effect of diverting what is now about one million tons of iron ore from one route to another. As a consequence, not only would the seaway lose the income on the traffic but I do not know how many people would lose jobs because this particular method of carrying the ore would not be used.
The matter was gone into quite extensively by the hon. member for Kindersley and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, my leader, when he spoke on the question of urgency of debate. It has been gone into extensively with regard to the movement of grain. Even an increase of 1J cents a bushel which will be extracted from the pockets of western grain farmers is a kick in the teeth to

those farmers, who have a difficult enough time as it is.
I submit that the amount of money which may be realized by increasing the tolls on the movement of grain through the lakehead and the seaway is insignificant in itself in so far as the operation of the seaway is concerned, but means quite a bit to the individual farmer on the prairies who will have to dig up the extra money to pay these freight charges. After all, he is the one who pays in the long run.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
There is the question of the secondary effect on manufacturers who will have to find the money to pay for the increased tolls. We all know that in our economy there is only one individual who pays for anything and that is the consumer. All of the industries whose operations hinge to a certain extent upon shipments through the seaway will pass on the increased toll charges to the consumer who will again be the victim. This may be an inflationary measure and another method of extracting purchasing power from the man on the street. In my view this is not compatible with our desire to develop our economy and make it as progressive and virile as we can. If this measure is adopted the seaway will be the only place in North America where tolls are charged for ship movements. I could make extensive additional references to the economic studies which the seaway authority has kept secret, and bring forth a variety of statistics to show that the proposed increases are not necessary.
Let me sum up in a few words. We have a tradition in Canada of toll free waterways. We now have the desire to return to that situation. If the seaway authority and the Canadian government had any real concern they would not be thinking now of increased tolls and increased charges to the consumer and the western grain farmer and the resulting potential loss of jobs for Canadian sailors and others. They would be thinking in terms of working out an arrangement whereby tolls could be decreased as quickly as possible and eventually eliminated. I submit that this is the only course which the seaway authority can take and, if it fails to take it, the only course which the Canadian government can take.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the reason for this debate today is to allow members of the house to have an opportunity to express the point of view of the people they
May 26, 1966

represent who are, of course, all the electors in Canada. We should like to consider this matter before the seaway authority makes a recommendation to the federal cabinet and it passes an order in council authorizing this increase in the tolls.
It is true that this matter is now being considered at a hearing taking place today in the nation's capital. I suppose it could be argued that neither this house nor the government should concern themselves with this matter before the completion of the hearings and before recommendations are made to the government. It has happened before that recommendations to the government were taken under advisement by the cabinet and nothing more was heard of them until a decision was taken and an order in council passed. I therefore hope that the government will take serious cognizance of the views expressed here today because of the widespread impact which such a measure might have on the whole economy and the whole price structure in Canada if in fact the tolls on the seaway are increased by 10 per cent.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Cantelon) when he opened the debate, a great deal of discussion took place before the seaway became operative with regard to whether it should be a toll free system. It is interesting to look back on some of those discussions. For example, we find that in 1957 the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees), a former minister of transport, is reported to have made it clear that the Progressive Conservative government "believes the imposition of tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway is mandatory." That may have been the opinion of the government of the day but I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that a large number of organizations and individuals in Canada held the opinion that there should be no tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway.
I think this matter is urgent, as do most people who are acquainted with the cost-price squeeze affecting the western farmers. This is not the time to allow any changes which will further aggravate the cost-price squeeze. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics and several farm organizations have gathered information and compiled statistics to the effect that the cost of production in the field of agriculture in western Canada is going up much more rapidly than the returns to the farmers. To allow at this time a further decline in receipts from wheat in the amount
Seaway and Canal Tolls of a cent and a quarter a bushel will certainly aggravate the cost-price squeeze.
Not very long ago we had a debate in the house regarding the effect which this might have on the farmer. I will not go over those statistics at present. However, I submit that it is not only the farmer who will suffer as a result of an increase in the tolls on the seaway. I am sure that every member in this house-and this has been mentioned almost every day-is aware of the concern of Canadian consumers respecting the rising cost of living. I know that my mail has contained far more letters during these past few weeks expressing concern about this matter than at any time since I became a member of this house.
The statistics provided to us by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics show an increase in the cost of living almost every month. In fact, it has gone up several percentage points in the past few months and certainly in the past year. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if parliament and the government can do anything to slow down the increase in the cost of living, they certainly have an obligation to do so. I suggest that to allow an increase in the tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway will ultimately result in an increase in the tariffs charged for moving goods from the lakehead to Montreal and to all the places in between, which in turn will immediately result in a rise in the cost of living.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
This is a matter of urgent public importance. It is one that concerns a very great number of the Canadian people, quite apart from the matter of costs in the agricultural sector. I suggest that if there is an increase in the tolls charged on cargoes carried by ships up and down the seaway, there will be a corresponding increase in the rates charged by competitive modes of transport. The result will be an immediate increase in the retail prices of the goods involved. The seaway, Mr. Speaker, is such an important link in our transportation system that I suggest these increases will cover almost all goods in the consumer market to a greater or lesser degree depending on what percentage the cost of transportation represents in the price of these goods.
This could set off another round of the inflationary spiral. I urge the government to consider this matter seriously, especially in view of their claim that they are concerned about the rising cost of living. In the budget

May 26, 1966
Seaway and Canal Tolls speech brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) only a few weeks ago he claimed he was concerned about rising costs. In fact, in several places he mentioned that his paramount concern in drawing up the budget was to hold down rising prices. He claimed that the economy was going at such a rate that it was prudent at least to take our foot off the gas, if not necessarily to step on the brake. He suggested that the end result of failure to do this would simply be higher prices, a higher cost of living and more inflationary pressure.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that allowing action at this time that will result in higher prices for almost everything in Canada is certainly going to set off something that is undesirable. In conclusion I say again that this is no time to allow changes that will add to the cost of almost every item in Canada. It is not the time to allow changes that will further aggravate the cost-price squeeze on the farmers of Canada. I suggest that the government should carefully consider this situation if they are serious about trying to hold down the rising cost of living.


Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: am pleased to be able to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker. In April, 1965, during the throne speech debate I devoted a whole speech to the St. Lawrence seaway, the Welland ship canal and tolls on the seaway and canal. Since that time I have not changed the views I expressed in that speech, namely, that I am opposed to an increase in tolls and, furthermore, opposed to tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway and Welland ship canal. I for one would like to see not only this increase disallowed but the eventual abolition of tolls on the seaway.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will the hon. member permit a question at this point?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Yes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I was quite interested in the introductory remarks of the hon. member and his reference to his opposition. Can he tell us how many of his party take the same position, because if the majority take that position the government will veto any increase?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I do not understand the hon. member's question. Did he refer to the opposition or my opposition?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Your opposition. You are opposing an increase in tolls; at least, that is what I understood you to say.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: That is correct. I am.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am asking the hon. member through you, Mr. Speaker, how many members of your party agree with you and if the majority agree with you will the government veto the increase?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I like to see the hon. member for Bow River in his seat. The question really is one that I am sure he knows has no sense to it. I am speaking for myself as a member of this party. I am sure that members on this side who agree with my view will take part in the debate if they wish to express their own personal views. I am not free to state what is in the mind of each individual in this house. So far as I personally am concerned, I oppose the increase and also oppose any tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway.
The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Cantelon) mentioned in his remarks the strong pressures from powerful lobbyists in the United States who are not only opposed to any tolls but were opposed to the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway from the beginning. In my speech in April, 1965, I named the people I knew were opposed to the construction of the seaway and I have no hesitation in renaming them. They have some very interesting names. The major opposition to a toll free St. Lawrence seaway from Montreal to lake Ontario was based on the premise that exemption from tolls was equivalent to a subsidy. The leaders of the opposition in the United States are bodies, as I suggested, that bear some very revealing names. They are the National Association for a Non-Subsidized Seaway, which is still in existence; the Maryland Committee for a Non-Subsidized seaway, which is still in existence; the New York and New Jersey Committee for a Self-Supporting Seaway, which is still in existence; also the United States North Atlantic, Gulf and Caribbean Ports Association as well as the Association of American Railroads. They have been long standing opponents of the seaway.
In its submissions to the government of Canada in 1963 and in its annual submissions since the national legislative committee of the International Railway Brotherhood has opposed any reduction in tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway. In fact, on occasion they have asked for an increase, which is surprising when you consider the extent to which the railways of this country have been subsidized.
May 26, 1966

Several members have spoken about the burden the proposed increase will place on the prairie farmer, and this is true. All the wheat pools are opposed to it. The Great Lakes Waterway Development Association, which represents a great number of industries and individuals in Canada, has indicated its opposition. As one who comes from an industrial centre of this country so far as the manufacture of steel is concerned, I certainly want to record my opposition to this increase.
1 should like to quote briefly from a submission made to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority at a public hearing by the vice president of the Steel Company of Canada, Mr. Norman J. Brown. He said in part that the low cost of water transportation has been an indispensable factor in the development of the steel industry in Hamilton. This cannot be denied, Mr. Speaker. I quote Mr. Brown:
Continued growth of the industry will depend on its ability to meet competition which is becoming increasingly intense in both domestic and export markets.
Higher tolls add to the costs of producing and shipping steel and impair Stelco's competitive position which is being maintained only by continuing massive investments in new plant and equipment.
This is a fact, Mr. Speaker. The Steel Company of Canada, has been investing great sums in the expansion of the steel industry and creating jobs in the city of Hamilton. The Steel Company of Canada accounts for 39 per cent of Canadian steel output. Steel, as you know, is a highly competitive product on a world wide basis. Mr. Brown also said:
By using bulk carrier ships of up to 100,000 tons, Japanese steel mills received South American ore cheaper than Stelco can lay it down at its docks.
United States steel mills on lake Erie and Michigan receive the bulk of their materials toll free.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Stelco and Dominion Foundries at Hamilton depend greatly on the seaway, especially on the Welland ship canal, for their raw materials and iron ore from their mines along the lower St. Lawrence valley and in Newfoundland and Labrador. Unless they are able to receive these raw products landed at their docks in Hamilton at a competitive rate they will be unable to be competitive in the market with their rivals in the United States and with the steel mills in other parts of the world. This will be result if we do not receive our domestic raw materials at a cheaper rate than industries in Europe and the United States.
In January of this year the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) stated that tolls
Seaway and Canal Tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway were required by an act of parliament and that parliamentary approval would be needed 'o make the waterway toll free. First of all, with all due respect to the minister, tolls were not exactly "required" by an act of parliament but by an agreement between the United States and Canada, which, of course, would have to be approved, I would think, by this parliament. So you might say that they were required by an act of parliament but that is not really so.
The minister also said that tolls were required by the act of parliament which permitted the building of the seaway, that parliament would have to make a change in the act and that there would be opposition from other forms of transportation if there was an attempt to have the seaway made toll free. He also said it would not be very easy to find a majority in parliament who would say that one form of traffic could be carried toll free but not others.
It is difficult for me, and I suggest also for others, to understand why other forms of transportation which are themselves subsidized should oppose a toll free seaway inasmuch as this facility has diverted considerable traffic from United States ports and railroads to the benefit of Canadian truckers and railroads. I feel that any increase in the cost of transportation of raw materials and finished products is certainly going to filter through to the consumer in the end. There is no doubt that the consumer will end up paying for any increase in tolls.
I do not believe that an increase in tolls is going to solve the financial problems of the St. Lawrence seaway. I think that at the beginning the estimate that was made was an erroneous one. The amortization period was too short; it should not have been 50 years. The present level of tolls, if maintained, is sufficient to pay for all operating and maintenance costs of the seaway itself.
I am also opposed to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority imposing fees on the use of the locks by way of a lockage charge. This is another way of getting around the placing of tolls on the Welland ship canal. There really is no relationship between the two because the Welland ship canal was built and financed by Canadians. Why we should make it subject to tolls in agreement with the United States is beyond me, and I do not think it is necessary. In fact, I know it is not necessary. Any extension of the agreement between the United States and Canada with respect to tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway

May 26. 1966
Seaway and Canal Tolls should certainly not be applied to the Welland ship canal. However, they get around the problem by imposing a lockage fee.
I have stated before, as have others, that I do not think the public hearings will change the minds of the management of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. I certainly hope they do, but the speech made by one of the members of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority in Winnipeg last week seemed to indicate that he was not thinking of changing his mind as a result of the public hearings.
In one sense I should have liked to see this matter debated by the standing committee on transport and communications. However, I cannot blame hon. members for bringing up the matter in the house because it is now 15 years since there was a debate on the St. Lawrence seaway. The first and last debate was in 1951.
If I may return to that debate for a moment, it is interesting to note that the then minister of transport, Hon. Lionel Chevrier, made a statement which is reported at page 1576 of Hansard for December 4, 1951. He said:
Why is the project necessary from a navigation standpoint? . . . Now, it also promises to be the key that will unlock the future for the iron ore fields of Quebec and Labrador. It will open large new markets for these ores in the Great Lakes area, otherwise largely out of economic reach. And on the other side of the coin it will give those interior steel mills the best new source of ore at the lowest cost, a matter of serious concern at the moment.
If it was a matter of serious concern in 1951 to have low-cost water transportation, then it is even more important today if we are to compete in foreign markets and increase our export trade, especially in steel and other finished products.
Mr. Chevrier, whose remarks in 1951 apply equally strongly today, continued:
What will be the effect on the railways of Canada? I do not think that the fortunes of the railways nor the economy of the railways would be materially affected by this project. For one thing, almost half the seaway traffic foreseen is in iron ore. That is traffic which does not exist at the moment in so far as the lower St. Lawrence is concerned, and in so far as the railways are concerned it is new traffic.
Then at page 1580 he concluded as follows:
In conclusion, let me summarize the government's view in a very few words. We believe that Canada needs the St. Lawrence seaway and power development at the earliest possible date. We believe that it is important for economic development and urgent for national defence.
I am not interested at the moment in the national defence aspect, but the matter is

just as important today, if not more so, from the point of view of the economic development of this country. I do not know where we would have been today, with the large sales of wheat we have made to Communist China, Russia and other countries, had the St. Lawrence seaway not been in operation.
As I said in April of last year, I feel that the Canadian government made a mistake and that it should have built the St. Lawrence seaway at its own cost without help from the United States. We did not really need their help. Facilities are now erected at Cornwall which would enable the seaway to be all-Canadian. I suggest that we should proceed to complete an all-Canadian seaway and be the masters of the seaway because it is more important to our economy than to that of the United States.
It is interesting to note that there is great opposition in the United States to the increase. In March of 1964 Senator Proxmire of Wisconsin wrote to commerce secretary Luther H. Hodges as follows:
-any increase in . . . tolls will diminish revenues-
Of the seaway.
-because shipping will drop off substantially.
Increased shipping in the Great Lakes is vital to our entire economy.
Then Senator Proxmire went on:
For many products, including grain from the midwest, the Great Lakes should be the most efficient route for distribution, especially to foreign markets. This efficient distribution should not be hampered by the excessive and unreasonable seaway tolls.
We are told, Mr. Speaker, that the tolls are not going to tie excessive, that they are not unreasonable. I think we should revert to the Canadian tradition of toll free waterways in this country. I suggest that those who say the seaway if being subsidized look at the extent of discrimination in tolls on the seaway and canal traffic. I submit that no other form of transportation has ever been placed under an obligation to reimburse the national treasury for moneys which have been invested in it under a national development policy, because the seaway was constructed as a matter of policy to stimulate our economic development.
How great this discrimination is has been very interestingly documented in a submission by the Dominion Marine Association regarding seaway tolls of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. They give certain examples. For instance, the Canadian National Railways is subsidized. Then there are the
May 26, 1966

maritime freight rate subventions, the east-west bridge subsidies, the Hudson Bay railway, the trans-Canada highway, airports. None of these is being asked to carry its capital cost so why should the St. Lawrence seaway?
To say that there is a United States-Canada agreement is not enough. I think this is something the government should discuss in the very near future with the United States interests. I am sure that some arrangement could be arrived at that would be in the interest of this country. Then we ought to proceed with an all-Canadian seaway.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
We know that traffic on the seaway is increasing but is not yet bringing in an adequate financial return. I believe that the secret of the economic success of the seaway lies in the development of maximum traffic movements of ships bearing additional cargoes. Unquestionably higher volumes of traffic movements, with a higher level of toll earnings, would automatically take care of the liquidation of assets. That liquidation would have to take place over a long period of time and not just within 50 years. I submit that the present levels of tolls, if tolls are to remain, must be considered to be at their maximum. As I said earlier, I think tolls should be abolished.
The director of the port of Chicago, Captain John J. Manley, recently called for abandonment of all tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway. I quote his words:
The U.S. should return to the traditional policy of toll-free waterways and abandon, in the interests of national welfare, the idea of recovering the cost of construction of seaway through tolls.
I submit that applies equally to us. From 1848 to 1959 there was an all-Canadian seaway between Montreal and lake Erie. This seaway was toll free for the greater part of its 111 year history, to the great benefit of our national economy. Today Canada is by far the greatest user of the seaway. This body of water plays a great part in our national well-being. The St. Lawrence seaway, stretching from Montreal to lake Ontario, is the only waterway on the North American continent on which tolls are exacted. This fact places Canadian producers of manufactured and natural products at a competitive disadvantage in the domestic and world markets. I could elaborate on that but I do not think it is necessary. I dwelt at some length on this matter on April 12, 1965.
Seaway and Canal Tolls
May I conclude my remarks by saying that although this debate may be somewhat premature I sincerely believe it is worth while. This subject has not been thoroughly debated for 15 years. I hope that the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority will consider very seriously any recommendations it wishes to make after its public hearings. I hope that the government will seriously consider the authority's recommendations in the light of the burden placed on the Canadian economy by tolls. I trust that hon. members may be given an opportunity, either in committee or when discussing estimates, to delve further into the proposed recommendation to increase tolls.
I have one more criticism. I wish to criticize the seaway authority for keeping confidential and not releasing the economic report it obtained. As hon. members will remember, a great hullabaloo was raised about having independent economists report to the authority. I called the authority and asked for a copy of the report. The secretary who answered me was very polite. He was under orders and was doing his job. He said that the report could not be released as it was considered highly confidential.
How in the world is one to make submissions properly if the economic facts backing up the submissions are not made public? I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, why the authority is trying to hide this report. It will be made available to the government. I am sure that when the matter comes before the committee on transport and communications, the report will be before that committee. I sincerely urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and the acting or associate minister to discuss with the authority the releasing of this economic report in order that those wishing to make submissions may have all the facts. The authority has nothing to hide and is laying itself open to undue criticism.


Mr. Barnett:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Certainly.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Could the hon. member inform the house whether the 1951 debate, from which he quoted certain remarks by the then minister of transport, had to do with whether Canada would construct a seaway on its own without the participation of the United States?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: No, Mr. Speaker. The effect of the debate, as reported in Hansard on

May 28. 1966
Seaway and Canal Tolls December 4, 1951, was that if the United States was reluctant in the last analysis to join with Canada in the construction of the seaway Canada would then be prepared to "go it alone". Words to that effect were used in the debate of 1951 by the then minister of transport.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this matter I should say at the outset that hon. members representing constituencies in western Canada, particularly farming constituencies, must take a strong stand in opposing increases in tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway. It was refreshing to hear the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) setting out clearly the position that has been reached by most of us on this side of the house. I hope that when the hon. member, either in confidence or in caucus or elsewhere, has the opportunity to speak to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene), who by the way is not here today, he will be able to influence him and thereby the cabinet in the very near future to adopt the hon. member's position.
It is true that the cabinet is an independent body and it is within its jurisdiction to make a ruling on this matter. That, however, should not prevent the cabinet from following the lead of the hon. member at the proper time because the executive has the power to say yes or no with respect to this matter. When the hon. member who has just spoken and others in the Liberal party who take the same position are required to vote on this question, I hope that if they are so required they will support their views with their votes instead of just with their voices.
This whole question is of particular importance to the economy of western Canada as well as to the economy of the whole country. I hope to put some facts before the house. In discussing this matter two questions arise: First, the question of increased costs of production and, second, the increased cost of living. Both these problems, and I say this with great sincerity, have not been solved by the present government. I see one hon. member shaking his head. I shall deal with the facts.
I want to deal with the increased costs of production especially as they affect producers in western Canada in their relationship to the export market. Only yesterday I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) a question in reference to the high cost of farm machinery. Hon. members may remember that shortly

after the Minister of Agriculture was appointed he made his first trip out west and on his return made favourable statements respecting western farmers. At the present time those statements have remained mere statements, because he said there would be an investigation into the high cost of farm machinery and such an investigation has not been undertaken.
When I asked the Prime Minister about this subject yesterday he said there would be a decision in a day or two. I brought to the attention of the Prime Minister the fact that the profits of the Massey-Ferguson Industries Limited have risen in the last six months from $8 million to $21 million and that the profit per share has risen from 54 cents to $1.34. I asked the Prime Minister whether there would be an investigation into these matters and he said there would be a decision in the very near future.
The high cost of machinery and the high cost of transportation make it very difficult for western farmers to compete successfully in the export market. Canada is probably the only big producer of wheat in the world which does not subsidize its wheat farmers in any way. They are on their own when it comes to competition and any increase in the cost of production threatens the success of our exports and makes the cost squeeze greater. That is why the present debate is necessary. [DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The hon. member for Hamilton West said there had not been a debate on the subject for 15 years. I agree. If hon. members will look at the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act they will find that section 15 contains the authority which parliament gave in 1951 for the imposition of tolls. Section 15(2) reads as follows:
The tolls that may be charged by the authority pursuant to this section may be for the use of the canals and works administered by it as a whole or for the use of any particular part thereof-
In other words, in 1951 parliament gave authority for tolls to be charged for the use of the seaway.
When we are talking about grain it is well to remember that it is the port of Vancouver through which most of the grain from Alberta has found its way in the deals with China and other communist nations. Then we have the port of Churchill and the facilities along the St. Lawrence. In winter, when these are not in use, grain is moved by rail to other ports in Canada. There is a large difference between the sale price of wheat and
May 26. 1966

what the farmer actually receives. The export price at Vancouver several months ago was between $1.96 and $2 a bushel. The price at Fort William differs by a few cents. In negotiating deals such as were made with China the wheat board arrives at a contract price. Otherwise the price may be fixed under the international wheat agreement. What the farmer receives is a sum based on those three prices less costs. In the end he is lucky to get a cut amounting to about $1.20 at a time when wheat is selling at $2.00 a bushel.
Any increase in freight rates is bound to increase the cost of production and this in turn leads to an increase in the cost of living. The rapid rise in the cost of living constitutes one of the most important problems facing the government today. Yet no attempt has been made to curtail inflation and halt the rapid rise in the prices of the commodities Canadian consumers need.
Every member of this house must be getting a great deal of mail on this subject from Canadians right across the country. People realize that the government has done nothing toward solving this problem. The budget, which was supposed to help, has not done so. The cost of living continues to spiral. Hon. members opposite talk about boom times. You can go into homes in many areas where people are suffering as if we were in a depression. Even when the head of the family is working the situation so far as the value of the dollar is concerned is almost as serious as it was during the depression of the 1930's. Make no mistake about that.
The people who are concerned with sales and exports realize that there is a movement in the United States today to change the law affecting trade with communist nations, not only with respect to sales of commodities but with respect to the use of United States shipping to carry exports to such nations. If this movement succeeds Canada will be in serious competition with the United States in this field. Any increase in the cost of production which would mean an increase in the cost of grain exported in competition with other nations would have serious consequences for Canada.
I have just finished reading the new book by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon), the former minister of finance. In his book the hon. gentleman admits that the imbalance of trade with the United States today amounts to $1,700 million. There is only one reason why it is not worse, only one reason why we have been able to avoid a
Seaway and Canal Tolls financial crisis. It is the fact that the previous government negotiated wheat sales with the communist nations, an initiative for which they were criticized by members of the Liberal party and of the Social Credit group. The money derived from the sale of this wheat brought more than $2 billion into the economy of this country in one year, enabling us to avoid a worsening of the imbalance of trade between the United States and Canada.
When the hon. member for Davenport was financial critic for the Liberal party he told us that he and his friends were going to cure the imbalance, but in the last four years it has increased every year. Had it not been for the sales of wheat to which I have referred, had we not been able to produce wheat cheaper than any other exporting nation, the imbalance of trade between the United States and Canada today would be twice as great. Basically, it is the Conservative's sales policy which has bailed out the present government so far as this particular problem is concerned.
I emphasize that the farmer gets a pooled price. It may be that a bushel of wheat can be shipped through Churchill cheaper than through the seaway or in certain areas of western Canada it can be shipped more cheaply through Vancouver. All the prices are averaged and costs are deducted to arrive at the net price the farmer gets.
The reason the wheat board was set up was to arrive at a pooled price for the farmer. The last grain payment was between 10 and 20 cents less than the year before, depending on the grade.


