1967-01-23

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

Mr. Allard: 1.	Referring to the answer to question No. 1,935, who is or are the person or persons or the association or associations from Sherbrooke or elsewhere who made representations for the appointment of Mr. Denis Proteau as returning officer for the electoral district of Sherbrooke?
2.	What are the necessary qualifications which were considered for the appointment of Mr. Denis Proteau?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: 1. No records are being kept of any representations made.
2.	The usual qualifications required by the law.


CULTURAL AND INFORMATION AGREEMENTS WITH NATO COUNTRIES
Mr. Irvine: 1.	With which NATO member countries has Canada reached bilateral cultural and information agreements and which fields do these agreements cover?
2.	Where there are no such agreements or limited agreements only, what is Canada's policy in the following fields (a) exchanges of cultural programs (theatres, films, television exhibitions) (b) exchanges of students-number planned-exchange procedure (c) exchanges of teachers and research workers-number planned-exchange procedure (fellowship) (d) equivalence of diplomas-system used and future plans (e) exchange of young workers-numbers-procedure used (f) exchanges through leisure activities-holiday camps-travel?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned: 1. The only country with which Canada has signed a general cultural agreement is France. This agreement which was signed on November 17, 1965, covers the fields of academic, scientific, technical and cultural exchanges. In 1963 Canada and France signed an agreement on the co-production of films.
The government's policy, now that a general cultural agreement has been signed with
France, is to develop cultural programs and explore the possibilities of entering into similar cultural agreements with a number of other countries, many of which are members of NATO, particularly those from which substantial groups in the population of Canada have come. However, because of the cultural heritage English speaking Canada shares with Britain and the U.S.A., our cultural relations with these countries are characterized by informality and it has not been felt necessary to have them formalized through agreements.
2.	Where no agreement exists, the initiative is left entirely to public and private organizations of a cultural or educational character such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the National Film Board, the Canada Council, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, etc.


CANADIAN CULTURAL ACTIVITIES UNDER NATO
Mr. Irvine: What part Is being played by Canada in the cultural field, with regard to member countries of NATO, by private cultural associations (a) of a general nature (b) of a more specifically Atlantic nature?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Numerous Canadians of European origin, many of whom have come from countries which are members of NATO, seek to maintain cultural links with their European home country. There are consequently an enormous number of private cultural associations in Canada which have as their main purpose the pursuit of cultural relations and exchanges with countries of Europe including NATO countries. In addition there are Canadian associations with a wide range of interests and activities which have international connections. Because of the similarities of Canadian background and traditions with the countries of western Europe and the United States, by far the greater part of the international connections of these associations are with the countries of the Atlantic area.
The activities of the very large number of associations involved are their own concern. Since they are not subject to governmental supervision, reports on their activities are not made to the government.
12G8S

January 23, 1967
Questions


NATO RECOMMENDATIONS RESPECTING CULTURE
Mr. Irvine: Were recommendations concerning NATO and culture, issued in 1964, transmitted to Canada and, if so, what response was given by Canadian authorities to these recommendations?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Stale for External Affairs: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned: The recommendations concerning NATO and culture which, it is assumed are those adopted by the NATO parliamentarians' conference of 1964, were transmitted to the Canadian government. Such recommendations do not call for an official response. However, it should be noted that the proposals made by the conference correspond, by and large, to the government's policy in this field.


CULTURAL AGREEMENTS WITH UNCOMMITTED COUNTRIES
Mr. Irvine: 1.	With which uncommitted countries has Canada established cultural agreements, bilateral and/or multilateral?
2.	What are the general subjects of these agreements with regard to (a) technical aid for education (b) number of experts lent (c) establishments built or run (d) expenditure (e) field of application (primary, university, technical) (f) cultural exchanges (theatre groups, exhibitions) (g) students from uncommitted countries received in Canada-number-breakdown by subject studied (h) teachers and research workers from uncommitted countries received in Canada (i) young workers invited as trainees (j) young people received through spare time activities, holiday camps, sports meetings?
3.	What are the activities, in this field, of private associations (a) of a general nature (b) of a more specifically Atlantic nature?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned: The information relating to this question is contained in my answers to question Nos. 2,253 and 2,254.


CANADIAN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS OPERATING IN U.S.
Mr. Reid: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, what Canadian financial institutions have operations in the United States and for what length of time have they operated in the United States?
2.	What types of operation do these Canadian financial institutions carry on in the United States and how do they differ from their operations in Canada?