Mr. Rapp:: Seventeen cents on the average.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member for
Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale, which is one of the great agricultural areas of western Canada, says that the figure was 17 cents on the average. So the cost has been rising but the price the western farmers have been getting for their grain has been going down. Any increase in the cost of production, whether it amounts to a cent and a quarter or less, puts the farmer into a worse cost squeeze than before.
The only ones who want the tolls increased are the railroads. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) was minister of trade and commerce he freely acknowledged that we had lost certain of our grain markets because we had been unable to get the grain to the ports on time. We in the opposition were badgering the minister continually to do

May 26, 1966
Seaway and Canal Tolls something about the tie-up of grain in western Canada. It is hard to explain why in 1966 a nation with a $2 billion industry cannot move its grain to the ports.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
When farmers, under a quota, can only market a bushel of wheat per acre for several months, how can they pay their costs of production on time? This only adds to their cost of production. This was an important matter but the government did nothing. The government set up a commission but it did nothing for month after month while wheat was piled up on the western farms as it was in 1956 and 1957. During that time the government did nothing but talk and say that the matter was under consideration, an old, worn-out phrase used by cabinet ministers who are not doing anything. It is only their way of passing the buck.
It seems to me that the C.P.R. of late is almost governing this country. It has an obligation to move the wheat. It was given a charter in most of western Canada, particularly in southern Alberta where it has a monopoly. But the C.P.R. made excuses. It said it had cars in the United States moving other commodities. It should have been moving wheat, the main export of western Canada, which is capable of bringing $200 million into the economy of that region and this in turn is reflected throughout the whole economy of the country.
The recent increase in the profits of Mas-sey-Ferguson and other firms has resulted from the fact that farmers have had to enlarge their production units in order to continue operating and in enlarging them they have had to buy bigger machinery. As a result the money they received for their grain went to the industrial centres of Ontario.
This is a national matter because the production of wheat and the prosperity of the wheat grower are still of primary concern to the country. It is not a regional question or a matter of selfishness. We are becoming an industrialized nation but behind the scenes wheat is still our major commodity and when there is prosperity on the wheat farm it is reflected throughout the whole Canadian economy.
I have dealt with the two main points I intended to cover. I hope that when this matter comes before the government it will take definite action. I hope it will make a decision and follow the suggestion of the hon.

member for Hamilton West and other backbenchers on that side of the house who believe there should be no increase in tolls.
As the hon. member for Hamilton West said, it is not only the grain industry which will be affected. All industries and commodities will be affected and as a result the cost of living. This is one place where the government can say no. The St. Lawrence seaway system is a national project. It was built for all Canadians and the greater part of the cost should not be placed on the wheat producers.
Therefore I say, let us not have any more answers of this type. If the government is not going to do anything, let it say so. If we did not have this debate today it would be too late tomorrow or the next day. Thanks to members from western and eastern Canada, this matter has been brought up before parliament. Now it is up to the government to do its job. We have done ours.


Mr. R. K. Andras (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, any member from Port Arthur, which constituency contains the western terminal of the St. Lawrence seaway system, would be missing a real opportunity if he did not add his voice to the opposition against any suggestion of increasing tolls on the seaway. During the last month or so I have talked to many people in northwestern Ontario and many people west of Ontario and there is no doubt about the fact that they are in agreement in their opposition to this suggestion.
I should like to take this opportunity to deal with some of the arguments presented in favour of increases in the tolls and even the imposition of tolls. The first one is that tolls are required by the act of parliament which enabled us to build the seaway. It is the opinion of many competent people that this is not a correct statement of the law.
It is my understanding that section 15 of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act authorizes but definitely does not require the seaway authority to impose tolls. Section 16 of the same act provides that if a decision is made to impose tolls the level of those tolls should be sufficient to effect the purposes mentioned in that section, which implies that the total cost should be recovered and, of course, this is fallacious.
As a matter of fact, on reviewing the act it would appear that the only place where it purports to make mandatory the imposition of tolls is under section 17 in the event of an agreement existing between Canada and the
May 26. 1966

United States calling for the imposition of tolls. We have such an agreement, but international agreements of that kind are always open to renegotiation. In fact, there have already been several revisions of the original agreement between the two countries.
The existing tolls are imposed not by the parliament of Canada but by the 1959 agreement between the seaway authorities of Canada and the United States, and 1 would not want to pass over that without drawing attention to the significance of the date 1959. Many students who have studied this subject suggest that the 1959 agreement may not be valid at all.
The International Boundary Waters Treaty Act of 1911 provides as follows:
-all navigable boundary waters shall forever continue free and open for the purposes of commerce to the inhabitants, ships and vessels-
Of both Canada and the United States.
Section 28 of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act provides:
Nothing in this act affects the operation of the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act . . . 1911.
In short, the Canadian parliament did not, although it could have done so, alter the rule that the waters should be free to inhabitants, ships and vessels of Canada and the United States. There is, therefore, support for the view that references to tolls in the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act must be construed as authorizing tolls only in respect of vessels, passengers or cargoes other than those of Canada and the United States.
A second argument that is presented is that it would not be easy to find a majority in parliament to say that one form of traffic should be free and not others. This sounds like a reasonable statement but it has no practical application to the tolls problem. In the first place, traffic on the seaway is by no means carried free, even if the tolls are ignored. Charges are imposed for the use of shore installations and services connected with the seaway. Second, the statement seems to imply that some forms of traffic are not carried free. The fact is that all forms of traffic are carried free to some extent. It is no secret to anybody that substantial subsidies are enjoyed by all forms of transportation in this country. It is really a question of degree, and the difficulty lies in assessing the degree of subsidy enjoyed by the various traffic media.
Before anyone could determine whether there should be any tolls at all and, if so, what those tolls should be, surely an analysis would have to be made of the subsidies
Seaway and Canal Tolls available to all traffic media. Until that is done any consideration of tolls on the seaway is a blind consideration likely to result in inequities of a dangerous nature.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Another fallacious argument which is presented is that the seaway does not serve all of the country and therefore it would be unfair to support it through the public treasury. I think it is correct to say that such a statement ignores the true role of the seaway. Right Hon. Vincent Massey, one of the greatest statesmen of this country, in a speech in 1964 stated:
If the maintenance of our east and west links is questioned as a national policy, the doubters are men who fail to understand the land in which they live.
Another great statesman said that this project is of national concern and will benefit Canada from coast to coast. If one takes a look at the trade handled by the seaway, it becomes very clear that the seaway serves all of Canada and not simply the areas contiguous to it. It is one of the main streets of the Canadian economy.
The record cargoes handled in 1965, which represent an increase of 115 per cent over 1959, covered the entire range of Canadian exports-forest products, grain and other farm products, iron ore and manufactured goods. They include large quantities of coal imported from the United States without which Canadian heavy and other industry could not function in the highly competitve world of today. Large shipments of coal from Cape Breton island to central Canada would not be economically feasible were it not for low transportation costs through the seaway. Exports in all major segments of Canada's export trade, emanating from points virtually all across Canada, pass through the seaway, and the low transportation costs are essential to keep our prices at competitive levels in world markets.
Before concluding I should like to bring out a few more points for the consideration of the house. First, the 124-mile St. Lawrence seaway, Montreal to lake Ontario, is the only waterway in Canada subject to tolls. Moreover, it is the only part of the 27,000 miles of navigable waterways in North America which is subject to tolls. Tolls on the seaway and the Welland ship canal mean higher raw material costs to Canadian manufacturers. Obviously this means that they increase prices, thus adding to inflation and making Canadian manufactured goods not

May 26, 1966
Seaway and Canal Tolls only less competitive in export markets but more costly to Canadian citizens and consumers.
Diversion of upbound traffic through the seaway and the Welland ship canal, because of tolls, inevitably would mean higher rates for downbound Canadian grain cargoes from the lakehead. It has been mentioned, and I wish to join in this, that wheat growers pay the transportation costs, a matter in which we at the lakehead are very keenly interested. Our storage capacity is some 110 million bushels a year and a great proportion of the Canadian wheat crop goes through there each year. Wheat growers do pay the shipping costs and therefore the seaway and Welland ship canal tolls also decrease the purchasing power of our prairie farmers and this in turn increases the cost of wheat so as to make it non-competitive.
One important point which should be recognized is that there is really no hope of recovering through tolls the capital cost of building the seaway from Montreal to lake Ontario and in my opinion it would be in the national interest if they were abolished forthwith. This whole subject is a matter of very grave worry to us in northwestern Ontario and I know our worry is shared in western Canada. For the reasons I have stated, together with many more which no doubt will be developed in the course of this debate, we most certainly wish to register our objection to an increase in tolls and ask for the complete elimination of these unprecedented tariffs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, the greatest highways of the world are not the roads the world has built but the waterways which the world possesses, both natural and man-made. Water-borne commerce has made many nations great and influential. In fact, history shows that nations which do not have navigable waterways have not prospered. As a member representing the southern Ontario riding of Prince Edward-Lennox which is situated on Lake Ontario, I rise to support the proposition and principle that there should be no tolls or lockage fees of any kind in respect of ships of commerce on the Welland canal or on the St. Lawrence seaway.
Although I am one who is in favour of tariffs to protect our industry in certain cases and in vital areas and regions of our country,

at the same time I will not support the restriction of international commercial traffic on our waterways. Since our early beginning, our country was hampered by the rough and wild nature of our mighty river, the St. Lawrence, hampered by the inadequacy of a series of small canals bypassing the rapids which necessitated the use of smaller ships and then transshipment at sea level to ocean-going traffic. The building of the seaway with the taxpayers' money, however, changed all this. Canada's dreams came true and, with the commodious improvements made at the Welland Canal and at the Sault before the seaway improvements on the St. Lawrence were made, we now enjoy the benefits of a great international waterway and the economic benefits which slowly but surely are building a greater and more influential nation.
I make this last statement because out of it arises a point I wish to make. The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority has no right to place toll charges on vessels plying the Welland canal. The Welland canal existed before the building of the other navigational facilities on the river section of the seaway and its control should remain free and inviolate. The point has been mentioned elsewhere that the seaway is not paying its way and therefore an increase in tolls and navigational charges is required to bring the seaway out of the red. Mr. Speaker, I submit it is not the only public transportation entity in Canada or in the United States which is not paying. If the taxpayers can subsidize the C.N.R., and they are doing just that, the nation likewise can subsidize the St. Lawrence seaway. Another point is that there is no doubt that more than one United States railway company would like to see the seaway tolls increased because such action would indirectly benefit them by diverting transportation business to those railings.
The St. Lawrence seaway may be summed up in this manner: it is a financial failure and at the same time a commercial success. If business has not reached our expectations we should not be alarmed. The decades will take care of this. That which is and always will be the greatest and best form of transportation, the waterways, will accrue in the future to the benefit of Canada if we do not stultify and discourage it now by taxing the users by means of exorbitant fees and tolls. Additional tolls levied now will not only be a deterrent to our western grain trade but a deterrent also to our Ontario grown grain. We must not
May 26, 1966

forget that Ontario also produces a good deal of valuable grain and cereal products for export. Ontario grown grains are shipped through the Welland canal and the seaway to the port of Montreal for storage there awaiting export overseas. These include winter wheat, soybeans and Ontario corn.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Also, Mr. Speaker, tolls would not be good for the great heartland of Canada, southern Ontario. In my constituency we have a very valuable installation, the iron ore docks. Pelletized iron from Marmora is loaded into huge ore carriers at Picton harbour where Long Reach meets Picton bay and Adolphus Reach, leading to lake Ontario. Most of this iron ore goes up what one might term one flight of stairs through the Welland canal into the Erie basin to Ohio steel mills.
In our district we confidently look forward to the day when Canada will be populous enough to have more steel mills and secondary associated industry in our own heartland. But some of the Marmora iron which is made into steel is sold back to Canada in the form of iron castings and steel in all its forms and tolls on our waterways only increase the cost of these products that we require. In other words, our own action in this instance would only result in a further rise in the cost of living, which I believe is one of the most vexing problems we have to deal with today.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, right beside the iron ore loading docks we have the large and modern cement plant of the Lake Ontario Portland Cement Company producing a fine product for an international market. Much of this product is exported to the United States in direct competition with American cement plants. I will not support any measures that diminish the ability of any of our industries to compete internationally or otherwise with any of their competitors. This cement plant makes a vast contribution to meeting our balance of trade problem. As hon. members know, our trade position with the United States is very much in a state of imbalance. Tolls will only tend to increase this imbalance which for so long has been a source of embarrassment to Canadian governments.
Another point concerns the interests of our small manufacturers who are importing raw materials. Tolls on the seaway only increase manufacturing costs. They also increase feed grain costs to our Ontario farmers who feed western grains in their beef and milk producing activities.
Seaway and Canal Tolls
We have no toll roads in Canada; they are a thing of the past. Let us likewise have no toll-charging waterways in Canada. The Trent canal system is free. The Rideau canal system is free. They are, of course, recreational in nature and use. Let us make our great commercial waterway free also. I remind the house that the St. Lawrence seaway will still pay for itself many times over in a different way, from the revenue derived from electric power of which it produces a great deal. Let us make its navigational facilities free to the commerce of the world. I urge the government and our committees to prevent the seaway authority increasing our current costs of doing business.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, as a maritimer I think it is foolhardy courage that has impelled me to take part in this debate, because some of my views run contrary to those which have been expressed over and over again this afternoon by those dealing with the problem of tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway. But I think I have a suggestion that might solve the problem and I will present it at the end of a very brief contribution to the debate.
First, when I say that I enter this debate with a feeling of foolhardy courage it is because I am a representative from one of the two great seaports on the Atlantic coast, Halifax. I think I can speak for my colleague from Saint John-Albert in the province of New Brunswick as well as my colleague from Halifax in stating that maritimers have some considerable suspicion of the operations of the St. Lawrence seaway as they affect our particular area. We have seen in Saint John and Halifax the shipping season in the wintertime dwindling by weeks with every passing year; yet as maritimers we have to consider the practical effects of raising the tolls on the seaway.
In this connection I would refer first to item No. 48 of government orders which deals with the Canadian livestock feed board, something that seems to have the support of every party in this chamber and which before too many months will no doubt become an actuality. It would be useless to attempt to solve the problems of eastern Canadian livestock producers if at the same time we were to permit the cost of feed to be increased substantially by reason of raising tolls or any other reason. Therefore we do have an economic interest in seeing that the tolls are kept as low as possible.

May 26, 1966
Seaway and Canal Tolls
Second, Mr. Speaker, there are substantial wheat and flour shipments from Halifax and Saint John. Of course most of this grain comes to us through the St. Lawrence seaway. So on the one side there is the problem of a fear by maritimers that the St. Lawrence seaway is draining us, and on the other side there are some very substantial economic reasons why we should support the ideas of all members who have taken part in the debate so far.
Complicating the problem still further from our standpoint is the delay in bringing in a new Railway Act. We in Atlantic Canada are therefore in the dark whether the subvention system will be continued and whether, if continued, it will be of such a size as to be of assistance to us. Finally, in summing up the problems that are running through the head of this particular maritimer I would refer to the fact that we do not want to appear to be parochial or regional in the opinions we present. We do not want all the advantages on our side. We have come here over a long period of time and made requests for help from other parts of Canada and have been accorded reasonably generous treatment. Therefore, as I say, we do not wish to appear always as suppliants forever asking but never willing to budge an inch from our own particular position.
My suggestion, therefore, is twofold: first, that the authority decide at this time to hold the line on the tolls and not increase them. After all, the amount of debt outstanding on the St. Lawrence seaway development is like a mortgage which really can never be paid off; it continues on and on. So that for the present my suggestion-I presume the authority will be reading today's Hansard to get the views of members of parliament-is to hold the line on the tolls. But I would suggest that the authority review them again after we have had a new Railway Act before us and have passed it.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I would also make the suggestion that the whole problem is bedevilled because we have not have spelled out in this country a transportation policy covering seaway, railway and other operations which have application to the economic problems involved here. Until the government grasps this many-sided nettle and comes up with a transportation policy, so necessary to Canada today, I believe that problems such as tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway will continue to cause trouble. I suggest, sir, that if the government

comes up with a transportation policy dealing with the St. Lawrence seaway, the railways and the air lines, it should spell out for all parts of Canada something positive which will not set different parts of the country at loggerheads with each other.
In taking part in this debate today I suppose I was motivated by foolhardy courage. In brief, my suggestion is to hold the line on tolls until the new Railway Act is approved and until a transportation policy is developed by the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at once that the speech made by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) to which this house has just listened is a tribute to his membership and to those qualities which it is so necessary for members of parliament to possess, namely, a desire to be co-operative, to bring together all parts of Canada and to do nothing that will be harmful to any one part of Canada, showing thereby in our policies and actions that whatever we support shall be for Canada as a whole.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I compliment him, and I know his views are shared by the other member for Halifax (Mr. Forrestall) who has expressed similar views which have certainly merited the consideration of the house.
Having said that, I now want to deal in general with the matter before us. I congratulate the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Cantelon) for moving this motion. It was necessary, it was timely and I think the discussion has been most beneficial to all of us.
I am rather surprised that there are not more ministers in the house on a matter of such importance to Canada. The presence of only three ministers shows a lack of regard for the seriousness of this problem which I feel should have made their presence in the house obligatory.
I now want to refer in general to the circumstances connected with this matter. It goes back quite a while. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) brought this matter to the attention of the house in February and asked what action was going to be taken. Since then various members have asked the same question but have received no information. On March 24 I raised the question, and the answer of the Minister of
May 26. 1966

Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) appears at page 3086 of Hansard. It reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in response to a question a day or two ago, and as is required under the agreement with the United States, the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority has been carrying on discussions with the St. Lawrence Corporation, the United States entity, with regard to a possible revision of the existing tolls. I understand that the parties to this discussion now feel they are fairly close to agreement as to what they will be prepared to recommend to the two governments.
That is quite an amazing admission on the part of the Minister of Transport. However, no agreed recommendations have been made. He then said:
If an agreed recommendation is made there willl be public hearings in both countries before any final decision is made; and at those public hearings, of course, I expect that all considerations, including the ones referred to by the hon. gentleman, will be gone into.
What is taking place here is that these two authorities seem to have come to an agreement that an increase in tolls is to take place. They have also agreed that certain lock charges are to be imposed. This is a serious matter for Canada. The government of Canada should stand up and be counted in connection with the strong objection that is widely felt in this country against the imposition of any additional tolls. When we were in office we removed the tolls on the Welland canal in 1962. We did that because we felt that the steel industry and other industries would suffer greatly unless everything was done to reduce costs so that these industries might compete in export markets.
As one hon. member said today, this does not affect the United States very much but it does affect Canada. I am not going to go over the arguments that have been advanced but they were generally to the effect that there should be no increase. We in this House of Commons have the right to take the strongest possible objection to the cavalier attitude exhibited by the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority in having prejudged what action should be taken, that prejudgment having been clearly revealed in the words of one of its members when speaking in Winnipeg. Surely this is a case in which we in Canada should not be subject to the suggestion of domination by the United States.
I mention that because it is just one element in the case. One hon. member referred to the strong interests in the United States which were opposed to the St. Lawrence seaway and which have not changed. In the last few days we have had further evidence
Seaway and Canal Tolls of potential United States interference in Canadian business. I have before me the issue of the Financial Post of May 28. As you know, sir, it is always dated in advance. This is an article by Knowlton Nash headed "Canada Now A Prime U.S. Target In U.S. War On Dollar Drain". I mention it because I think the increase in these tolls is part and parcel of the ever increasing endeavour on the part of the authorities in Washington to control phases of economic development in Canada. The article reads as follows:
Canada seems to be developing into the No. 1 target in President Johnson's drive for U.S. balance of payment equilibrium.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
We have had enough of these guide lines telling Canada how the laws of the United States should be applied to Canadian corporations, subsidiaries of United States firms. Proposed increase in the seaway tolls is just another element in this picture. I believe this problem is increasing because we have a government in office that believes in diplomatically failing to face the issue of Canada's survival as a nation economically strong and independent.
The article goes on to say:
United States companies operating in Canada are contributing the largest single-country share of improvements in the American balance of payments, and Canada has provided the largest return of United States short-term money from foreign nations.
This is the result of these guide lines. Then, we are told that a new message has gone out to Canadian subsidiaries of United States corporations as to what the United States would like them to do. In a letter to the presidents of the companies participating in a commerce department program, commerce secretary John Connor has outlined what he wants these companies to do in the future. These instructions, although not mandatory, are clear guide lines for United States owned companies in Canada.
This is interference in Canada's economic development. We have a government that sits idly by and refuses to stand up for this country. Ever since the month of February we have been asking for parliament to have the right to outline its views with regard the claim for additional tolls. If it had not been for the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Cantelon) we would have had no chance to deal with this matter. The attitude taken by the Minister of Transport was that he did not want to prejudge a thing until it was done.

May 26, 1966
Seaway and Canal Tolls Well, what would have happened had it not been tor this debate, and it may happen yet because this government does not pay too much attention to the wishes of parliament, is that after whatever recommendations are made following the hearing the government would simply have gone ahead by order in council and imposed this extra load on industry in general and on western agriculturalists. It was obvious that the recommendation by the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority was going to be to increase tolls. This will impose a burden on industrial concerns that are striving to keep costs down, but they cannot do it in the face of action such as this.
I mentioned a letter. Can you imagine a letter being sent to these firms in Canada advising them as follows:
Take greater care to assure that export sales efforts and export orders receive suitable priorities, even in the face of high domestic demand.
Make greater effort to bring home overseas earnings of affiliates not needed in the conduct of their business.
Make careful scrutiny of direct investment plans and postponement of those which are marginal even though permitted within the program formula.
Make continued effort to borrow abroad to meet foreign investment needs where this is possible and feasible.
Make continued effort to bring home any short term financial assets which are not reasonably needed for the conduct of business in other countries.
Make greater use of American flag vessels and air lines.
What is this? The Secretary of Commerce of the United States sends a letter like this to Canadian corporations with United States parentage. Finally, they are advised, where practical, to hold company meetings in the United States rather than abroad. These revelations are to be found in the Nash article to which I made reference. If you ask this government what they are going to do, you get the stock answer that this matter is receiving the most careful and continuing consideration. One does not have to be bilingual to understand what that means. It simply means that nothing is going to be done. I feel that what is happening here in connection with the toll problem is just one more facet of the whole situation.
I should like to know whether or not there was any secret agreement with the United States in connection with this matter. We know that there was an agreement entered into by the former minister of finance, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon), and apparently followed by his successor,

which places on the Canadian consumer added costs in order to assist the United States in meeting its balance of payments problem. We will have a deficit of $1J billion or more this year. If the United States had the same ratio of deficit instead of the deficit it has it would run to $20 billion or more.
I spoke in Montreal to the conference of American editors and newspapermen. I thought it was a fine thing for them to have their meeting in Canada. They listened to the arguments which were advanced and a number of them said to me after I had spoken: These are things about which we do not know. Nothing has been said about the economic situation in Canada. It is time for parliament to speak out. When I was in office I was condemned as anti-American because I dared to say that Canadian policies were to be made in Canada by Canadians. This has been Conservative policy throughout the years and it is the only policy that will preserve the independence of this country.
I resent action being taken by the Secretary of Commerce of the United States in writing such a letter to Canadians, for that is what these corporations are. We welcome foreign investment but we do not want immigrants with capital coming into our country who intend to follow the laws or even regard the laws of the land whence they came.
In so far as the motion today is concerned, I feel that the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority should know that we stand opposed to any increase in tolls. There has not been very much said to the contrary. This increase could only detrimentally affect Canada and will affect the United States but little. If perchance the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority has already made its decision even while hearing representations, and one does not have to be suspicious to come to that conclusion after the statement made by one of its members in Winnipeg, then the government of Canada should know what is expected of it. It is for this reason that I expected more ministers would have been here on a matter affecting the economy of this country in addition to the minister of manpower, the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) and, above all, the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve). I compliment them for being present, but where are the ministers who deal particularly with the economy? They were here for the orders of the day but have not been here since.
May 26. 1966



[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
This, Mr. Speaker, has been a worth-while debate. It has enabled the House of Commons, in respect of one board which seems to operate in a vacuum and has the idea that nothing is going to be said about it by parliament, to let it know where we stand. The government did everything it could to prevent any discussion of this matter. The various ministers have refused since February to give any undertaking that the house would have any opportunity of discussing the matter before this decision was made.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) opposed this motion on behalf of the government and produced such a specious argument that I think he must have laughed at it himself. It was so convincing that it convinced nobody. I am glad we are having this debate and I am pleased to see that sporadic participation by Liberal members is taking place. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) spoke with the authority of knowledge and was able to quote what he said in April, 1965. It is apparent, Mr. Speaker, that what he said in 1965 has had no influence on the government. I hope some change is made as a result of the debate we have had today.


Hon. John N. Turner (Acting Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the absence of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) who is unavoidably out of the country representing Canada at the independence celebrations of the new member of the commonwealth, Guyana. I must say, in answer to a charge twice raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) about attendance on this side of the house, that I observed when he made the charge how lonely he was in having so few companions on his own front bench in the house to hear a rather impassioned oration from this own lips.


Mr. Winkler:: You look kind of lonely yourself.


John Napier Turner: I know how much comfort he would have derived had he been attended upon at the time he made his remarks by the opposition critic on matters of transportation, and how much better his argument as to the attendance of members in this house would have been had he been able to come to parliament with, as we used to say in court, clean hands.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Have you anything to say about the seaway?
Seaway and Canal Tolls


John Napier Turner: I listened with great interest to the various representations made by members on all sides of the house, and it was no surprise to me to find a non-partisan view with regard to certain arguments. After all, transport is one of the crucial factors in the economic development of Canada and the subject provokes certain regional conflicts of interest. Certain parts of the country, no matter which political party may represent them at a particular time, may have certain views on a particular aspect of transportation or on the subsidies granted to a particular mode of transportation which may differ from views held in other regions of the country; and it is quite natural that representatives of political parties of whatever stripe they may be would tend to agree on those regional interests.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it struck me as somewhat surprising that the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), to use his own term, had the foolhardy courage to speak on the question of tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway. I know, as do other members who were in the house when the question of the St. Lawrence seaway was first broached and negotiated, that the traditional attitude of the maritime provinces toward the original negotiation of the treaty and toward the imposition of tolls was adequately set out at the time by the late and highly esteemed member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings who was a member in 1951 and whose son we are now glad to see taking his place in the house.
That speech, Mr. Speaker, is fully set out in Hansard for the second session of 1951, page 1653 and following. I think his view at that time was one which was widely held in the maritime provinces, namely, that the institution of the seaway which would allow ships and sea commerce to penetrate into the interior of the continent might have a certain harmful effect on the commerce of the maritime provinces. As I say, that was the view taken then and, as I understand it, it is a view which is still widely held.
I have no quarrel with that, Mr. Speaker, because on matters of transportation members are entitled to represent the interests of their own localities and to reflect any conflict of interest in transportation rates across the country.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that despite the importance of the subject I regret that this debate was launched this afternoon by the hon. member for Kindersley

May 26. 1966
Seaway and Canal Tolls (Mr. Cantelon). I am not criticizing the merits of the motion but I am suggesting to him-and I do not in any way wish to comment on your decision, Mr. Speaker-that an adequate opportunity would have been given him, and indeed will be given him and other hon. members, before the standing committee on transport and communications when it discusses the estimates of the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: You
should not reflect on the Chair.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I made it quite clear that I was in no way casting any reflection on your judgment, which I accept with all the grace I have at my command; but I do suggest to hon. members that under item F, which deals with the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, there will be ample opportunity for members to make their case before the committee.


Eric Alfred Winkler: But after the tolls are raised.


John Napier Turner: I will get to that in a moment too, Mr. Speaker. We had hoped that this debate, with the greatest of respect, could have taken place before that committee. I understand that one of the reasons for extending the committee system was to allow matters like this of great technical import and complication to be discussed by a committee where the facts could be brought before members in more detail. Members from all sections of the house could then question and comment on the basis of more facts than they would necessarily have before them in the House of Commons.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, as we are having a debate let me outline what I understand the state of the proceedings to be. It is my understanding that the two governing authorities with jurisdiction over tolls on the seaway, namely the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority of Canada and the Seaway Development Corporation of the United States, are jointly conducting hearings as to the state of tolls on the seaway system. The Canadian hearings were concluded today shortly before noon. At the Canadian hearings there was a representative of the U.S. Seaway Development Corporation in attendance. The hearings in Chicago before the Seaway Development Corporation of the United States will take place on June 8, 9 and 10. This, I might say, is fully in accord with the provisions of the international treaty of 1959 which sets out, among other things, the authority for the

imposition and collection of tolls on the seaway.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Following the hearings and following a study by the two entities having authority over the seaway, a report must be made by July 1 of this year to the governments of the United States and Canada. Each of those governments will then make its own decision either to implement the recommendation of its own representative body, to rescind the recommendation, or to modify it in any way that that government sees fit. If, as a result of governmental decisions on each side of the border, the toll rates are changed, that fact would be confirmed by an exchange of notes. The changed rates would go into effect at the opening of the navigation season in 1967, so that from the point of view of time there cannot be any immediate or urgent problem because this matter will be amply-


Donald MacInnis: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member refers to the fact that there is no emergency. He is putting forward that argument despite the ruling made by the Chair that there is an emergency and that this debate is to be considered an emergency debate. With all due deference, I submit that this argument is a reflection on the Chair.


John Napier Turner: With the greatest of respect, I am not commenting on the Chair's decision. I am merely replying to the question raised by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) a short time ago and by other hon. members with respect to whether there would be an opportunity when the estimates are being discussed before the standing committee on transport and communications to bring up this problem before a decision is finally made.
I am trying to show, on the basis of the timetable set out by the two government bodies, that there should be in the normal course of business ample opportunity for the matter to be raised before that standing committee.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he agree that until the minister made his statement this afternoon no statement was made to the house that this would be done?


John Napier Turner: I suggest to the hon. member for Kindersley that the facts are as I have
May 26, 1966

stated with respect to the timetable of proceedings. Because the estimates of the Department of Transport are now before the committee on transport and communications the facts speak for themselves and need no substantiation by any ministerial announcement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the hon. member permit a question? I do not want to interrupt his speech. May I ask him, has he authority to say on behalf of the government, first, that the report and recommmendations of the seaway authority to the Privy Council will be made public before a decision is made and, second, that an opportunity to debate such report and its recommendations will be provided in the House of Commons?


John Napier Turner: At this stage I can only say in answer to that question that the ordinary constitutional procedures will be followed in this case.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What does that mean?


John Napier Turner: The same procedures will be followed as were followed in the past under the former Conservative administration.


John George Diefenbaker: You must defend yourselves and not the Conservatives.


John Napier Turner: Let me just recite if I may, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the house the legal provisions surrounding these tolls. I suggest to the house that the leeway allowed to the authority and to the government under the present wording of the statute is rather limited. The operative section of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act, chapter 242 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, is section 16 which reads:
The tolls that may be charged by the authority shall be fair and reasonable and designed to provide a revenue sufficient to defray the cost to the authority of its operations in carrying out the purposes for which it is incorporated, which costs shall include
(a) payments in respect of the interest on amounts borrowed by the authority to carry out such purposes;
(b)	amounts sufficient to amortize the principal of amounts so borrowed over a period not exceeding fifty years; and
(c)	the cost of operating and maintaining the canals and works under the administration of the authority, including all operating costs of the authority and such reserves as may be approved by the minister.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Read section 15 also.
Seaway and Canal Tolls


John Napier Turner: Section 15, with the greatest of respect to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, does not apply. It is section 17 which applies to international agreements. I am suggesting to the house in any event that the operative section of the act is section 16 which makes it mandatory on the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority to charge tolls at a rate sufficient to cover its operating expenses as defined within the section.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What about if you act under section 15?


John Napier Turner: I admit there is an argument that in strictly technical terms section 16 would not apply to tolls enacted pursuant to a treaty between the United States and Canada. That treaty may fall under section 17 which reads as follows:
Where the works have been constructed and are maintained and operated by the authority to provide, in conjunction with works undertaken by an appropriate authority in the United States, the deep waterway mentioned in section 10, tolls may be established pursuant to sections 15 and 16 or by agreement between Canada and the United States and, in the event of such an agreement, shall be charged by the authority in accordance with directions given by the governor in council.
There is a question whether section 16, providing for the sufficiency of tolls to cover operating expenses, would apply to an international treaty consummated under section 17. On the other hand, section 17 does say that tolls may be established pursuant to sections 15 and 16, thus bringing this question within the principle accepted in section 16. Indeed, the Auditor General of Canada has always interpreted that to be the case.
I refer hon. members to the 1964 annual report of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. I also refer to the Auditor General's report of 1964 in which, at page 121 the principle is set out that the Auditor General followed. He points out that section 16 of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act requires that the tolls to be charged by the authority shall be fair and reasonable and designed to provide a revenue sufficient to defray the cost to the authority of its operations in carrying out the purposes for which it is incorporated, which costs shall include-and the section is recited. In other words, the Auditor General of Canada, in his analysis of the financial statements of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, has assumed that section 16 applies and that the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority has a mandatory duty under a statute of Canada to so adjust its tolls as to make it self-sufficient.

May 26, 1966
Seaway and Canal Tolls


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister permit a question? In his interesting analysis does he imply that it the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority recommends a toll increase in order to meet its responsibilities under the statute, which interpretation at the moment I am not accepting as correct, the cabinet has to follow the recommendation of the authority?


John Napier Turner: I am not suggesting that in any way whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. I am suggesting that the authority is under an obligation imposed on it by statute to adjust its tolls and that the government of Canada, this house, indeed, must take cognizance of the legislation under which the authority was set up.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: I am not accepting the minister's interpretation at the moment but, if his interpretation is correct, do his last remarks indicate that whatever the recommendations of the authority may be the government is merely an automaton and must pass an order in council accordingly regardless of the feeling of parliament?


John Napier Turner: That is in no way a conclusion to be drawn from any statement I have made. The government will, of course, be guided by what has been said at the public hearings, by what the authority recommends to it, and by the climate of public opinion and the facts as established before any committee of this house.
In reply to the right hon. gentleman I think I can do no better than refer to the words of a former minister of transport, now the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees). That hon. gentleman, when he was minister of transport in 1958, advanced the argument I am now advancing in connection with the proposed tolls.
I quote now from Hansard of 1958, volume II, page 1382:
The suggested tolls, according to the tolls committees, should be sufficient to meet all financial requirements as the anticipated traffic develops. It is believed by the members of the tolls committees that the revenue derived will provide for the annual costs of operation and maintenance of the new seaway facilities and of the Welland canal, and meet interest charges and amortize borrowed moneys over a period covering the next 50 years.
In other words, when the right hon. gentleman was prime minister of this country his own minister of transport took the position I am taking today.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no. That interpretation is not the correct one.


John Napier Turner: Well, I simply cite his words.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister, if I may, whether he can show me, in any part of what was said by the then minister of transport, a statement that the government must carry out the recommendations of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and increase the tolls should that body so recommend. Does the hon. gentleman suggest the minister said that?


John Napier Turner: Let me say in reply to the right hon. gentleman that the opposition of that day, now sitting on this side of the house, took the position that the proper recourse might have been to allow section 15 of the statute to operate, namely, that there should be the right of appeal to the Board of Transport Commissioners from any decision affecting tolls. In reply to a question by Mr. Chevrier, who was then the opposition critic on transport, the minister of transport of that day, now the hon. member for Northumberland, said, as found on page 1507 of Hansard for 1958, volume II:
Section 15 of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act provides, among other things, that the final tariff and any amendments shall be filed with the Board of Transport Commissioners and any person may, at any time, file a complaint alleging unjust discrimination in the tariff.
In other words, it was contemplated that appeals might be made to the Board of Transport Commissioners when this matter was under discussion in the house at a time when the right hon. gentleman was the head of the government.
This was not done. Instead, the treaty provided for a direct reference from the authority to the government rather than the filing of a tariff with the Board of Transport Commissioners and provision for public hearings protesting against any change in the rates at that stage. The position this party took at that time was that here should have been an avenue of appeal. But this view was rejected by the government of the day. I am reciting what the procedure has been ever since then.
The seaway authority in its best judgment, as I interpret it, on the basis of its duty under the statute, believes that rates should be raised an average of about 10 per cent. This is established in the document which announces the public hearings. The right hon. member has suggested, as have other hon.
May 26. 1966

members, that the authority prejudged the case in suggesting what the rate should be.
I think that is hardly a fair criticism because under the terms of recommendation six of the treaty, the authority as one of the advisory bodies contemplated must advise its government what the rates and tolls should be. In other words, the authority has a duty under the treaty to suggest what the tolls should be prior to the public hearings. This does not mean that the authority must take an inflexible attitude following the representations made on the Canadian side or when these measures are discussed on the United States' side in Chicago on June 8 and 9.
I wish to say also that the argument the right hon. gentleman used as a means of indicating that this was just another example of knuckling under to the Americans could not be more specious. There are no secret agreements. I am dealing with a public treaty which sets out the procedure clearly. Any raising of tolls, if one were to take place, would be of advantage to Canada in terms of revenue because the division of the tolls ensures that 71 per cent would go to the Canadian authority and 29 per cent to the United States corporation. In other words, any revenue derived from the raising of tolls goes primarily to the Canadian authority. So the inference that the issue is between the United States and Canada, and that influence is coming from the United States side of the border is completely irrelevant within the terms of the treaty.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


John Napier Turner: I am pointing out that the prior benefit in terms of revenue goes to the Canadian side. I mention this merely because the right hon. gentleman brought it into his argument. I say again that this procedure is firmly established in a public international treaty.
I have set out the nature of the statutory authority and what the responsibility of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority under the statute is. The freedom of operation enjoyed by the authority is to a large extent limited. But the issue which will have to be faced is this: are we to maintain the principle set forth in section 16 of the act, namely, that the authority should be self-sustaining in terms of meeting its own costs or is this theory of self-sufficiency to be abandoned, with tolls no longer covering the cost of operating the seaway? The seaway authority has made it clear that it has failed to earn sufficient
Seaway and Canal Tolls revenue to meet its capital debt. It owes $354,800,000 including interest and deferred interest. Its United States partner has a debt of $141,700,000. For this reason the seaway authority estimated it would have to increase its revenues by raising tolls in order to meet its responsibilities under the statute.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I quite recognize that the government will have to make a decision within the statutory climate I have described with regard to whether these tolls should still be sufficient to cover the operating expenses of the seaway. We were invited by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) to take serious cognizance of the situation. I can undertake on behalf of the government that we will.
It may be that Canada should abandon the principle of recovering the costs of the seaway, but I think all hon. members should be aware of what the consequences would be in terms of an imbalance in the revenues of competing transportation media, such as railways and trucks, and as between the various regions, the maritimes, Quebec, Ontario and the west. The consequences of abandoning this principle would have effects on every region in the country and on every type of competing media.
The transportation systems, as I have said, are the umbilical line holding this country together, this country which has the major portion of its population stretching along a region about 100 miles deep parallel with the United States. The consequences of tolls and transportation charges and, on the other hand, of transportation subsidies have widespread ramifications, affecting not only the immediate localities in the region of the seaway and the great producing areas of the west but every area of the country.
I am sure the government will take cognizance of what was said at the public hearings, of what was said here in debate this afternoon, and of what I hope will be adduced by way of evidence before the committee on transportation and communications. With that the government rests its case for the moment, and I can do no better than recite precedents of the previous government which took a similar attitude.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all. The interpretation that was made was wrong.


John Napier Turner: I suggest, until parliament decides differently on the principle it has applied to the St. Lawrence seaway since its

May 26. 1966
Seaway and Canal Tolls installation in 1958, that we are bound by certain precedents.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the hon. gentleman one more question? In view of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) is completely removed from politics and comes from an area which has the greatest ship traffic in all the world, does the minister think he could soften his heart in this regard and assure that there will be no increase in tolls?


John Napier Turner: In answer to that, Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the legislation and energies of this government have made Windsor one of the most prosperous and important commercial centres in the country, and I am sure the people there are very happy with the way they are represented by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that the hon. member for Rosthern wishes to ask a question?


Mr. Nasserden:: No, I wish to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the senior member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), who spoke earlier, I should like to say at once that my views are those of moderation. We understand the problem that has been raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Cantelon). We understand the ramifications, direct effects and implications of an increase in the tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway. We understand them from the point of view of maritimers, of people who have the honour to represent one of the great ports of the world.
As suggested earlier by the senior member for Halifax, the whole matter before us is simply symptomatic of the lack of clearly defined national transportation policies. We find this lack with regard to our rail facilities. There is no need for me to underline the absence of a regional air policy. Now we are getting down to the point where we have no agreement on our seaway policy. We have conflict. We have positions set up that are at once at odds and in conflict with regional interests.
Being from Halifax I must say that it might be pleasant to have a substantial increase in the tolls on the seaway. This would have the happy and beneficial effect of diverting substantial tonnage to Halifax which we in turn could transship by rail and truck

to the rest of Canada, particularly to those areas that lie west of the St. Lawrence seaway system.
It would be very easy to stand up and support the declared intention of the seaway authority but, in response to a sense of fairness to all Canada and to those who must use the seaway, suffice it to say that I trust the government will act in a manner that is going to be most beneficial to all Canadians and at the same time will not in any way further retard our position in Halifax as a national port. I think the same can be said for Saint John because their problems are identical with ours.
The present difficulty appears to be the traditional one of any business that gets itself into trouble by owing more money than incoming revenues will meet.
In the "Notes to Financial Statements" contained in the St. Lawrence Seaway Annual Report for 1964, paragraph 4 on page 14 states:
In accordance with the provisions of order in council PC 1964-2036 of December 23, 1964, the principal amount of interest-bearing loans received under section 25 of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act to finance construction of the seaway, together with interest previously deferred and all other interest now accrued or accruing up to December 31, 1966, is to be repaid, together with current interest thereon, in 43 equal annual instalments commencing December 31, 1967.
The suggestion has already been alluded to by the acting minister that perhaps consideration should be given to forgetting about the capital cost of the seaway. He referred to the effects that this would have, and quite rightly so. There would be immediate and substantial effects, some of them not very enjoyable to those upon whom they would react.
The minister also referred to section 16. In the context of section 16 it is my thought that no matter how much lip service we pay to the capital debt of the seaway I very much doubt that it will ever be retired. Having this in the back of our minds perhaps one solution to the problem might be for the government to look again at section 16 of chapter 242 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952. Section 16(b) reads as follows:
Amounts sufficient to amortize the principal of amounts so borrowed over a period not exceeding 50 years.
If I am in business and I buy a piece of equipment it might be useful to write off that piece of equipment quickly if I have made a lot of money. But I am in the air transportation business and would prefer to write
May 26, 1966

things off over a long period of time in order to reduce the annual outflow of capital funds. Why could the government not amend this statute and any other agreement, international or otherwise, consequent upon it in order to extend the amortization period to 75 years and thus reduce the outgo of funds? Possibly the period might have to be 100 years. Why should one or two generations of Canadians bear the cost of something which is going to last in all likelihood for 1,000 years? I see nothing intrinsically wrong with spreading it over four or five generations. As I mentioned earlier, I am not at all convinced we will ever retire the debt. So wrong were the experts at the outset in their estimate of the volume of the traffic which would use the seaway that I now doubt anyone who would suggest that it is possible to retire the debt.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I do not know whether this would work but it seems to me, if there is a real case to be made against increased tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway, that notwithstanding the debatable question of whether or not the seaway must be self-sufficient the effect of extending the period would be such that it would resolve the present controversy. I believe the western point of view is a very valid one which cannot be overlooked at the expense of the entire region of Canada lying west of the system. It would be a procedure which would not necessarily be warmly welcomed by those people in the maritimes who must derive their livelihood from the ports, but on the other hand I am sure it would be a procedure which would not be vigorously opposed.
In the maritimes, particularly in Halifax, we rapidly are coming to the point of view that we no longer are apt to rise with a cudgel in our hands every time someone suggests some proposition which might reflect on the well-being of Halifax and Saint John. If an icebreaker goes to work on the St. Lawrence we protest, and I think with some justification, but what concerns us is whether the government is doing this to keep the river open or to open up channels for shipping. What we question is the sincerity of the government sometimes in paying lip service to the ports of Halifax and Saint John. If the government means to keep the river open, let them keep it open and tell us they are going to do it. I am sure they will then find us co-operative.
I know that the western members will appreciate that we are not out to belittle 23033-353
Seaway and Canal Tolls their position. Again I say that I recognize the impact of substantial increases in the tolls on the movement of their grain, but on the other hand I would remind them and the government that such a proposal would provide a wonderful opportunity for us to stand up and say: By all means go ahead and do it. However, this would be taking away from one sector of the economy and one region of the country at the expense of another area. This we are not about to do.
Times have changed. We are prepared to accept our role in Halifax and Saint John as east coast ports. In Halifax we now are coming to a point of view where we recognize that our great potential and our great future lie in the depth of our water. In ten years time I suggest it will matter not whether there are any tolls on the seaway. With the new thinking and new concept in respect of boats for the movement of our products and goods, today we are talking in terms of 150,000-ton ships or 300,000-ton ships. Indeed, I understand that some of the oil companies and other concerns in the world are now thinking seriously in terms of 500,000-ton ships. It is only a matter of time before general cargo will be carried around the world in vessels which not only will present no problem to us in Halifax in relation to the seaway but which indeed will not be able to get above Quebec.
If you want to know what our argument will be for the next 300 years, it will not be whether the seaway is doing anything to contribute to the well-being of Halifax and Saint John but rather it will be against any substantial dredging program and opening up of the seaway to accommodate the deep sea shipping that we hope to service in the future.
I should like to leave the one suggestion with the acting minister that perhaps he should have his colleagues look into the possibility and feasibility of extending the period of amortization from 50 to either 75 or 100 years.


Mr. Jim McNulty (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. As most members are quite aware the Welland canal is in the riding of Lincoln and naturally is of great economic importance to our area. I should like to add my voice in opposition to the recommendation of the seaway authority for higher tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway from Montreal to lake Ontario and the imposition of new lockage charges on the Welland ship canal. In fact, I feel that the lower the
5564	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion tolls the less damage will be inflicted on the Canadian economy. The seaway has been a major contributor to the high level of business activity enjoyed in Canada in recent years from one coast to the other. I believe that an increase of more than 10 per cent for the use of the St. Lawrence seaway is not, as has been stated, a moderate one. This certainly would initiate a move toward higher prices. The proposed increase in the seaway and Welland canal charges would encourage the diversion of export grain cargoes from Canadian St. Lawrence ports to Atlantic coast and gulf ports served by rail. Similarly I feel it would encourage the diversion of Canadian iron ore from Labrador to the United States Atlantic ports and shipment from there by rail.
Any increase in seaway tolls would be certain to increase the competitive difficulty of the iron ore producers in the lower St. Lawrence valley. Any resulting decline in upbound movement through the seaway would reflect indirectly on the shipping rates which would have to be charged for moving the grain downbound. Speaking in a local sense, there is much captive industry along the seaway and the Welland canal and many industries in my area need a toll free system in order to survive.
I support the view that the recommended toll increases and user charges in respect of the St. Lawrence seaway and the Welland canal respectively should not be adopted. I feel that the tolls currently applied should be abolished and we should return to the historic free situation which existed until 1960.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: It is my
duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman): Immigration -Recognition of professional qualifications of Europeans; the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):	Dominion-provincial relations-Suggested establishment of office of information; the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario (Mr. Scott):	Industry-Beaverton,
Ont.-closing of auto parts plant.
It being six o'clock, the house will now proceed to consideration of private members'

DEBATES	May 26, 1966
business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions for production of papers.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
[English1



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could have leave of the house to revert to motions?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the house give unanimous consent to enable the hon. member to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I should like to present at this time the eighth report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, in English and in French, and if the house is willing to give its consent I should like to move concurrence in the report at this time. If I might have the consent of the house I would be prepared to move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Comtois):
That the eighth report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, presented this day, be now concurred in.
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Rinfret): Is there unanimous consent to enable the hon. member to present this motion?


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman whether this is a unanimous report of the committee?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It is a unanimous report of the committee and it is based on a report of the steering committee which was unanimously adopted in the committee itself.
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel): Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. D. W. Groos (Vicloria (B.C.)):: Mr. Speaker, now that we are back on motions I should like to move, seconded by Mr. Walker: That the first and second reports of the standing committee on national defence, presented to the house on Tuesday, May 17, be now concurred in.
May 26, 1966


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the house give leave to the hon. member to present this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all reports, records or documents indicating the places, dates, and times of public hearings held by the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Alberta and the members of the commission and staff attending each hearing; for a copy of the transcript of the proceedings of each hearing; for a return of the record of each hearing if no transcript was made; for the memorandum provided to members of the commission who were absent from any meeting; and for the resume or other document prepared by the commission or any of its members setting out the reasons for changes made in the electoral boundaries for Alberta.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion was transferred for debate. In brief we are asking for a copy of the reports, records and other documents in reference to public hearings held by the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Alberta. This matter was before the house yesterday when the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) outlined the situation and said that no minister was answerable to the house as far as the commission was concerned. The Secretary of State said that the commission was set up as a creature of law and therefore no one was responsible for giving us this information with regard to the Electoral Boundaries Commission.
It is rather surprising that after an act has been passed setting up these commissions to hold public hearings the Secretary of State should, as a minister of the crown take the position at this stage that we have created a creature by statute which is not responsible in any way to parliament. We are interested in obtaining the reports and records of these public hearings in order to ascertain what material was before the commission when it decided to create the constituency of Rocky Mountain which stretches 700 to 800 miles from north to south. We wish to ascertain what material the commission had before it in arriving at such a decision. I think all hon.
23033-353*
Motions for Papers
members understand the reason for the minister referring this matter for debate. It is that by the time the debate is completed the report of the commission will have arrived confirming once and for all the boundaries so far as Alberta is concerned.
If this material had been before us at the time we were debating this matter, and according to the statute we had the right to debate it before the report was sent back for final disposition by the commission, we would have been able to come to grips with the matter and present a far better argument in this respect. All members from the province of Alberta, not only the Conservatives but the Social Crediters, took the position that the constituency of Rocky Mountain put the constituency map out of proportion so far as Alberta was concerned. We also took the position that Alberta was deserving of two more constituencies. We said that the population had risen in the cities of Calgary and Edmonton and that if you added the populations of Calgary South and Calgary North and divided this figure by three you would come up with a proper population formula. With regard to Edmonton we said that if you added the populations of the three constituencies and divided this figure by four you would come up with the proper formula so far as population was concerned. All the other constituencies fitted into the population formula and it was our opinion that this suggestion would keep together people with common interests and would not disrupt the constituency map.
We wanted to find out what was contained in the report and what were the recommendations of the representation commissioner. We wanted to find out if the material laid before the commission was completely ignored and it came to its own conclusion in this respect. Surely we are entitled to this information. This is an appalling, shocking situation. I wish some of the ministers were on this side of the house because I should like to have seen their reaction if we as the government had taken the position that no minister of the crown was responsible for giving this information to the house.
The first question that comes to mind is, what are they trying to hide? What is so secret about it? We set up independent commissions so we would have an independent redistribution, but we could not even get the facts in order to debate this issue intelligently prior to the report being sent back to the

May 26, 1966
Motions for Papers
commission. We do not have the facts even at this stage.
So far as I am concerned the minister has taken an untenable position in referring this matter of debate and has used the rules of the House of Commons to slough it off so that by the time the question is debated the final report will have been sent back to the house and the information contained therein will be useless to us. It would be useless to us even if received at this late stage. That is our position, Mr. Speaker. I do not think there is precedent anywhere to the effect that a minister of the crown is not answerable to the house for the actions of this commission. The minister's name is mentioned in the act and the minister is responsible for its administration and has certain responsibilities so far as the commission is concerned. Yet she has refused to give us this information.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
She does not blame herself. She blames the representation commissioner who advised her what the law was and she accepts his view. She put herself in a ridiculous position. I am not going to take any more time of the house. That is our position. We think it is appalling that a minister of the crown would take such a stand. There are other members on this side and maybe some members on the other side who may want to say something. I have come to grips with the problem. So far as I am concerned the minister should give us the information so that we can look at it even at this late date, and the debate should be voluntarily adjourned.


Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube (Resiigouche-Mada-waska):: Mr. Speaker, I followed with interest the remarks made by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams). He is requesting that an order of the house do issue for a copy of all reports, records or documents, minutes, etc., concerning the hearings of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Alberta.
Mr. Speaker, the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Alberta was established under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 13, Elizabeth II, chapter 31.
That commission, duly constituted, submitted its report last December 13, as stipulated in section 12 of the act. It is obvious that this report does not please the hon. member. I think that he hopes to get a copy of the various documents, used by the commission to find out the reasons, factors or motives
[Mr. WoolliamsJ
which might have inspired the commission's decision. That is a commendable objective. However, the house, and I say this quite plainly, does not have the authority to order the commission to file those documents.
Section 18 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act reads as follows:
Each commission shall complete its report not later than one year after the receipt by the chairman from the representation commissioner of the copy of the return referred to in section 11, and upon the completion of such report shall cause two certified copies thereof to be transmitted to the representation commissioner.
Therefore, that section clearly stipulates that the commission must report to the commissioner.
Moreover, section 19 of the same act says:
Upon receiving the certified copies referred to in section 18 of the report of any commission, the representation commissioner shall transmit one of the copies thereof to the Speaker who shall, subject to subsection (2), cause such copy to be laid before the House of Commons forthwith upon its receipt by him if Parliament is then sitting, or if Parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first five days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting.
And subsection (2) of section 19 says:
(2) Where the copy referred to in subsection (1) of the report of any commission for a province is received by the Speaker during an interval between two sessions of parliament, the Speaker shall forthwith cause the same to be published in the Canada Gazette and a copy of the said Canada Gazette to be sent by mail to each of the members of the House of Commons representing electoral districts in that province.
That shows, Mr. Speaker, that the commissioner must submit his report to the Speaker who, in turn, must table it in the house.
Therefore, that commission is not in the same position as the C.B.C. or C.N.R. or any other crown corporation.
Besides, the precedent has already been set, and by none other than the leader of the hon. member who has just spoken, that is the former prime minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), as reported on page 1389 of Hansard, for June 18, 1958
It was question No. 17 put by Mr. Fisher:
1.	What value and percentage of the grants of Canada Council awarded to universities in the last operational year went for residences or dormitories?
2.	Is it a requirement set by Canada Council that such residences contain a library?
3.	If so, what requirements are there as to size, type of bookstock and catalogue facilities?
4.	Has Canada Council a classification of the kind of university capital expenditures to which it will consider awarding grants?
5.	If so, what is the classification?
May 26, 1966

Mr. Speaker, I can quote the complete answer given by the then prime minister, the present Leader of the Opposition, which clearly creates a precedent. Here is his answer:
Mr. Speaker, these questions have to do with the Canada Council. Last autumn, on November 27, a question was asked by the hon. gentleman respecting the Canada Council and I refer to the answer appearing in Hansard at page 1558, where these words in particular are found:
Paragraph 23 of the act clearly specifies the manner in which the council is to report to parliament annually.
I should like to remind the hon. gentleman that when he asked that question last fall concerning the Canada Council it was pointed out that the council is not an agent of Her Majesty and that the Canada Council Act clearly specifies the manner in which the council is to report to parliament annually. The hon. member communicated with my office in order to ascertain how the information that he desires to secure might be procurable. I felt that it would be possible to make the request for the information to the council and for the council to be able to furnish it. However, the government does not have in its records the information requested, nor does it consider that it has the power to request information from the council other than that which will appear in the annual report.
It is therefore clear that the then prime minister refused to insist upon an answer from the Canada Council, because the latter is not an agent of Her Majesty and it must report to the house in a certain manner.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
However, section 23 of the Canada Council Act reads as follows:
The chairman of the council shall, within three months after the termination of each fiscal year, submit to the member of the Queen's privy council for Canada designated by the governor in council for the purpose a report of all proceedings under this act for that fiscal year, including the financial statements of the council, and the auditor general's report thereon, and the member so designated shall cause such reports to be laid before parliament within fifteen days after the receipt thereof or, if parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first fifteen days next thereafter that parliament is sitting and provision shall be made for a review thereof by parliament.
Consequently, even if the Canada Council Act requires the council to report to the government through a minister, the then prime minister refused to demand the information from the council.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is all the more true as far as the Electoral Boundaries Commission is concerned; it is not in any way required to report to parliament through a minister. It must therefore be concluded that the government does not have and cannot
Motions for Papers
demand from the commission the information supplied to the Speaker by the representation commissioner. The only information the government is in a position to require of the commission, as I have said, is information already in the hands of the members of the house, and which has been supplied to the Speaker by the representation commissioner.
On the other hand, it may be that some information pertaining to the operations of the commission are already in the hands of the government or of various government departments. I suggest that such information, if any, should be made available to the members.
In brief, the government is not empowered, does not have the authority to demand from the Alberta commission or from any other Electoral Boundaries Commission, any information other than that already turned over to the Speaker and which is already in the hands of the members.
[English1


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to follow the interesting argument presented by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Dube). While his argument may have been logical in one sense I submit that the whole of it was based on a false premise inasmuch as he implied that the resolution says something which it does not. The notice of motion asks that an order of the house do issue for certain documents. It does not request that the government do anything. If it were a request to the government to table documents not in the possession of the government, I think his argument would then have some merit.
I make this comment because I listened to the earlier discussion that took place on this subject between the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I felt at the time, and this is really what I am rising to say, that the point made by the hon. member for Edmonton West was very well taken. Even granting the argument of the Secretary of State that the members of the government do not have authority under the act to require the Boundaries Commission to provide these documents, these bodies are set up by an act of this parliament and are responsible to parliament. If we deem it advisable to require the tabling of certain documents, then in my view we are within our rights in so requesting.

May 26, 1966
Motions for Papers
Having said that, I feel I must add that perhaps what we have here is what one might call an unprovided for case. In other words, if at the time the legislation was before the house we had had the foresight to realize that such a request might be made, we could have made provision for it in the legislation. We should have required that the commissions maintain the kind of records requested in this motion. Since we did not do that, although we are quite within our rights in making such a request I think it is inadvisable that we should seek to require the commission to do something which we did not anticipate in the legislation. In other words, as I understand the legislation all that was required was for the commissions to submit their findings to this house in respect of the proposed redistribution of constituency boundaries.
It is for that reason only, Mr. Speaker, that I do not feel I can support the motion. At the same time I think that any argument advanced by members of the government or by any other hon. member that it is not within the power of parliament to make this request, is not founded on fact. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) has pointed out that he and some of his colleagues from Alberta are concerned about getting more information on what appears to them to be a rather mysterious proceeding on the part of the commission in that province in the establishment of a certain constituency. Perhaps consideration should be given to some amendment of the act which would clarify this situation. Then, if it is desired by parliament, certain records and certain forms could be kept by the commissions in respect of their hearings. In addition, and this pertains to the point raised by the Secretary of State, if we are going to do that perhaps it might be desirable also to spell out in the amendment the channel by which such documents would be laid before parliament.
My own feeling is that if any such amendment were being considered by parliament, in view of the fact that these commissions are not bodies responsible in any way to the government of the day it would be more appropriate perhaps that the channel be through His Honour the Speaker rather than through a particular member of the government. I feel that in a sense these bodies are different from any other. I simply throw out this suggestion, although I can see no real obstacle to parliament selecting the Secretary of State as the channel of communication

with commissions on matters of this kind. As I say, Mr. Speaker, while I agree we are within our rights I for one do not feel it desirable that we pass a motion at this time to do what is requested.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: have listened with interest, Mr. Speaker, to the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Dube) and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). I feel that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has adopted a bit of a humpty-dumpty attitude. I think if he examines the resolution he will find that some of the arguments he has advanced against the resolution would support the terms of the resolution. This motion does not directly order the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) to produce any documents. It does not order the government to produce any documents. It does not order Mr. Speaker to produce any documents. It does not name any particular person. However, I would challenge anyone to assert that this house does not have legal authority to require the production of certain documents.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
This house has not created any celestial body beyond the reach of a resolution of this house regarding any of the documents of the house. It has not been provided for in the statute that such production will not be the case. Therefore I find it most astonishing that the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska fell back-and this is a cardinal error for him as a lawyer.-on a precedent in a matter that is totally different. He knows better than to cite the precedent of a case that is not on all fours with the present case. For that simple reason his argument falls to the ground.
The government is not being asked to do anything in particular as a result of this resolution. This resolution had its origin in two questions which I put on the order paper early this session and which the government, through the Secretary of State, delayed inordinately in answering, finally citing by way of reply the Canada Council precedent. That was a very arguable matter.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State was asked to reply to two questions, she being the normal channel for inquiries of this sort to be made in the house. It is not an inquiry which should be made of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) or of any other minister. The reply may be a composite one and therefore comes through the Secretary of State who is the normal channel.
May 26, 1366

In further fact, it is improper to ask a question, whether oral or written, of Mr. Speaker. Therefore the other argument that was advanced to the effect that this information should be directed through Mr. Speaker is wrong. It is contrary to the rules of this house.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will in a moment. It is wrong to say that we must act through Mr. Speaker. Therefore hon. members must have recourse to the only channel through which they may act, and this recourse was had. A reply was given. Frankly, I confess I received an informal intimation that the information was available and that if the request were put in the form of a notice of motion for production of papers there would be compliance.
Now, Mr. Speaker, low and behold I find that the Secretary of State, though she was not bound by the informal information, about which I make no suggestion-I do not even suggest it emanated from her department-taking this course. I say to her that it is not the wish or the desire of the representation commissioner which shall be binding in this matter. We are asking through the medium of this resolution to have an order of this house made that certain documents shall be produced. There is no official or commission in existence in this country, Mr. Speaker, which can oppose or deny an order of this house.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us see what the motion seeks. It seeks what is a matter of public information-the places, dates and times of public hearings held by the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Alberta. The commission proposed that it should hold certain sittings. We are interested in finding out whether they did hold those sittings.
There is also the question of which members of the commission attended which hearings. After all, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) pays through the Treasury Board the members of the commissions, and to that extent we exercise control. If we are to authorize payment, since the commissioners are being paid on an attendance basis this house is therefore entitled to know who attended where and when.
We should like a copy of the transcript of the proceedings of each hearing. That would have been most pertinent to the last debate held regarding these commissions. But no, the
Motions for Papers
government saw fit to delay the matter and delay it inexcusably. If no transcript were made, which is conceivable, then what were the minutes which were taken? Was there a sort of votes and proceedings of the hearings?
We should also like to know what advice was given. What information was provided any members of the commission who were absent from the hearings? We know that certain commissioners were absent. One of the commissioners in Alberta unfortunately had a rather serious heart attack part way through the hearings, and I would be interested to know whether he participated in the sessions in which they drew up the initial report. I would also be most interested to know whether he will sit during the present deliberations.
Another question which might be asked is whether the representation commissioner attended the various hearings and, if so, how many. These factors apply to Alberta and to every other province.
Without conducting a witch hunt with regard to this resolution, according to the Representation Act certain constituencies were drawn up in this country. Commissions were set up to amend the boundaries of those constituencies. These commissions are under the chairmanship of a superior court judge. Logically it is mandatory that he who would propose change must justify the change. These commission reports do propose changes. Surely to goodness the public of Canada, for whom we here are the spokesmen, are entitled to know the commissioners' proposals for certain changes. They have not been given an absolute mandate from on high to play ducks and drakes or tic-tac-toe across the map of this country and then to tell the people of Canada: we propose changes, you prove now that we are wrong, the burden is on you. This is not the purport of this legislation, and I believe that I would get general agreement in this regard from both sides of the house.
The legislation sets out the principles upon which redistribution is to take place. But what this house is entitled to know and what the people of Canada are entitled to know is whether these principles were followed. If so, why? If not, why not? The act does not give dictatorial powers to any commission which would render them not subject to justification. Certainly the people of Canada, whose spokesmen we are, are entitled to receive something better than they have received.
Motions for Papers
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
I am using my own province as a vehicle lor this determination. It applies equally to all provinces. The results of the recent debate in this regard and the number of objections -there is a whole folio of them-with regard to almost every province indicate that there is a great malaise with respect to the reports. In some provinces, there is a reasonable measure of agreement. The commissions in those provinces are to be congratulated. Perhaps their problems were not quite so severe. But in other provinces-well, I will moderate my language and contain myself in my description of the results.
I repeat, in this particular motion there is no direction that the government shall provide anything. But an order of this house is sought to do certain things and whoever is responsible must provide what this house asks for. This is not to be some sort of Gaston and Alphonse performance. These documents and records exist. We must therefore have an affirmative reply.
I know that other hon. members wish to address themselves to this motion and I conclude by supporting most strongly the motion put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Bow River.


Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I am very fortunate that the previous speaker was the second and not the third to speak because he might have talked this matter out. I was glad to hear a good presentation of a Conservative viewpoint and I must say that in part I agree with much that the hon. member who preceded me said. I agree that the analogy used by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Dube) was not on all fours with what is before us but in my opinion it is nevertheless relevant. As hon. members versed in the law know, a judgment by a good judge is a precedent to follow. Such a judgment or opinion becomes an authority. I am sure that hon. members will not mind my quoting former prime ministers of this country because they are very good authority. I refer to Hansard for the 1957-58 session, page 1559. On that page, as on the previous page, there are slightly different authoritative statements.
In so far as these questions are concerned, we do not have in the records the information requested, and we have no power to direct the council to furnish that information. It will be recalled that when the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) moved the resolution he emphasized this 
May 26# 1966
aspect of the legislation, and stressed that the council should be made as free as possible of possible government interference.
This obviously must be good authority because it refers to two previous prime ministers.
As was pointed out by the previous speaker, many provinces and many hon. members are dissatisfied with things as they are. However, as was rightfully pointed out by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) I think that more desirable ways than that proposed are available to correct this situation.
We have set up such commissions before. We went into this with our eyes open. It is certainly clear that the government has no authority in this field. It has also been pointed out that perhaps the analogy drawn may not be on all fours-


Richard Albert Bell: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Is he aware that this motion contains no order to the government?


Richard Joseph Cashin: I agree with that. I merely say that the analogies which have been drawn are not on all fours with the present situation. The first opposition speaker gave the impression that he was not aware of the legitimate use of analogies. I think we all agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that what is proposed is something that the government cannot do. As an alternative it is suggested that the house still has the right to pass this motion and that it in no way reflects on the government or anybody else. This I think is correct. Technically such an action could be taken.
Nevertheless, in view of the difference existing between such commissions as contemplated here and crown corporations, a difference that has been acknowledged by two former prime ministers, it seems to me that this motion affects members of parliament personally.
We must be careful not to do the wrong thing. If we were dealing with the Canada Council, to which a previous speaker on the government side referred, the government would have no authority to do anything but pass on the report. To do anything else, to go into greater detail, would be an undue interference with an independent commission.
In this country many people may feel they have been wronged in not receiving a grant when they have made application to the Canada Council. I know in my constituency, as in other constituencies, were the motion of

May 26, 1966

the hon. member for Bow River to carry they would have the right to look into such questions. A great many ramifications could flow from such a motion. I think this motion ought to be debated and looked into thoroughly.
I realize that when I refer to and perhaps adopt Conservative philosophy as propounded by the hon. member for Edmonton West it may be somewhat unusual. The hon. member said that he who proposes change must give a good and logical explanation for such change. In fact, the hon. member is proposing change because he is proposing that in our dealings with independent commissions we establish a difference between the Electoral Boundaries Commission and say the Canada Council.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: No, no.


Richard Joseph Cashin: It is a change.


Thomas Miller Bell: Read the Canada Council Act.


Richard Joseph Cashin: The hon. gentleman must have read the words of his own leader when he said that the government could not provide the information that was sought at that time. Section 23 of the act then referred to by the right hon. gentleman is similar to section 10 in the act we are now discussing. In that sense this is a completely analogous situation. The hon. member should be cautious about any change just as he would have cautioned his government against any change.
We were happy to listen to the hon. member for Edmonton West. We cannot really listen to the hon. member for Bow River when he advances arguments different from those advanced by the hon. member for Co-mox-Alberni. I submit that one cannot arrive at one position with respect to the Canada Council and at another with regard to the body affected by this motion.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
There is an analogy here. We passed this legislation with our eyes open and it is a little early to say that we are not satisfied with the job we did. In some of these areas I believe certain things were done which would not have been done had redistribution been carried out by members of parliament.
Redistribution is never popular among members of parliament. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether we should now try to change the authority which has been given and enforce by means of a motion something which was not put in the original act. If the example given by the previous speaker is at 23033-354
Motions for Papers
all valid we need to examine the right of parliament to pass such a motion as this one. Before we alter our approach to independent commissions we should, as suggested by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), give the entire question more thought.
Underlying this motion is a certain dissatisfaction. I do not entirely disagree with the hon. member; it is a matter of individual judgment. But we all realized when this matter was decided that the machinery used could lead to unpleasant or illogical results. This is something we have to take together with the package. I would suggest that the hon. member for Edmonton West should follow his own advice and make a more logical argument before he proposes to make a change or else, like Humpty Dumpty, he too may fall.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, my inferiority complex comes to the fore when I see so many lawyers taking part in a debate. I do not belong to the legal profession as does the learned gentleman who has just sat down and for that reason perhaps I find myself in disagreement with him. I see little wrong in making available to hon. members any information which the department has in its possession on this subject and I do not think this would necessarily interfere with the degree of independence we wish to grant to the commissioners. I do not believe the independence of the commission would be jeopardized by the tabling of such information if it is in the hands of the government. But I am only one voice in parliament and this is only my opinion.
What does concern me is what I believe to be the intent of this notice of motion. Regardless of whether such documents exist in the files of the government by virtue of its normal relationship with the commissioner, the point, as I see it, is that for the first time in history we have removed responsibility for redistribution from the hands of the politicians.
This move was heralded throughout the dominion with a great sigh of relief on the part of politicians and with unanimous approval on the part of editorial writers across Canada. If this debate were to continue-and it is almost ended, I see-we might create an unfortunate impression that once again, having on a rare occasion agreed regardless of our political affiliations that the question of redistribution should be removed once and

May 26, 1966
Seaway and Canal Tolls for all from the hands of politicians, too many of us were upset with the results obtained from the independent commission and wished to alter its findings.
This motion by inference criticizes the commissioners in Alberta. We might find ourselves dealing with separate notices of motion, similarly worded, concerning all the provinces in Canada, with just the name of the province being changed in each case. It creates the impression-and I do not want to have any part of it-that having taken this question out of the field of politics we as members of parliament are not big enough to stomach the inevitable results.
This is the first time redistribution has been carried out by independent commissions. Mistakes of commission and omission were bound to occur. In Alberta at least some of the commissioners sinned by omission. I would suggest to the hon. member for Edmonton West that we swallow our pride and anger in this instance and wait to see what happens in six years time when on the strength of the experience we have gained different conclusions will no doubt be reached. We should give the commissioners a vote of confidence rather than a vote of non-confidence as I take this motion to be. It is logical, I think, to say that at least we should have the grace not to criticize the role of the commission until it is complete.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret I must interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. The house will now resume the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion (Mr. Cantelon) for the adjournment of the house under standing order 26.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Cantelon) has rendered a valuable service in moving the adjournment of the house to discuss the question of higher tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway and the imposition of lockage fees on the Welland canal.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
Let us make no mistake about this, there are great numbers of people in Canada who
[Mr. Mackasey.l
will be affected by any action taken as a result of the hearings held during the past few days in Ottawa by the seaway authority. I had hoped that a spokesman for the government would outline what the government's policy is with respect to tolls on the seaway and would have told the people of Canada and this house what it intends to do to cope with the problem of rising costs, and what it proposes to do to make it unnecessary to increase further the tolls on Canada's great inland waterway. Instead of that all we got from the Acting Minister of Transport (Mr. Turner) was a counsel of despair.
His argument was a weird and wonderful one. He told the house that under section 16 of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act the authority was required by law to increase its tolls in order to be able to meet its obligations, and that the obligations set out in section 16 are that it must meet its payments with respect to operating costs, it must meet its amortization payments, and also meet the costs of interest and servicing for outstanding debt.
If that is the sum total of the government's case, and if the seaway authority has no option to do other than to increase its toll rates because of the fact that its costs have gone up, then I would like to ask why the seaway authority is holding hearings. Surely these hearings are a farce? If the minister is right, that the authority has no choice other than to impose increased tolls because of increased costs, then why the hearings? Also why is this matter then referred by the seaway authority to the governor in council, for if the statute requires the rates to be increased because of rising costs, then automatically the cabinet has no choice but to approve those increases.
Therefore we are simply going through a hypocritical farce in talking about public hearings and in having the government say that this matter is not decided because it has to come before the Privy Council. My contention, of course, is that the acting minister has overlooked section 15 of the act, because that section says that the authority may-
-subject to sections 16 and 17, establish tariffs of tolls to be charged by it with respect to-
And it sets out the basis on which these tolls may be charged. Subsection (2) says:
The tolls that may be charged by the authority pursuant to this section may be for the use of the canals and works administered by it-
And so on.
May 26, 1966

I maintain that section 15 gives the authority to the seaway to charge tolls but does not require it to charge tolls, and if the government decided not to apply tolls it has the authority under the act to do that. It is true that in section 17 there is a provision that the question of tolls is subject to any agreement with the United States. It is true that there is an agreement into which Canada has entered, requiring the charging of tolls; but this is an international agreement which is subject to renegotiation.
International agreements have previously been renegotiated. I submit that this international agreement can be renegotiated now and the government, if it wants to, has the power, subject to the renegotiation of the agreement with the United States, to change the basis entirely so that we could have toll-free service on the seaway, or some modified form of tolls that would cover only part of the cost. That of course would require amending section 16.
The most disappointing thing about this whole debate is that while hon. members, particularly backbenchers in all parties, have expressed their opposition to increasing the tolls on the seaway, the government has not come forth with some clear statement of policy, because this matter of the tolls on the seaway is much larger than the immediate issue before the house. It has to do with the entire concept of transportation. It calls for a clearly defined transportation policy on the part of the government, but the fact is that the government has not got a clearly defined and clearly stated transportation policy.
Someone has said that the history of Canada is a long and constant struggle with geography. Long before confederation our forefathers struggled with the problems of a young country, a population strung along the international boundary of the United States for a length of 4,000 miles, sparsely settled people who had two major problems, one, how to get their products to the world markets at prices that would be competitive and, two, how to bring in the commodities which they could not produce themselves at a figure that would enable them to be competitive and to maintain a decent standard of living.
Consequently transportation has been at the heart of almost every great parliamentary debate since confederation. It was early recognized that we had to decide in Canada whether the entire cost of transportation was to be borne by the users or whether, as a matter of national policy, some part of it
23033-354i
Seaway and Canal Tolls should be borne by the country as a whole. This is why until recently, for over 60 years it has been a matter of government policy that our canals and waterways should be toll free.
As early as 1903 Hon. W. S. Fielding, who was himself a maritimer and a minister of finance in the Laurier government, said in the House of Commons:
There Is room for some doubt whether the tolls that are charged are large enough to be a serious obstacle to traffic. But while this doubt exists, we do not feel that they are such as would prevent us giving the proposal to abolish them a fair trial. The revenue, though considerable, is not large enough to prove a disturbing factor. We would gladly yield up this item of our receipts if we could feel assured that it would have the great effect of encouraging business. The government have therefore determined for a period of two years to suspend the charges for tolls and make the entire canal system of Canada absolutely free to all.
That policy was continued over a long period of years.
In 1934 Hon. R. J. Manion, who was minister of railways and canals in the Bennett government, said this:
I entirely agree with those from the west who say that the western Canadian grain grower cannot stand (the proposed toll) added to his present cost. It is important that we should have the lowest possible rates in order that we may compete with countries whose grain fields are closer to the seaboards than are the fields of Canada.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
Interestingly enough the head of the government of that day, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, in the same year said in the House of Commons:
The reason the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier removed the tolls in 1904 was that they imposed an additional burden upon the grain growers of the west: that is the real reason . . . The real reason for this arrangement, one which some people thought was misunderstood philanthropy, was really an effort on our part to lessen the charges on the movement of wheat from Fort William and Port Arthur to Montreal, destined for export to the markets of the world.
So, for a long period of time traffic on the canals and waterways of Canada was toll free in recognition of the fact that our primary producers, who have been buying in a protected and costly market, might have the lowest possible transportation costs in order to get their goods to market at competitive prices and in order to give them a fair return for their produce.
We all know of the long and bitter opposition in the United States to the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway. It was opposed

May 26, 1966
Seaway and Canal Tolls by powerful interests in the United States, for long periods of years. It was only when the government of Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent threatened to go it alone, and to have Canada assume the entire cost of building this great inland waterway, that President Eisenhower agreed to participate and the United States and Canada began this great project. When that project was nearing completion, and when it was suggested there should be tolls upon it, submissions were made from all over Canada asking that the policy of toll-free waterways be continued. In 1958 the government of Saskatchewan made a submission to the government of the day, headed by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). I have in my hand a copy of that submission, of which I think this paragraph sums up the case:
The fact that economic development in Canada could proceed only as fast as provision was made for adequate transportation facilities has always been apparent. Canadian statesmen for more than a century have realized that because of the great distances and sparse population of the dominion, the resources of the state would have to be thrown into the task of assuring essential transportation improvements either directly by way of unremunerative state enterprise or in subsidies to private enterprise. This has been true of all transportation facilities whether roads, railways, river improvements or airlines.
May I just pause to point out that this statement can be documented with comparative ease. The taxpayers of Canada have subsidized every form of transportation, whether it be the publicly owned Canadian National Railways which has been subsidized by the taxpayers in order to provide transportation facilities to the people of the outlying areas of this country, whether it be the large sums of money and land grants which were given to the Canadian Pacific Railway, or whether it be the subsidization of air transportation in the form of many, many millions of dollars which have been put up by the taxpayers to build terminal facilities, airports, and airstrip facilities, or whether it be the large sums of money spent by both federal and provincial governments for the construction of highways for motor and automobile transportation.
No one can quarrel with a policy which recognizes that Canada's greatest problem is geography. If we are to get our goods to market at competitive prices, if we are to handle the transportation of a lot of our own goods in Canada rather than have them go through United States ports, it is necessary to subsidize much of our transportation. If

this can be done, it should be done as a matter of national policy and not on a hit and miss haphazard basis.
The brief to which I just referred, which was presented by the government of Saskatchewan to the prime minister and cabinet in 1958, concluded its remarks by saying this:
The Government of Saskatchewan looks at the whole question of tolls in the light of these facts and in constant awareness of certain conditions which must continue to be of vital importance to the welfare of the province. Among the latter the most prominent and persistent are the inescapable dependence of Saskatchewan on overseas markets for wheat, the intensity of competition which characterizes these markets, the distance of Canadian producers from consuming centres, and the consequent handicap of heavy transportation costs which must be borne by our wheat. The savings in transportation costs which may result from the seaway improvements are, as yet, uncertain, unproved, and theoretical.
On the other hand, tolls will increase shipping costs by their full amount above the level which would be possible if tolls were not imposed. The resulting burden to the prairie producer will be certain, immediate, and real.
I can only regret, of course, that our plea in 1958 to have the St. Lawrence seaway made a toll free waterway was not acceded to, and that the agreement entered into with the United States required the collection of tolls, because the same powerful interests in the United States who had for decades opposed the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway then had moved to a second line of defence and demanded tolls which would cover not only the operating costs of the seaway, not only the servicing of the debt, but the amortization of that debt over a period of time which was the shortest period of time ever undertaken for any project of this kind anywhere in the world.
Even with the tolls, the farmers of western Canada, as a result of the St. Lawrence seaway being constructed, gained. Prior to the seaway being opened the cost of a ton of grain moving from the head of the lakes to the seaport was $5.33 a ton or 16 cents a bushel. When the seaway came into operation, even with the tolls, the cost was reduced to $4.43 a ton, a saving of 90 cents, and the cost per bushel was reduced to 13 cents, a saving of 3 cents per bushel. That meant a great deal to the farmers of western Canada, and particularly that part of Canada where their grain moves eastward rather than to the Pacific coast.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
If the proposal which the seaway authority has made that the rates now be increased by
May 26. 1966

10 per cent is allowed to stand, then this will mean, as Mr. Charles Gibbings, president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool has stated, an increase in the shipping costs to the prairie farmer of roughly 1|- cents per bushel. I do not need to detain the house by elaborating on the predicament in which the prairie farmer has been since 1951 when his costs have steadily mounted, whereas the general price index for the things he has to sell have remained more or less stationary. The farmer has been caught in a cost-price squeeze. His net income in relation to other economic groups in the community has not advanced. He has been caught in a cost-price squeeze and that squeeze will be further accentuated if the cost of shipping his grain to seaboard through the St. Lawrence seaway is increased by another 1J cents per bushel.
It is not only the western farmers who will be affected. This increase will affect industry in central Canada. As my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), pointed out this afternoon, on the basis of information and research which has come to our attention there are about one million tons of iron ore with regard to which the cost of shipment is so close that any increase in the tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway could divert these one million tons of iron ore to United States ports on the Atlantic. The result would be that a good deal of business would be lost to the industries in central Canada and there would be a loss of job opportunities to Canadian workers.
Of necessity, since the traffic on the St. Lawrence seaway is a two-way proposition, the price of goods coming into the country, raw materials for industry and consumer goods, will go up. All this is bound to start another round of rising costs. We have all been deluged, I am sure, with the constant complaints of people in this country who find their living costs going up much more rapidly than their income. This means that their standard of living is being reduced. We have been trying to get the government to concern itself with this problem. Even if they are not going to tackle the problem of prices, they could at least alert themselves to what will happen if the tolls on the seaway are increased and living costs in this country go up further.
The cost of living has gone up by over 4 per cent in the last 12 months, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) in his budget estimated it will go up at least another 3.5 per cent this year. My own opinion is that it will be more. All this sets in motion labour
Seaway and Canal Tolls disputes and strikes, because wages inevitably lag behind the rising cost of living. The government here faces a very critical situation and one would expect they would have something more constructive to offer than what was presented to us this afternoon, when a minister merely told the house that under section 16 of the act the seaway authority has no choice but to raise the rates if their costs have gone up. I presume from this that the cabinet will have no choice but to approve that increase since they, of course, would not want to run counter to section 16 of the act.
There is another aspect of this problem, and that is the effect which increased tolls will have on the seaway itself. The seaway is not yet operating at full capacity. Some experts have said it will probably be 1980 or 1982 before it will reach the full capacity of ships which it can handle. Everyone knows of course that it is only when you have a project operating at full capacity that you get your per unit costs down and operate efficiently at the lowest possible cost. If tolls are increased, surely the tendency will be to reduce the traffic, or at least to prevent the traffic on the seaway increasing as rapidly as it would otherwise do; and it may well be that by raising the tolls 10 per cent the gross return to the seaway authority may not be any greater than if it had left them where they are now.
Therefore I think that the economic implications of the action being proposed by the seaway authority are so far-reaching that the government has to do a great deal more than anything they have indicated they are willing to do at the present time. As a long term view, of course, I think they ought to renegotiate the agreement with the United States and move steadily toward eliminating the tolls entirely. As a start they might base the tolls on the operating costs of the seaway and let the Canadian people as a whole assume responsibility for the outstanding debt and the servicing of that debt. But I recognize that this will take some time, and I do not expect the government to announce that it is going to start that tomorrow morning; I have never been alarmed about their showing too much haste on any critical matter.
However, I want to reiterate what we are asking for now. A few days ago on the orders of the day I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) if he would assure the house that when the seaway authority made its
5576	COMMONS
Seaway and Canal Tolls recommendations to the government the latter would provide an opportunity for debate in this house before any decision was made by the cabinet with respect to increasing tolls. I was told by the minister that this was a hypothetical question. Of course, it is not a hypothetical question at all. Unless we receive some assurances from the government today or within the next few days, the following will be the course of events. The seaway authority completed its hearings this afternoon. It has already stated publicly that its increased costs make a 10 per cent increase in tolls mandatory. Therefore there can be little doubt about what it is going to recommend to the cabinet; and if one may judge from the statement made by the Acting Minister of Transport (Mr. Turner) this afternoon, the cabinet, looking at section 16 of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act, is going to approve the increase. Then we will have an announcement some day on motions or on the orders of the day that the tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway have been increased.
This is not good enough, because these increases will be made by order in council and not by act of parliament, and there will be no opportunity for members of parliament to express their opinion or suggest any alternative course of action. The Acting Minister of Transport this afternoon said that this question can be discussed in the transport committee. That is a ridiculous proposal. In the first place, as my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out, the chairman of the committee can, quite properly, say that the only items which appear in the estimates of the Department of Transport have to do with the servicing of certain loans and payment for the maintenance of certain canals, that these matters are not concerned with tolls and the committee has no authority to deal with tolls. In any event, the government has a majority on the committee. Even if the committee is permitted to discuss this question of increased tolls, and that is doubtful, can anyone assure this house that the discussion will take place in the transport committee before the order in council is passed increasing the tolls?
I think most members here would be willing to take a wager that the order in council will be passed long before the committee on transportation ever gets around to discussing estimates. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter just for a committee of the house; this is a matter for parliament itself. It is a

DEBATES	May 26, 1966
matter of such vital importance to the economic well-being of Canada that the whole house should have an opportunity to discuss it, and discuss it from every conceivable angle.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
Therefore I want again to ask the government the two questions which I asked the ministers this afternoon: First, will they assure the house, before the debate is finished, that when the seaway authority makes its report to the government, that report and its recommendations will be published. This would make it possible for us to know what the recommendations are. Most of us have a pretty good idea what the recommendations are likely to be, but I think we have a right to know definitely what those recommendations are and what arguments are advanced by the seaway authority for proposing an increase in the tolls. That report should be made public before the government reaches any definite conclusion. I think we have the right to ask the government for that assurance.
The second thing we have the right to ask is that, having had access to the report, the government will not act on it until this house has been given an opportunity to debate the report fully, and the effect which those recommendations would have on the welfare of the people of Canada and the economy of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am making unreasonable requests. I think this is the very least the government can do. If it is not prepared to stand up at this time, as I had hoped it would be, and say to the house that because of the rapidly rising cost of living, because of the necessity of getting our goods to the world markets it can assure the house that it will find ways and means by which it can prevent an increase in tolls at this time, surely the very least it can do is, first, to let us have a copy of that report as soon as they receive it and before they make a decision and, second, to give the members of the house an opportunity to debate the whole question. We would rather see that done than have the cabinet make a decision in secret affecting the economy of this nation, and then tell the people of Canada what they have done.
I think it is not enough to use parliament merely as a place where we make protests. If democracy means anything, it means an opportunity to participate in the making of decisions. If parliament means anything at
May 26. 1966

all, it is a place where the government asks members-particularly in a house of minorities-to give their views and their suggestions before the government commits this country to a course of action which could have detrimental results for the Canadian economy.


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, the recent announcement that the St. Lawrence authority and its United States counterpart are proposing increased tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway and new tolls on the Welland canal, was of great concern to many Canadians.
Although the Canadian and United States governments will make the final decision in this matter, this declaration of intent has caused alarm in many circles. Lack of time prevents me from giving you a detailed analysis of the conflicting arguments as to the desirability of tolls-and there are conflicting arguments. Basically, those who believe we should have tolls on the seaway contend that if we do not, foreign shipping will in effect be subsidized, and commerce which uses the waterway should pay for its construction and maintenance. However, there are many formidable arguments for a toll-free seaway and in my opinion they are conclusive.
The gist of my argument is that the St. Lawrence seaway is of national importance and benefits Canada from coast to coast as wheat from the prairies, general cargo from industries in central Canada, coal from Nova Scotia and iron ore from Newfoundland are carried through it and help this country to prosper and develop.
Those who oppose tolls argue that if tolls are increased, not only will industry be forced to increase prices, thereby causing domestic financial hardship, but that the goods will be priced out of foreign markets at a time when Canada is desperately striving to improve its export position. It is further argued that other national forms of transportation, the C.N.R., the trans-Canada highway and Air Canada, are heavily subsidized by the federal government, and a national water artery such as the St. Lawrence seaway should not be discriminated against.
Those who are in opposition to tolls cite the fact that the United States Association of Railways and the United States Eastern Ports Association have been lobbying continually in a determined effort to have tolls increased on the St. Lawrence seaway so as to place United States interests in a more competitive position to capture a greater share of the
Seaway and Canal Tolls carriage of bulk cargo, especially wheat and iron ore, with a resultant benefit to the entire U.S. economy and a detriment to Canada.
Hundreds of industries, many located in the Niagara peninsula, are adamantly opposed to tolls, and many chambers of commerce across Canada have forwarded strong briefs to the government opposing any increase in tolls. The eventual government policy in this matter is of prime concern to all of us. The preponderance of evidence in my opinion clearly demonstrates that Canada's best interests will be served if any proposed increase in tolls is denied.


Mr. R. E. Forbes (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, as seconder to the motion made by my colleague, the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Cantelon), to adjourn the business of the house to debate this urgent and important public question, I appreciate the excellent contributions that have been made by previous speakers on this important subject, and my comments will be brief. The urgency in this matter has indicated that if the request of the St. Lawrence seaway is granted, the new rates will come into effect on July 1, 1966. I cannot think of any other action by our transportation system that is as far reaching in its effect on the economy of Canada and particularly on the grain producers of western Canada.
It has been estimated by authorities that the proposed increase in tolls will cost the producers of grain one and a half cents per bushel at a time when wheat prices have been reduced by an average of 17 cents per bushel during the past year; and I wish to emphasize this point. Also at a time when the costs of production have risen to an all time high, if the increase in tolls is allowed on iron ore this extra cost will be reflected on the price of machinery purchased by farmers. The farmers have no way of passing on their increased costs to the purchasers of their products.
Much of the current high level of business activity in Canada is due to the building of the St. Lawrence seaway and the deepening of the Welland canal, for without these two vital transportation facilities, both largely due to Canadian initiative, it would not have been possible for the government of Canada to contract to supply Russia and other European countries with wheat on the enormous scale that has been evident in the past three years.
May 26. 1966

Seaway and Canal Tolls
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
If canal tolls are imposed, every one of the 200,000 or 300,000 grain producers on the prairies will have to accept lower prices for his wheat and other grains exported. Let us review very briefly the history of water transportation with respect to tolls. In 1904 Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated that if tolls were imposed they would be an additional burden on the grain growers of the west. This was interpreted as favouritism to the west, although it really was an effort to lessen the charges on the movement of wheat from Fort William and Port Arthur to Montreal, destined for the markets of the world. When George P. Graham was minister of railways and canals, he stated:
It cannot be denied that every dollar you impose in tolls must come out of the produce or the cargo. There is no other way to pay for it.
I wish to quote again from the MacPherson report on transportation, volume 2, page 195:
We would not wish, in other words, to encourage the Canadian public to believe that a country such as ours can expect to obtain the kind of transport facilities, designed to fulfil national policy objectives that transcend commercial consideration, without a continuing outlay of public funds of a considerable order of magnitude.
The seaway between Montreal and lake Ontario is the only section of over 27,000 miles of navigable waterways in North America upon which tolls are levied. If the St. Lawrence seaway is to achieve its proper status as Canada's sole means of access by water to her heartland, it must not be impeded by a crippling toll structure. Similarly the Welland ship canal, located in the very heart of Canada's major industrial zone, must be permitted to function without the obstacles of tolls.
I wish to impress upon hon. members once again the fact that low cost water transportation is essential to the continued progress and prosperity of Canada. Not only does it increase the movement of primary and manufactured goods from one part of the country to the other, but it also assists the sale of Canadian wheat and other exports in the highly competitive overseas market.
In further substantiation of my argument against the imposition of tolls, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to a statement made by the three western grain pools, and I quote:
Another reason why farmers oppose seaway tolls is because the toll structure seeks to recover capital investment and this the farmers do not think is desirable for a publicly-owned transportation utility. Farmers do not find justification for the recovery of capital investment from seaway

users by a government which through the years has made many kinds of public investment in transportation facilities without there being any direct obligation for the users to repay the investment. Consider, for example, the following list of public investment in transportation which was compiled by Mr. Justice W. F. A. Turgeon when he was chairman of a 1951 royal commission on transportation. The list included:
(i)	The construction of the National Transcontinental Railway to encourage the shipment of goods through Canadian ports;
(ii)	The construction in central Canada of an extensive canal system which became toll free, built at a cost of about $328 millions and maintained at government expense;
(iii)	The granting of substantial areas of land and subsidies to encourage and assist railway construction and the opening up of the country.
(iv)	The taking over by the country in the years between 1918-23 of the bankrupt railway lines and the welding of them along with government lines into the Canadian National Railway system;
(v)	The construction of Hudson Bay Railway and the development of the port of Churchill;
(vi)	The subsidization of coastal shipping services and large investments in harbors and other navigation facilities; and
(vii)	The large investment in and operation of Trans-Canada Air Lines and assistance given to other air lines.
The learned jurist said this government activity in the transportation industry indicates "the continuous concern of parliament with Canada's transportation problems including the problem inherent in great distances and sparse population." The wheat pools do not believe the government sought recovery of its investment from the users in the previous instances and cannot support the attempt to recover Seaway investment through user tolls.
I am firmly convinced that any increase in tolls will be detrimental to the expansion of our international trade and should not be allowed.


Edward Nasserden: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Cantelon) on bringing forward this motion today. During the three years he has been in the house he has become recognized, not only as a specialist on pension problems but also on transportation problems, so it is very fitting he should be bringing forward this motion today. The hon. member who preceded me in the debate, the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Forbes), has been in the house for a considerable time. He has won four consecutive general elections with good majorities, and all of us have a tremendous appreciation of his work on behalf of the people in agriculture. I congratulate him for seconding this motion.
When I look at you, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but think of the great city of Cornwall,
May 26, 1966	COMMONS
sitting like a jewel on the St. Lawrence waterway in the midst of that great industrial complex of this nation. I am sure you are taking more than a passing interest in this debate.
Listening to the Acting Minister of Transport (Mr. Turner) this afternoon, I could not help but feel that I should congratulate him upon his acting. He was at his very best, in spite of the poor case he had to present. The members of this house witnessed a spectacle this afternoon that has been seen in this house with recurring frequency over the past three years, namely a government coming to the house without a national policy with regard to the important problem of transportation. The Minister without Portfolio told us, if he told us nothing else, that the government does not have a national transportation policy to offer parliament or the country at this time. Despite the fact they have been in power for three years, despite the fact that they came into office boasting that they were well prepared and the pigeon-holes were filled with plans to put this country back on the rails, we have no transportation policy. It is significant that at this time we should have from the Minister without Portfolio this admission of the failure of the present govern' ment to deal with this important matter.
One could almost think of that phrase, I do not recall whether it was decision or indecision, but I know that hon. gentlemen opposite know to what I am referring, as they have had reason to think back about the stand they took in that regard in the past. I was interested in noticing that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) has not graced us with his presence in this debate. Perhaps he has a good reason for being absent, and I would not want to do him an injustice. However, there is no more important matter that could come to the attention of the Minister of Finance than the one which is before us today. I contend, sir, that an increase in tolls of the order of 10 per cent could very well affect the balance of payments position with the United States. When 1 say that, I am not referring to the effect on grain growers but I am referring to the movement of iron ore to the United States of America. This is one of the reasons that I believe the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) should have been here to deal with this particular matter.
Canada is emerging today as an industrial nation. There is no factor more important than exports, to the growing industries of our
DEBATES	5579
Seaway and Canal Tolls country, but to hear the Minister without Portfolio and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) as they sought to deny this debate-


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. That is a misstatement of my position. What I sought to do today was to prevent the regular business of the house being taken up this afternoon on this matter, which could have waited to be discussed on interim supply, or the appropriate place.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)


Edward Nasserden: All that the Minister of Public Works has done is to strengthen the argument that not only we in this party but those in other parties on this side of the house have maintained today. The minister sought to deny the House of Commons the opportunity to discuss-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot allow the hon. member to continue this trend of thought. There is a motion before the house. A ruling was made by the Chair and the hon. member has no right to go behind the ruling and argue the question all over again.


Edward Nasserden: I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker; I was just trying to answer the Minister of Public Works and I will not pursue the matter, I assure you.
We in western Canada are interested in the price of steel, of iron ore and of farm machinery which we purchase in Canada or from the United States of America. We buy a lot of farm machinery and production machinery not only in western Canada but in eastern Canada. To listen to ministers of the crown refer to a 10 per cent increase in such a cavalier manner as has been the case today of one of the factors which enter into the cost of production cannot help but make us question seriously whether they have read the budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) a few weeks ago, in which he drew attention to the important problems facing this country with regard to the cost of living, the costs of production and also the balance of payment problem with our friends to the south of us.
One of the most important factors in the production of grain in western Canada is the cost of farm machinery. Another important factor is the availability of men and women for work on farms in Canada. Only yesterday we had the spectacle of the government bringing forward a measure which would reorganize the departments of government. In
May 26, 1966

Seaway and Canal Tolls this legislation the department of immigration is relegated to third position. Almost as an after thought, responsibilities for immigration are included within the new department of manpower. Surely this is part of the entire problem we are facing today and is of some significance when we are thinking about the cost of production and the need for machinery, much of which is purchased today, even at inflated prices, in order to overcome the scarcity of labour in this country.
The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner) referred to some of the statements which were made at the time the legislation governing part of the matter which is before us came before parliament in 1959. I would remind him that a great deal of what took place at that time was the result of the legacy passed on to us from the administration that preceded us. I cannot help but remember the glowing terms in which members of the party opposite during the election campaign at that time paraded before the public the benefits which would accrue not only to western Canada but to all of Canada with the construction of the seaway, proudly boasting and claiming as their right, part of the credit for the construction of the seaway in the first place. It is very strange indeed, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman should question part of that legacy which was passed on to the administration that followed.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso), the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. McNulty), the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie) and the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Andras) for the contributions they have made in this debate. I think they have welcomed this opportunity, despite what their front benches said during the initial stages when we were trying to establish the merits of having a debate at this time. They showed that they came well prepared to fight the battle. If the decision of the Chair served no other purpose, it gave these backbenchers on the government side an opportunity to voice their opinions where they could be heard, and where they could serve some useful purpose in regard to bringing this question not only to the attention of the cabinet but also to the attention of the country and the people of their own constituencies.
I have said before, and I want to reiterate, that the proposed 10 per cent increase in tolls is a very serious one, particularly as it affects the export trade of our country. Grain sales during the last several years have been one
[Mr. Nasserden.)
of the mainstays of our economy. All of us in western Canada have felt very downhearted at the reduction in the final payments for wheat during the past year. Hon. members in all parts of the house, whether or not they come from agricultural ridings, whether they are in business or in agriculture or just carry a dinner pail, cannot help but know something about what it means to chop off almost 15 per cent of the take-home pay which one has enjoyed in years previous. In view of a reduction of 13 to 17 cents per bushel, and being faced with the prospect of a further reduction which would almost cut in half the benefits brought about by the seaway when it first came into operation, the producers of grain in Canada cannot help but express their indignation and concern. In addition to this, Mr. Speaker, the grain producers are faced with tight money, higher interest rates and a high cost of living. This is reason enough for any parliament to concern itself with the problems before it.
I recommend to the cabinet the proposal put forward by one of the members from Halifax to amortize the capital costs of the seaway over a much greater period of time than is presently the case. The seaway has been in operation for only seven years, which is a mere drop in the bucket to the number of years we hope it will be in operation. I think with any business in the initial years of operation you must expect your returns will not be as great as they will be when the business is at full capacity. It is a fact that at the present time the seaway is operating at something less than two thirds full capacity. There is also the prospect that as the capacity is reached other avenues will open to increase the capacity of the seaway if traffic on the seaway so warrants. Those who brought forward the idea of an all-Canadian seaway were perhaps voicing something that will one day be a reality.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
I do not think I can add anything else to the debate, but I should like the members on the treasury benches to give parliament an opportunity to discuss the decision reached in this matter before it is made final. I think this is an important matter that affects not only the cost of transportation, but the whole business cycle in our country, and also our trade with other nations. As such I feel that this matter deserves consideration by the cabinet and by parliament.
May 26, 1966	COMMONS


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the matter of tolls on the seaway, because I represent a municipality where grain elevators are located and which is involved in extensive shipping, even in winter, in spite of the objections of our colleagues from the Maritimes.
By the way, I must say that our winter shipping does not deprive them of anything; on the contrary, I think it helps to speed up the handling of goods in riverports and seaports. But the matter is not being discussed this evening.
After listening to earlier remarks, Mr. Speaker, I ask myself two questions, and I must say that I do not feel capable of settling the matter. If I take part in the debate, it is precisely because my district is involved and, as its representative in the House of Commons, I am interested in knowing what might be the effects of an increase in tolls on the Canadian economy.
I was amazed to note how strongly some members objected to increased tolls, especially the great number of government members who spoke freely, in a way which should be stressed and encouraged in this house as often as possible.
Today's papers report numerous protests against increased tolls on the seaway, protests which, according to a French language paper this afternoon, "submerged the public hearing". This means there were many.
I wonder where those protests come from. First of all, were they all made by people intent on protecting their business or by some who consider primarily the consequences of increased tolls on the Canadian economy, because, after all, this should be the main concern, in my opinion.
I have nevertheless observed that most insisted that they felt the Canadian economy was at stake and that tariff barriers should be brought down.
I was struck, Mr. Speaker, as doubtless all Canadians interested in this question are, by the fact that last year, the debt of the St. Lawrence seaway was about $24,700,000 and that the Canadian share was $18 million. I wondered: Who will be paying this debt, because someone will have to pay.
Some claim the ships using the seaway should not have to pay. I have no objection, mind you, Mr. Speaker, but I should nevertheless want this position to be demonstrated to me. Such are questions that I should like
DEBATES	5581
Seaway and Canal Tolls to put to those in a position to answer and I should like to be shown that it would be beneficial to have this paid by the Canadian people.
Is it true that rate increases will reduce traffic? Is that not a slight exaggeration? I wonder. Is it true that the rate increase will cause considerable loss of jobs here in Canada? Can anyone anywhere imagine that the full investments in the St. Lawrence seaway should not be reimbursed?
A colleague suggested a while ago that the refund of the debt should be extended over a period of 75 to 100 years. I am aghast at the thought of the interest that Canadians would have to pay, at current rates, if such amortization of capital were to be spread over a period extending from 75 to 100 years. There is obviously something out of kilter in that.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, someone will have to pay. Who will that be? That is the question.
While we were discussing these things just now, I read the editorial of a newspaper which, I believe, came out this afternoon, whose author seemed to be well-versed in maritime matters. I shall quote this article from the Canadian Sailor, which reads as follows:
What irritates us-and should irritate any thoughtful Canadian-
And I quote:
-is that almost 28 per cent of cargo on the seaway is carried by ships bearing flags other than Canadian or American, and almost all these foreign ships are subsidized by their respective governments.
We have no such subsidies-
Mr. Speaker, if tariffs are to be kept low so as to allow ships operating under foreign flags to compete with our own, something is obviously wrong somewhere.
Therefore, I should like to ask the following questions. Who will pay this interest and this amortization of capital? Is it right to ask all Canadian taxpayers to do so? If so, it will have to be proved that this is an incentive or an encouragement for the Canadian economy. Otherwise, this would be unfair, and the cost should rather be borne by all those who use the seaway. It would have to be proved beyond doubt that these tariffs which we are going to impose on the national budget, which all Canadians will in fact have to reimburse, will stimulate the whole Canadian economy, not just a sector or an industry.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress the fact that I lack the necessary competence to settle the debate, but I might
May 26. 1966

Seaway and Canal Tolls be allowed to submit one thing to the attention of the house. I am not convinced that the solution proposed by the hon. member for Halifax is the right one, but if it can be shown to me that the Canadian government, in short the Canadian people, must help, give a boost to that sector of the Canadian economy, that is to the maritime traffic which uses the St. Lawrence seaway, I would like to submit the following.
Let the government increase those rates to the greatest extent possible and reasonable, but in order not to hurt Canadian shipping, ships which operate under the Canadian flag, not to create any deterioration in waterway or seaway transportation, which would probably have repercussions such as unemployment and possibly a slow down in the shipments of western grain, as well as some harmful consequences in our region of Trois-Rivieres, I make a suggestion before quoting a statement in support of my argument. Would the government not be ready to study the possibility of giving reasonable and reasoned subsidies to ships registered in Canada, to allow them to compete with ships registered elsewhere and using the St. Lawrence seaway?
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I see here in Hansard that on April 2, 1965, the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) said this:
The seaway did better last year than it did the year before-
We were in 1965, therefore, he was talking about 1964.
-and we hope it will do still better this year. We hope it will get into balance in due course. Traffic is increasing steadily.
That was on April 2, 1965, as I said before.
I hardly dare hope for quite as big an increase this year as there was last year because we had this tremendous wheat traffic, but the prospects look very good.
If the prospects are very good and if eventually the seaway will be an economic operation, why not use grants to amortize the capital of $500 million plus the interests in order not to harm our maritime transportation and enable it to compete with foreign transportation?
Will the increase of rates drive away ships flying foreign flags? Once again, I do not claim to be an authority on the matter, but those ships come here because it is beneficial to them. Increasing the rates by 10 per cent
IMr. Mongrain.]
will not prevent them from coming here to transact their business.
Does this 10 per cent not correspond in general to an increase or decrease of the dollar value, to a sort of inflation which took place here since the building of the St. Lawrence seaway?
Mr. Speaker, you noted my suggestion. I believe it is valid and interesting. Once again, the whole economy of the area I represent and that of several neighbouring ridings are vitally affected by this seaway shipping. Our grain elevators represent an important asset in our economy.
This would perhaps be a temporary solution that should not last too long, if I can trust the statements of the minister. As I said, until this is economic, certain subsidies could be granted in the meantime to ships flying the Canadian flag, and this could serve as an outlet for our Canadian economy.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I am
pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate this afternoon concerning the possibility of increased tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway, and the increase of fees on the Welland canal. There has been a wealth of participation today, expressing views held across this nation. I have listened to the western members making a logical plea on behalf of the grain industry. I have heard Ontario members speak of the problems which higher tolls would create in central Canada. We have heard the point of view of members from Quebec and the maritimes. It is evident that this debate was extremely necessary and of importance to the Canadian economy.
The proposition for increasing revenues from the St. Lawrence system is twofold. First, there is to be a 10 per cent increase in tolls. We now understand that this was in the program when the initial legislation was passed. The secondary method of increasing revenues is to be the imposition of lockage fees in the Welland system, the Canadian-operated part of the system.
I think the authority, as well as the government, would be well advised to investigate the legality of imposing lockage fees in the Welland portion of the system. These fees will represent a considerable amount of money to shipowners. I believe they will cost some $160 a vessel next year, rising to $800 in 1971. It may be found that this secondary proposal for raising revenue is legal, but I am
May 26, 1966

sceptical about it. However, the revenue is raised it must all be considered as coming from increased tolls on the system. I feel that this method of raising revenue is unjust and, possibly, illegal. Since the projected sum involved amounts, roughly, to $100 millions, an investigation would certainly be worth while.
I understood from the words of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner) that we might expect an increase in tolls almost as a foregone conclusion. I was sorry to hear him give this impression. I was sorry to note the lack of hesitation with which he seemed to argue there was no other way of handling the situation.
It appears that the pleas made by two of the backbenchers on the other side, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) and the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tol-mie) will go unheeded, though they put forward their arguments not from a parochial point of view but, it seemed to me, with the best interests of the entire Canadian economy at heart. Indeed it would have been odd had they spoken otherwise.
It is interesting to note that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) was in the house for a short time, and then left. It would be interesting to hear his views on this question-to hear whether or not representations had been made to him on behalf of heavy industry in his part of Ontario. I am sure we all know what the answer would be. Anyone who is familiar with the situation knows what the effect will be on the Canadian economy as compared with the United States economy.
We heard the hon. member for Welland say that strong lobbies are being built up in the United States in favour of the institution of tolls. Why not? The benefit on the United States side would be felt largely on the upper great lakes. Those areas will be toll-free. But in southern Ontario, the area from Windsor eastward to lake Ontario, Canadian heavy and secondary industry will have to bear not only an increase arising from higher toll charges but also an increase arising from charges in connection with the Welland canal. Thus will Canadian industry be placed at a disadvantage and United States industry will once again have an advantage over us in a comparable field. This is an important and serious matter in so far as I am concerned.

Seaway and Canal Tolls [DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I come from a part of southwestern Ontario where we are endeavouring to attract secondary industry, but much of the secondary industry we want to attract would be completely submerged if 1 per cent of the production of similar U.S. industry were allowed into the Canadian market. Why should the government, or any agency of it, be permitted to consider even a fractional increase where it disadvantageously affects Canadian industry? This is ridiculous, particularly under present circumstances.
At the present time in the province of Ontario an ambitious program for regional development is being undertaken. But in our part of the country we have witnessed the utter disregard of some ministers in the federal government for areas that need assistance and support. Now we have another instance of the government's failing to move into the area of common sense where Canadian industries are concerned.
The proposal to increase tolls will affect to a large degree development areas in western and northern Ontario, and particularly the shore areas along the seaway and the Welland canal, because the charges will be spread over small ships as well as large ships, and there is no question but that small industries and small centres will be affected in a detrimental way.
We would like an assurance from the government that it is cognizant of the effects of such action by the authority. The least it can do is defer any final decision by the authority. After having been here for some considerable time I am now coming to the opinion that the Canadian people are fed up with being governed by commissions, boards, authorities, and such things, with the ultimate responsibility being taken away from parliament. This is a view which is not held only on this side of the house. From what was said today I know it is also the view of some government supporters who know what the effect of increased charges will be. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is a known fact that such arbitrary decisions are taken without the benefit of discussion in parliament and without the benefit of discussion by people from the areas directly affected. We should have something to say when this happens.
Not many weeks ago we sat here and listened to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) delivering his budget speech. He mentioned inflationary pressures and said we should cut out this and that. Yet if this
May 26. 1966

Seaway and Canal Tolls proposal is adopted the government will be placing a further harness on industries in southern Ontario, and to this I take exception. This afternoon we heard that this proposal will also affect the primary producers in western Canada. We are interested in every aspect of the Canadian economy and we must have something to say in regard to what the authority is going to do when its proposals affect our economy from coast to coast.
I noted in an article a day or so ago that this matter was discussed in the Ontario provincial legislature, and I agree totally with the views of the prime minister of that province who spoke in very strong terms against the proposal. The headline on the article read, "Robarts Denounces Seaway Proposal to Levy Tolls on Welland Lock Traffic." I object generally to the application of such a toll because of the effect it will have on the province of Ontario. If we had the opportunity to present the views of the western provinces, of the central provinces and the eastern provinces, in view of the economy as it stands today we could come to no other conclusion than that the lockage levies on the Welland canal should not be tolerated.
The other day when making a statement in this house a government minister said that a certain situation had to change because we are living in 1966. Simply because the initial levying of charges by the authority was authorized some years ago, in order to conform to a certain program, is no reason why we should continue with them today, particularly since we would be acting counter to some of the policies and programs launched this year by the government. This is a responsibility of the government.
I disagreed with what the government house leader had to say. I do not wish to speak on the urgency of debate or other things which have been determined, but I am not prepared to accept the contention that we could have treated this legitimately through some other method of debate. The government has a practice of waiting until it can pull the wool over our eyes, and I am very pleased that we had this opportunity to have this debate today.
I am not being proud or boastful, or anything of that nature, when I say that the province of Ontario contributes more to the coffers of this nation than any other province in the Dominion of Canada, and we in Ontario need every consideration to ensure that

our competitive industrial position is not affected. The people in western Canada need the same protection. I have the same feeling with respect to secondary industries in the province of Quebec, although this proposal may not affect them to such a serious degree. I also welcome the contributions made to this debate by members from the maritimes.
We simply cannot tolerate to have any outside authority make arbitrary decisions on something that will affect the economy of this country in such a serious way as the proposed toll charge increases. I hope members of the government will have the intestinal fortitude to back policies that will assist our primary and secondary producers, instead of selling them out to someone else who then will have an advantage over us.


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Moose Mountain):: 
Mr. Norman Fawcett (Nickel Bell):: After what has been said today, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is a great deal left for me to say except to enlarge on a couple of points. One is the point my leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), raised with regard to the handling of iron ore. Since I come from a riding in northern Ontario which already is affected adversely by high transportation costs, naturally I am very much interested in anything which might increase transportation costs, even though this may be very minimal. I believe the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam mentioned the fact that iron ore mines which could be considered marginal operations might find
May 26. 1966

Seaway and Canal Tolls themselves in difficulty with regard to this suggested increase in the tolls.
I come from an area in which we have what could be considered as a marginal iron ore mine. I know that they negotiate the rail rates for the shipment of this iron ore to the closest port on the great lakes where facilities for unloading it are available. They negotiate the rates with the Canadian National Railways. I am quite sure that if they were unable to obtain the rate which they feel they require, and which is acceptable to the Canadian National Railways, they would not be in operation today, because their profit or margin is so low that they are not in a position to pay high transportation costs. I do not wish hon. members to think I am suggesting that the increased toll rates would affect this particular company, because I do not think this is the case. They ship directly across the great lakes, and I do not think their shipments would be affected. I would be very fearful, however, that there are many of these so-called marginal iron ore mines which may be affected. These mines operate on an over-pit basis. It is possible for them to move great quantities of low-grade ore so long as their transportation costs are within reason.
Generally the people who are engaged in mining the ore are the same people who convert it into steel. They are satisfied with a very low profit on the ore, because they are in the position to make up for this in the production of the steel. I would be fearful that these suggested higher tolls could result in some of these mines being closed down, with the resultant loss of employment. I believe I speak for all of northern Ontario when I say there are a great number of potential iron ore mines in this area. I believe some of these would be in operation were it not for the fact that the rail haul is too long and therefore the transportation cost is too great.
While these additional tolls may not have any affect on this situation, there is the possibility that they could. Northern Ontario perhaps is affected more by automation than many people realize. The number of lumber workers has been reduced to a great extent; the railways are continuing with the process of automation, and this too is reducing employment. If there is any possibility that these potential mines might be put into operation, we do not want to do anything which will discourage them, since this would have an affect on employment and on the economy as a whole.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I wish to say a few words about the movement of grain. At the outset I should like to say that the mover of the motion today represents a riding in which I was born and grew up, so grain is not entirely new to me; I do know a little about grain farming. I should like to make this point also. As a result of working on the railway I found that railwaymen generally assessed the economic situation of the western farmer by the business offering on the railway. If the western farmer had money to spend, the railroader was busy; if he did not have money to spend, the railroader was not busy. When I say this I do not mean that if the western farmer was not shipping grain over our line, we were not busy. The point I am trying to make is simply that even though we did not get a great portion of his grain, when the western farmer had the grain to sell, and when he had the dollars in his pocket, he was buying implements, automobiles, and everything else. As a result, the railroad was very busy.
Therefore even though this suggested 1\ cents a bushel extra toll on grain appears small, on the whole I think it would have a very serious effect on our economy. I think we would certainly see its effects on the manufacturing industries, the transportation business and, I would say, the oil and petroleum industries as well. I do not intend to take up any more time, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to say that as far as I am concerned I thoroughly support everyone who has spoken in this house in opposition to any suggested increase of tolls on the seaway.


Mr. G. D. Clancy (Yorkton):: this increase in tolls represents a lack of faith in our country. It is a 50-year write-off. If you think this country is going to stand still, you have less faith in it than I have; because it is not standing still and we are going to move forward. I had a speech written out, Mr. Speaker, but if I read it I would just be reiterating everything that has been said in the debate so far. So in conclusion I say, let us have faith in this country.
Mr. J, E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have an opportunity to express our views on the proposed 10 per cent increase in tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway. I consider it the duty of as many members as possible to participate in this debate. The vital importance of the question is demonstrated by the fact that the regular business of the house has been adjourned so that the problem can be thoroughly discussed. I think we have had a very full discussion today, although there are probably enough speakers to continue the debate for another day.
Reference has been made to the public hearings in Ottawa in the past two days. As I understand it, the purpose of these hearings was to test the public attitude and public reaction to any toll increases. I believe the public attitude has been very clearly demonstrated in the two-day hearings, and it certainly has been demonstrated very clearly in the debate we have had today.
Earlier speakers expressed very clearly the viewpoint of western Canada. I do not believe it is necessary to repeat the arguments they have presented, but I should like to refer to the brief presented by the Canadian Co-operative Wheat Producers Limited at the hearing yesterday. Canadian Co-operative Wheat Producers Limited represent the farmer-owned wheat pools of the three prairie provinces and certainly this organization speaks for the majority of western farmers, particularly wheat farmers. Mr. Gordon L. Harrold, president of the Alberta Wheat Pool presented the brief, which recommended that the tolls cover operating costs only. In this regard he expressed the opinion that the present tolls were more than sufficient to cover the operating costs. The government of Saskatchewan also presented a brief which was placed before the hearing by the minister of highways and transportation of that province, Mr. Grant. It endorsed the stand put forward in the brief presented by the wheat pools.
Seaway and Canal Tolls
I just want to re-emphasize the vital position of the prairies as the inland portion of Canada. I will not present the map to the house, but it shows how we are dependent on the seaway for a great deal of our traffic. I was happy to be on the first ship that passed through the seaway after the official opening on April 25, 1959. I should like to read what I reported to my constituents at that time:
The seaway will bring huge freighters more than 2,500 miles inland to the lakehead.
That was at the beginning of my speech, and later on I said:
It is not too clear, as yet, just how great will be the benefit to western Canada in having freighters calling almost at the west's doorstep. The saving in shipping costs for prairie wheat will be at least 5| cents a bushel because this much has already been announced by the Canadian Wheat Board and has been added to the lakehead wheat price. This means extra cash to prairie wheat growers on wheat shipped from the lakehead.
It was encouraging to hear very strong views expressed by speakers on the government side of the house in support of our arguments against any increase in seaway tolls. I trust that these comments from his own colleagues will be drawn to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). In fact, the Minister of Transport himself made a statement in the house that I consider to be in support of our arguments against any increase in the cost of exporting wheat such as would result from higher seaway tolls. On September 14, 1964, the Minister of Transport made this statement as reported in Hansard:
We consider, as every government has considered-at least for a generation-that one of the national interests of this country is to maintain the tremendous grain export business that has been one of the main sources of income for the Canadian people in the whole of the twentieth century.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that he was referring at that time to the Crowsnest pass rate, and he stated that the government had no intention of removing these rates which helped the export of our wheat. However, I think that the argument is just as convincing for the seaway tolls.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in particular for wheat exports and the movement of wheat. Other speakers have spoken for other exports and other movements through the seaway. I should like to refer to the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board which states the following:
The sales policy of the board was directed to obtaining the largest possible share of the reduced world import requirements.
May 26, 1966

Seaway and Canal Tolls
Further on it states:
Pursuant to its obligation to promote the sale of grain produced in Canada in world markets the board endeavoured to keep its prices for export wheat competitive at all times-
The board quoted separate daily asking prices for wheat (a) in store Pacific ports, (b) in store Fort William/Port Arthur and (c) in store Churchill. Export selling prices c.i.f. St. Lawrence ports, c.i.f. Atlantic ports and, as required, in store at intermediate seaway ports were also announced by the board.
The purpose of regional pricing was to maintain the competitive position of export wheat in major commercial markets irrespective of the port of shipment.
Further on it states the following, and this applies to the 1964-65 crop year:
Shipments from Fort William/Port Arthur-380 million bushels.
As other speakers have stated, the president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool estimated that a 10 per cent increase in seaway tolls would mean an additional \\ cents a bushel in the cost of exporting wheat. Moving 380 million bushels of wheat through the lakehead at an extra cost of 11 cents a bushel would mean roughly $5 million out of the farmers' pockets. I think this is a very good argument against increasing the seaway tolls.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to a statement made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. This statement was made in 1964 at which time there was pressure from U.S. interests to increase the seaway tolls. I think it should be put on the record because I do not believe that it has been put on the record so far. I will just read part of it:
The federation delegates took another look at the organization's policy position on St. Lawrence seaway tolls at this year's annual meeting. They resolved to strongly oppose any increase in tolls on the section of the seaway from Montreal to lake Ontario, to oppose any toll charges whatever on on the Welland canal, and to oppose the principle of recovering capital costs of the seaway through the collection of tolls.
This will strengthen the arguments of the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler).
The report states further:
In making these decisions, the federation delegates had these considerations in mind. First, they recognized that the seaway was built to benefit all Canadians through lowering costs of products moving through the waterway for both the domestic and export markets. Second, it was pointed out that the Montreal to lake Ontario section of the seaway is the only waterway in North America which is subject to tolls. Third, that while there may be some obligation and justification for attempting to recover operating and maintenance costs by charging tolls, any attempt to recover
[Mr. Pascoe.l
capital costs in the same way would defeat the purpose of the seaway by making its utilization uneconomic for many users.
There is one more paragraph which stresses the point I am trying to make. It says:
Tolls on the seaway, of course, affect farmers in two ways.
Then, speaking for western grain farmers, it continues:
Export grain transported through the waterway loses some degree of competitiveness in world markets, or farmers receive less returns for their product. In the second place, the costs of goods that farmers buy stand to be higher, whenever such goods, or the materials from which they are made, are transported through the seaway.
That is the point which I was trying to emphasize, that any increase in seaway tolls would affect the prairies. Of course, it also affects other parts of the country. It would affect us in two ways.
As I stated at the outset of my remarks, this debate has been most necessary because it made it possible to put on the record arguments that must be carefully considered by the government and by the seaway authority. These arguments against increased seaway tolls must be pressed home now. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) has clearly stated that a decision will be made soon. I will read what he said as reported in Hansard on March 24 at page 3086. He is referring to discussions between the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and the St. Lawrence Corporation of the United States. He speaks about the possibility of a revision of the existing tolls, and says:
I understand that the parties to this discussion now feel they are fairly close to agreement as to what they will be prepared to recommend to the two governments.
To me that indicates that a decision has been taken and a recommendation will be made to the government very shortly.
In briefs presented to the standing committee on transport and communications recommendations have been made for a transportation authority which would have the power to work out an over-all policy for all transportation by rail, by air, by bus and by water. I believe it is necessary to have such an over-all transportation policy. I believe such a policy will evolve eventually. In the meantime I support the arguments presented today against any increase in seaway tolls.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak for a few moments
May 26, 1966	COMMONS
on the subject of the possibility of toll increases on shipping on the great lakes. Some time ago I asked the Minister of Transport what was the position of his government with respect to these increases. His reply was that in due course the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority would ask for briefs, brochures and other representations from various organizations. When the facts were made known to them, they would make a decision and inform the government of it. Nothing up to that point would become mandatory or operative until the government, in turn, passed an order in council implementing the recommendation.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The purpose of this debate today is to give parliament an opportunity to talk and make representations to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority before they make their decision. It was extremely disturbing to me when the house leader on the government side tried to find some means of putting off this debate under standing order 26, by means of which we sought to discuss these tolls. I am glad that it has been going forward. I have listened to many of the speeches this afternoon and I must say that if these representations reach the ears of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, they should have the desired effect.
Who is going to make these representations to the authority? Well, it may be the wheat pools or it may be the United Grain Growers in so far as wheat is concerned. This dispute affects not only grain shippers but every type of shipper. What is the implication of an increase in rates? Anyone knows that when you set rates on the lakes or any other transportation system, that changes and moves a lot of other things. What formerly looked like a good market could now be out of reach of a particular industry simply because of the increase in rates. This could happen.
It is no wonder that many people are exercised about what is going to happen to the rate structure which has been in effect for a number of years. If these rates are to be increased, as is proposed, by a cent and a half or whatever it is, this would cost the farmers of western Canada roughly $5 million in extra transportation charges on their wheat going through Fort William or Port Arthur. This would be $5 million they would not get. The only way you can look at the situation is that this sum comes directly out of the pockets of the farmers of western Canada. It will be money they will not have to spend. It
DEBATES	5589
Seaway and Canal Tolls will reduce their standard of living, and many have incomes which will not stand this additional charge.
We hope that this discussion will cause the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority to pause and reconsider any recommendations which they might wish to make to the government. We would expect, therefore, when the decision is made it will be amply supported. If that is not the case, then it will be the duty of this government to ascertain the facts and decide what they intend to do. We do not feel like leaving it to this government because they do not have too good a reputation for taking action on matters of this kind in favour of the producers and people of western Canada.
There is another aspect to this entire question, namely, why not balance the raising of tolls on the great lakes against a possible reduction in volume, if you raise the rates If the rates are raised, someone is going to decide that he cannot afford to pay them and will not ship. What do you want? You cannot have it both ways. It would be better to leave the rates as they are and increase the volume. This would bring in a certain sum of money. If, on the other hand, you raised the rates and had less shipping you might end up with the same amount of money.
From an economic point of view, and from the point of view of the good of Canada as a whole, I think there is no question but what an increase in the volume of shipping and keeping the toll rates as they are would produce more money than the raising of rates and the curtailment of shipping. I hope therefore that this St. Lawrence Seaway Authority will take this point into consideration and think twice before they raise the rates on the great lakes system.
I am glad that this debate in parliament has given everyone who is concerned with this problem an opportunity to express his views. I do hope that in due course the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority will make their recommendations and that those recommendations will be of a nature which will not raise the tolls on the great lakes system.


Reynold Rapp: I do not want to be repetitious, Mr. Speaker, but I feel I would be remiss in my duty if I did not speak on this matter of raising tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway. This proposal is made at a time when our farmers are caught in the price squeeze and when they are receiving less and less for their products. This threatened increase amounts to
May 26. 1966

Seaway and Canal Tolls about a cent and a half per bushel on the grain that is shipped through the St. Lawrence ports. On the other hand, this situation may be an eye opener for some of our farmers, particularly those in northern Saskatchewan who could make much greater use of the Hudson bay route for shipping grain to Europe. St. Lawrence tolls have no effect on grain shipped through Churchill. It is a saving for the grain growers in northern Saskatchewan, and more use should be made of this.
Long before this question came up in the house, I received many letters from my constituents. Every one of them drew my attention to the fact that this proposed increase in tolls would be a hardship on Canadian farmers who must ship their grain through St. Lawrence ports. A few years ago we only had to contend with wheat and flax, but now rapeseed is going through this route. At a time when we want to establish this industry strongly should we be faced with an increase in freight charges which may be a mortal blow to this new grain industry?
I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that you allowed this debate to take place today. It is a very important one and had to take place today for the simple reason that, if it had not, many millions of dollars would have been lost merely because our views would not have been brought strongly to the attention of the government.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Many of the Saskatchewan members stressed this point very strongly, for the simple reason that almost without exception our trade must be carried along the St. Lawrence seaway. I do not want to be repetitious or to delay this matter, because I know other hon. members from the west want to make a strong appeal to the government. I ask that they pay attention to our pleas and see that this increased toll does not come into being. I realize there are some areas of the country which would like to see an increase, but it would be a very serious matter for the western farmer who must ship his grain through the seaway.
I see Mr. Speaker, who made the decision to allow this debate, is now in the chair and I should like to direct my personal thanks to him for allowing us to discuss the matter.
Another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the house is that even though an increase in tolls on the seaway might be requested by the tolls commission, we should never allow matters to reach the point where

the government alone would see fit to increase tolls.
That is all I have to say at the present time. Other members from the west wish to have an opportunity to express their views and the views of the people they represent here in parliament.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in the debate this afternoon the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in his usual fash-tion made an unwarranted attack on the members of the cabinet for, as he claimed, not being present during this important debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Where were they?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, where are they?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) has asked, where are they?


Gordon Minto Churchill: North Centre asked, where are they?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I am about to ask the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, where were the front benchers of the former administration, the members of the cabinet of the former Conservative government, when the right hon. gentleman was speaking? Not one of those former cabinet ministers was sitting in the front benches. Significantly absent was the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) and a number of others who certainly should have been interested in this important debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member has lost two cabinet ministers while he has been speaking. They walked out on him.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: There was a noticeable lack of western members on the front benches, and that cannot be denied. Furthermore the members of the opposition were forewarned that this debate was about to take place. However, members of the cabinet had made other commitments-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member said that members of the opposition were forewarned that this debate would take place. You, sir, had nothing at all to do with that. You did not tell us in advance. In fact, you took us by surprise.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I will have
unquestionably to accept the statement by the hon. member. However, you will bear with
May 26, 1966	COMMONS
me if there are some lingering doubts in my mind on this question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is a reflection on the Chair.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It was not my intention to argue extensively the question whether tolls should be increased or whether there should be tolls of any description on the St. Lawrence river and its related facilities. However,
I think it has been pointed out this afternoon by a number of speakers, and in particular by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner), that this development was the result of an international agreement which was finalized by acts of parliament and by Congress.
I should like to quote the words of a former minister of transport, the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees), when he answered a question in the house on November 7, 1957, which was posed to him by the then hon. member for Meadow Lake, as reported at page 847 of Hansard:
With respect to the hon. member's reference to a decision to impose tolls, I should perhaps remind the house how this matter came about. It is well known that for many years the executive branch of the United States government was unsuccessful in obtaining approval from Congress for an agreement with Canada for the construction of navigation works in the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river.
Then the hon. member went on to describe the difficulty the President was experiencing in getting this matter to Congress, and he concluded with these words:
Both of these acts provide for the establishment of tolls to make the project self-liquidating.
I think the significant words there, Mr. Speaker, are the words "self-liquidating". This was and is an international agreement. The Leader of the Opposition in this abrogation of international agreements is following a pattern. We have the Columbia river treaty which he failed to consummate. Then there was the treaty on atomic weapons which he failed to carry out. We now have the suggestion that this agreement with the United States be not concluded.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
As I said, it was not my intention to argue one way or another the need for an increase in tolls on the seaway.


Donald MacInnis: We
realize that.
DEBATES	5591
Seaway and Canal Tolls


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 
Edward Nasserden: Would the hon. member permit a question?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Indeed, I would.


Edward Nasserden: Would the hon. member not agree that this is an increase in the cost of production?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: There is no question about that, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the extra charge involves an additional J of a cent per bushel in the delivery charges to Montreal. That is self-evident, and I am surprised that the hon. member asked such a simple question.
My principal reason for entering the debate is because this motion was introduced primarily for the protection, if you will, of the wheat growers of western Canada. It has been said by hon. members taking part in the debate that the government has no transportation policy, and that it has done nothing to assist the western farmers.
Because of the terms of the motion, I want to go somewhat into the history of the movement of wheat from western Canada to the lakehead; from the lakehead to Montreal and, of course, to the Atlantic coast. I point out that under the Liberal regime of the Right Hon. Mackenzie King in 1922, the grain delivery rates were first governed by statute.
Seaway and Canal Tolls


An hon. Member:: Was that 1922?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The then prime minister set up a special committee of the house and the Senate.


An hon. Member:: There was no seaway in 1922.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That committee went into the then existing agreement known as the Crows-nest agreement, which among other things at that time provided that the shipment of grain from western Canada should be at the rate applying in 1897. Until 1922, under the Crows-nest agreement, the freight charges respecting many commodities were not by statute but by agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Included were 13 items which were practically all essential to the western farm community. This agreement to which I have referred applied to all commodities moving westward from the lakehead, while the rate applying to grain was on the eastward movement to the lakehead.
It was determined by the committee set up by Right Hon. Mackenzie King that the Canadian Pacific Railway could not continue to operate under such stringent regulations. In passing, may I point out that this rate applied to the rail lines which had been constructed prior to 1897, being approximately 7,300 miles in length. By 1922 the rate applied to approximately 13,000 miles of railway on the western prairies. It followed, therefore, that the rate could not apply to 7,000 miles of prairie railway, and not equally apply to the other 6,000 miles.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
In the end result the railways were effectually required to make these rates effective on the additional 6,000 miles. The committee found that unless the government were to take over the railway line and operate it on the basis of those rates the company could not carry on. The committee recommended that the C.P.R. should be absolved from carrying the commodities named in the Crowsnest agreement, except in the case of wheat destined for export. This means and meant at the time, that the rate for shipping western Canadian wheat was held at the rate which was in existence in 1897. That of course is where it stands today.
I do not want hon. members to misunderstand me-

May 26. 1966


Gordon Minto Churchill: You want to raise that rate, do you?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I have lived on the prairies myself and my family has lived there for years. I know what the difficulties of farmers are. I simply want to make it plain that this administration and past Liberal administrations have been cognizant of the difficulties inherent in wheat growing in western Canada.
I said earlier that when the great lakes shipping channel was deepened to 27 feet and became operational in 1959, the price of wheat was increased by just under six cents a bushel. The increase now proposed, if it should come into effect, would amount to 4 cents a bushel. I believe the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt) said this would mean some $5 million loss to the western farmers. That is unquestionably a great deal of money but I would ask hon. members to consider with me whether the policy which was adopted by a former Liberal administration and which has, of course, become public policy since, that grain movement in western Canada which sometimes reaches a volume of half a billion bushels a year, moving at a rate which was set in 1897, does not bring some real benefit to the farmers of western Canada.
Take the rate from Lethbridge to Fort William.


An hon. Member:: We do not ship wheat that way.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I am reminded by the hon. member for Assiniboia that we do not ship wheat from Lethbridge to Fort William. This brings up another aspect of the Crowsnest rates which I am sorry I have neglected to relate. The agreement, as the hon. member well knows, provided that these rates should apply to eastern movement only. But after the statutory rates were put into effect in 1922 it became clear that the difficulties of hauling loads over vast mountains were not as great as had been predicted and that grain could move to ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert. And, of course, a market developed in that area. It was therefore decided by government under the guise of the Crowsnest agreement that the same rates should apply to the western movement. Hence the shipments today from Lethbridge to the Pacific coast through the Crowsnest Pass and by way of the Columbia valley to the main line, thence, to Vancouver. This, of course, is another benefit of the initial agreement and

May 26. 1966	COMMONS
the statutory rates which were set in 1922 by a Liberal administration.
I was about to say when I was interrupted that I suspect the cost of shipping grain in Canada today as compared to the rates applying south of the border in the United States would be about one-third of that incurred by our neighbours.
I am not sure of the actual figures but when I inquired into this question some 15 years ago, this proportion applied. As a basis I took the freight charge from Coutts in Alberta to the lakehead. I believe it was 20 cents a bushel on the Canadian side. The comparable distance in the United States was from Sweet Grass, Montana, to Chicago. The rate there was about 60 cents a bushel. This is, of course, a significant differential, so much so that some enterprising American-I was about to say "Yankee" but I do not think that term is a complimentary one-began to purchase wheat in Sweet Grass, truck it to Coutts, ship by rail to the lakehead and from there to Chicago, making a handsome profit of some 35 to 40 cents a bushel. No doubt it would be interesting to hon. members if I were to relate what happened when the C.P.R. attempted to stop this movement by telling this enterprising individual that no cars could be provided. We often hear this complaint from members of the opposition -that cars are not available.


Edward Nasserden: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. My question of privilege is this: I wish to ask when the hon. member intends to deal with the increase in tolls on the seaway. This ancient history concerning freight rates over the years is very interesting, but all we on this side of the house have been able to gather from it is that the Liberal party has changed a great deal since those days.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party changed for the better as time went along and I want to assure the hon. member that the Liberal party has the very highest regard for the western prairie farmer and his problems.


Mr. Baldwin:: It is not reciprocated.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If you just look at the
MacPherson commission report you will find that the public policy of the Crowsnest rates will continue to apply, as recommended. The hon. member has called this ancient history, but I do not think it is ancient history. I believe it is current history. It is important
DEBATES	5593
Seaway and Canal Tolls that these grain rates stay at a relatively low figure so that we can remain in the world market.
The hon. member raised the question of whether or not I was in order. That question need hardly arise, Mr. Speaker. Your Honour had the pleasure this afternoon of hearing the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) quote extensively from a report by Knowlton Nash, in the May 28 edition of the Financial Post, dealing with matters completely extraneous to the question of wheat movement which, after all, is the matter that is before the house, involving an increase in the cost of delivering wheat to Montreal of something like 1J cents per bushel.
The Leader of the Opposition I submit went much further afield than I have. I am dealing essentially with the question of the rates on grain and whether or not the charges that have been made by members of the opposition, that the Liberal party does not have a policy with respect to freight movement and gives no thought to the western farmers, are correct.
When I was so rudely interrupted-I retract that statement because I have a high regard for the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden)-when I was so interestingly interrupted I was about to recall that the box car controller in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company at that time told these enterprisers that the company was unable to supply the box cars required for the movement of wheat from Montana to Chicago, but could provide them with cattle cars only. The company did not reckon with the ingenuity of one enterpriser in Montana who took delivery of the cattle cars, simply lined them with three ply, and went on about his business making something like 30 cents a bushel in the transaction.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the motion deals with the question of increased costs of producing and marketing a bushel of wheat. There is no doubt that other commodities will suffer in proportion. I do not have the figures of the proposed increased cost per ton on iron ore. If they are in the same proportion to the cost of moving a ton of wheat, then I hesitate to believe the suggestion that iron ore from Quebec and Labrador will be going over another route to New York and on into the industrial heart of the United States by rail.
There is no question but that the lowest possible shipping costs are obtained by movement on water, even though some lockage charges may be involved. I do not have all of
May 26, 1966

Seaway and Canal Tolls the evidence that was placed before the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority in its recent hearings. Perhaps some hon. members who have spoken today have had the benefit of reading some of the briefs that were presented, but I personally have not. I think we should wait until we hear the report of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, and when it has made its recommendations to the cabinet I am sure the government will act in the best interests of all Canada, and that includes the wheat growers of western Canada.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the one remarkable statement I heard from the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) was his expression of the high regard which the Liberal party had for the farmers of western Canada. I say that the good people of Canada should pause once in a while to see how fortunate it was for Canada that the farmers of western Canada do not have the same regard for the Liberal party. Today has been a pretty good illustration of that.
While this issue involves far more than the western farmers-and it does affect them intimately-we have had an illustration of member after member from the west rising, and with golden words of wisdom which, looking at the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner) I am afraid fell on stony ears, indicating the reasons why this proposed increase in tolls should not be put into effcet.
The hon. member for Kootenay East said something about there being no member from western Canada in the chamber at one time. As one member from western Canada I should like to say I was attending the public accounts committee to salvage something out of the pitiful mess of overpayments, extravagance and waste flowing from the actions of the government. Now I come back to this chamber and find that our efforts are going to waste because the Minister without Portfolio, on behalf of the government, is going to impose this additional sum of money on the overburdened taxpayers of the country, either directly or indirectly.


John Napier Turner: That is not what I said at all.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: I consider it is significant that the hon. member who just sat down did not in one sentence, if I heard him correctly-and we will look to see whether we can glean some golden nuggets tomorrow-indicates in any way his support for the position

taken by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner). There stands the minister like Horatio at the bridge, only for a very much worse cause. He is the only man who has seen fit to stand up and support this nefarious program of increased tolls. I say to the minister, after listening to what has been said on this side, that if he had tears surely he would be prepared to shed them now, but I doubt after the long list of errors, accidents and mistakes which have come from the government over there that he has any tears left.
In dealing with the issue for one moment, I should like to say that I would not have spoken at all had I looked across at the minister and seen some capability of bending or some indication that he is prepared to accede to these very reasonable requests. As I read the St. Lawrence seaway legislation I find it is very vague and ambiguous to some extent; but when the minister suggested earlier this afternoon that there might have been or could have been access to the Board of Transport Commissioners, I suggest this is entirely wrong. As it stands now, if under section 17 the tolls are imposed by the Canadian government acting through the seaway authority in conjunction with the government of the United States, through its corporate emanation, sections 15 and 16 have no application at all, and so far as the tolls established with regard to the deep water construction are concerned there is no opportunity for the Board of Transport Commissioners to function. But if they did function with regard to other tolls which were set, it would not be by way of hearing and appeal.
I may have misunderstood the minister, but in discussing what was said in 1958 by Mr. Chevrier at the time the announcement was made by the minister of transport, he made the suggestion that Mr. Chevrier had indicated this. I say this is not the case. Even if it were, all that the Board of Transport Commissioners can do is to consider the question of discrimination. The question of discrimination as applied to the Board of Transport Commissioners has had a long history. The board cannot consider the economic consequences but, as between two individuals or two corporations whose goods are being carried by this particular carrier, it can come to a decision in respect of whether or not there has been discrimination.
I think it is quite wrong to suggest that any time, under the legislation which was
May 26, 1966

brought in in 1951 by the then Liberal government, there could have been any opportunity for the Board of Transport Commissioners, in respect of the tolls, to do other than deal with the question of discrimination. I think this is what they are limited to. Quite recently in the public accounts committee we had the opportunity to have some of the officials of the seaway appear before us. I am not in a position to quote from the report of the committee, but I can act as a pipeline and give some of the impressions I received as a result of what was said. The tolls were established as a result of a projection made by a tolls committee which was set up I believe in 1957. This committee considered the matter. It was a joint committee established by the United States and Canadian governments. It made certain estimates as to the possible revenue and projected expenses. Their recommendation was made to the two governments and the tolls were then set. Since that time it has been discovered that this projection was so far out that over a period of years from the time the seaway came into operation there has been a shortfall of some $32 million.
Today it is proposed that the new tolls be established as a result of a projected economic review made by another committee. What is there in this projection for us to accept as assurance that their estimate will be any more accurate than that of the committee which made its report in 1958? It is suggested that this increase of 10 per cent in five or six years somehow will result in there being equalization of the expenses and the tolls. I doubt this very much. In the last few years, with an expanding economy it has been impossible to make the tolls meet the cost of operation and the interest charges which, under the act, must be taken into consideration.
Under these circumstances I suggest the sensible thing would be for the government to urge the seaway authority not to project these additional tolls at this time but rather to let the matter be delayed so that the whole issue may be brought into parliament and considered in connection with an over-all transportation policy for the good of Canada. I would suggest that this is a matter for this house, for parliament, and not for the government or any crown corporation. The proper thing to do is to put a stop to this proposal. Let us continue under the same rates which have been in effect, and then let the whole matter come to parliament to receive proper 23033-355
Proceedings on Ajournment Motion discussion so that we may be able to reach a proper decision.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being ten o'clock I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members citation 100 paragraph 12 of Beauchesne's fourth edition:
The debate on the urgent matter referred to in standing order 26 cannot be adjourned, as the motion actually before the chair is "that the house do now adjourn". Once the house rises, the motion is carried.
Normally, according to the standing order I should leave the chair now, but I believe I should bring to the attention of hon. members that there is a long list of questions which are pending now for the adjournment debate. If hon. members wish to give unanimous consent that the Speaker do not leave the chair at this moment, the three questions which have been placed on the program for the adjournment debate could be heard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, may I state the business for tomorrow. We will begin with an interim supply bill for one month. Then we will proceed to the estimates of the Department of Labour, the Department of Industry, the Department of Defence Production, Legislation and the Privy Council.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In that order?


George James McIlraith: Yes.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday of last week I raised the question concerning immigrants in Canada who are forced to take menial work although they have professional qualifications. My question arose from an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of Thursday, May 19, headed, "Graduate Becomes Sweeper." The article pointed out that university trained, professional men and women from Europe are working in Canada as dishwashers, labourers and technicians because professional associations will not accept
May 26. 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion their credentials. The article says that an Ontario Welfare Council discussion group was told this in Toronto. The article gives some examples to this effect and continues: Zlata Bartol of the Family Service Association said she knows of New Canadians with double doctorates who have been forced to work in the woods. She said universities have refused admittance for qualifying or refresher courses.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I do not know whether the charges made in this article are true, but this is not the point in my participating in this adjournment debate. We have heard of many cases of this type in the past and my concern is that in view of the serious shortage of skilled professionals in Canada, the acknowledged shortage of the people who are so vital to keep our employment going, it is incumbent upon the department of manpower to look into these charges to see whether they are true. If they are true and people with special training and qualifications are being prevented from using their talents in this country, it is certainly a most serious matter and one that calls for an investigation on the part of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I should like to quote from an editorial that appeared the following day in the Globe and Mail. The heading of this editorial is, "A Waste" and it says:
Immigrants with degrees from European universities are often reduced to working as dishwashers, labourers and lumberjacks-
Then it goes on to say:
According to Mr. Sametz, immigrants who go through some suffering to regain their professional status benefit by feeling a sense of achievement-
Then Mr. Sametz made this great comment: -some people make it, but some have been broken in the process.
The editorial continues:
Good stem stuff and straight from the shoulder. What would be better for a doctor or an engineer than a few tough years in the bush? Indeed, the idea might well be extended to include the graduates of Canadian universities. No doubt that some suffering would also increase their sense of achievement.
I do not know whether you need this kind of suffering to increase the sense of achievement, but I do know there is a serious shortage of skilled people. We have asked immigrants to come to this country and I would certainly hope we would honour their credentials and enable them to perform the functions for which they were trained, not only for their own sake but for the benefit of this country. I would ask whoever is to speak [Mr. Saltsman.l
for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to provide an answer as to why these charges have not been investigated in the past, and also what the department intends to do about some of the charges that are being made today.


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we have noted the comments of the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman). The Globe and Mail article to which he referred does not, of course, mention names. The effort can be made, and will be made, by the department to ascertain the names of the people who are referred to but are not named in the article. I think the hon. member and the house should bear in mind, though, that this happens in respect of a relatively small minority of immigrants who come to this country. Even if it is a limited few, I agree we should do everything possible to avoid its occurrence.
The hon. member is no doubt also aware that recognition for professional qualifications is under the jurisdiction of provincial licensing bodies. Immigration officials overseas have comprehensive information on the requirements which must be met in each province for entry into all of the major professions and skilled trades, and immigrants are given thorough counselling about the difficulties they are likely to encounter if they do not meet these requirements.
Immigration officers overseas are instructed to give this type of information, to warn of difficulties in this regard, and I do believe they sincerely undertake that task. They are also given direction to enable the immigrants to find out the chances of meeting the requirements directly from the appropriate licensing body. Again I would remind the hon. member that this falls under provincial jurisdiction.
Professional people, even those who are likely to have difficulty in obtaining recognition in Canada, can normally qualify for admission as immigrants by reason of their general education and the availability of employment opportunities for persons with training related to their professional field. Such persons cannot be refused admission, but they are informed overseas that they must expect either to have to take further training before being accepted into a professional association in Canada, or be willing to accept alternative employment outside of their profession.
May 26, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	5597
The Globe and Mail article mentions misinformation given by immigration officials about housing in Toronto. We do not want to make any particular reference to that tonight, other than to say that this is information given by immigration officials which is usually obtained from the Department of Labour publication "Living and Working Conditions in Canada", which the department has always found to be extremely reliable.



INDUSTRY-BEAVERTON, ONT.-CLOSING OF AUTO PARTS PLANT

Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria (Ont.)):: My
question to the minister of manpower is as follows: Would the minister inform the house if he has received a telegram from Mr. Benson, international representative of the United Automobile Workers of America, in respect of the shut-down of Lake Simcoe Industries at Beaverton, Ontario, and if so what action will be taken to alleviate this serious situation set out in the telegram?
Lake Simcoe Industries is a small auto parts manufacturing firm owned by Attwood Vacuums of Rockford, Illinois. This industry employed directly approximately 225 people, and indirectly many more, such as transport employees, outside tool and die makers, as well as contributing largely to the economic life of this small community whose population is around 1,200 people. Its employees were both male and female, with many ranging from 45 to 60 years of age. These older people find it very hard to relocate in jobs of the nature to which they have been accustomed for the past 13 years while working for Lake Simcoe Industries, which has become a casualty of the free trade agreement in autos and auto parts.
A group of key personnel of this factory formed a company and endeavoured to purchase the now existing plant. In this effort they contributed a considerable amount of their own capital and applied to the Adjustment Assistance Board for a loan. This application was refused. They are now left in a situation where there is no possibility of this plant's carrying on operations after June of this year.
I request the minister to give consideration to this telegram sent by Mr. Benson and to
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion use all the facilities in his department to assist these people to find suitable alternative employment.


John Carr Munro: The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Scott) may be happy to hear certain facts which may allay his fears. Our information is that the major layoff is due to commence on June 13. In accordance with arrangements made earlier 182 employees, 92 male and 90 female, were registered for employment on May 9 and 10. Of these 132 have indicated they could travel to new employment. The applications of 126 of these employees, 74 male and 52 female, are currently under consideration for comparable jobs at Lindsay, which is within commuting distance of Beaverton. Other employment is also reported in prospect in the Parry Sound and Peterborough areas.
Following the official announcement of the impending closure of Lake Simcoe Industries on April 29, an officer of the regional office of the National Employment Service at Toronto met with Mr. Benson, the international representative, Canadian region, of the United Automobile Workers to discuss the arrangements that were being made to assist the workers, and the prospect of alternative employment with firms in nearby areas. The possibility of employment with these firms is being actively canvassed on behalf of the Lake Simcoe employees.
I think the information I have just given should be quite encouraging so far as most of these workers, if not all, are concerned. Certainly there is hope of a great number of them finding alternative employment within commuting distance of their present residence. The hon. member would be pleased also to learn that Mr. Benson is meeting with the minister, I believe this month, and it appears likely as a result of the work being done by the government that those workers prejudicially affected will be brought under the transitional assistance benefits program.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.15 p.m.
5599

Friday, May 27, 1966