3.	What are the United States federal and state regulations governing the operation of foreign financial institutions in the United States?


Hon. Milchell Sharp (Minisier of Finance):: 1.	Canadian banks and insurance companies which, to the knowledge of the inspector general of banks and the superintendent of insurance, have operations in the United States, are listed in table I, attached.
2.	See table II, attached.
3.	Foreign banks operating in the United States do so under the state banking laws and regulations of the states in which they operate.
The activities of foreign insurance companies in the United States are regulated by the insurance laws of each state in which the company operates. The regulations are essentially similar to those in Canada. Companies are required to file annual statements, to maintain assets in the United States, to cover their United States liabilities, and are subject to examination by state supervisory officials.
Table I
Five Canadian banks have banking offices and/or representatives located in the United States. These are:
Bank Bank of Montreal Bank of Nova Scotia Toronto-Dominion Bank
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Royal Bank of Canada
The following Canadian registered insurance companies transacted fire and casualty insurance in the United States during 1965:
Approximate year commenced operations in United
Company	States
British America Assurance
Co.	1874
British Northwestern
Insurance Co.	1954
Canada Health and Accident
Assurance	Corporation	1961
Approximate year commenced operations in United States
These banks, or earlier banks which have merged with them at some stage, have been operating in the United States for many years, in some cases for more than 100 years.
January 23, 1967

The Canadian Indemnity
Company	1930
Canadian Reinsurance Company	1959
Consolidated Fire and Casualty Insurance Company	1960
Co-operative Fire and Casualty Co.	1960
Elite Insurance Company	1955
Federal Fire Insurance Co.
of Canada	1960
Fidelity Insurance Company
of Canada	1957
The Globe Indemnity Company of Canada	1928
Gore Mutual Insurance Company	1937
The Great Eastern Insurance Company	1953
The Guarantee Co. of North America	1881
The Hudson Bay Insurance
Company	1937
The London and Lancashire Guarantee and Accident Company of Canada	1963
Merit Insurance Company	1964
The Pacific Coast Fire
Insurance Co.	1926
Quebec Assurance Company	1965
Security National Insurance Company	1960
Victoria Insurance Company
of Canada	1965
Wellington Fire Insurance
Company	1960
The Western Assurance
Company	1874
The following Canadian registered insurance companies transacted life insurance and personal accident and sickness insurance in the United States during 1965:
Approximate year commenced operation in United Company	States
Alliance Mutual Life Insurance Co.	1919
The Canada Life Assurance
Company	1926
Questions
Canadian Reassurance Co.
(A &	S	only)	1961
Confederation Life Association	1926
Crown Life Insurance Company	1924
The Dominion Life Assurance	Company	1930
The Excelsior Life Insurance Company (A & S only)	1964
The Great-West Life Assurance Co.	1906
The Imperial Life Assurance Co. of Canada	1926
The Manufacturers Life Insurance Co.	1903
The National Life Assurance Co. of Canada	1924
North American Life Assurance Company	1900
The Northern Life Assurance Co. of Canada	1936
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada	1895
The Western Life Assurance
Company	1959
Table II
Operations of Canadian banks in the United States are carried out through the following channels:	1. "Subsidiaries" which are incorporated under state banking laws, can accept deposits and engage in trust activities. They must in general conform to the same requirements as other banks in the same state. 2. "Branches" which are licensed under state banking laws, can accept deposits and must maintain a surplus of assets over liabilities. 3. "Agencies" which primarily handle financial transactions arising out of trade between Canada and the U.S. and make money market loans and investments in the U.S. for the parent bank. They also engage in foreign exchange business. In general they are not permitted to accept deposits or to exercise trust powers. They are not required to maintain cash reserves.
4.	"Representatives" who are persons located in the U.S. who are not authorized to enter into actual banking transactions, but who facilitate banking transactions through correspondent banks and who develop and protect the parent banks' interests.
In Canada the banks do not carry out trust functions but engage in a wider range of banking activities than in their U.S. operations.

January 23, 1967
Questions
The insurance companies listed in table 1 transact the business of insurance, although a number of the companies accept reinsurance of United States business only and do not maintain offices in that country. There is no basic difference from their operations in Canada.


STAFF OF BOARD OF BROADCAST GOVERNORS
Mr. Reid: 1.	What is the size of the staff complement of the Board of Broadcast Governors as of December 6, 1966?
2.	How are members of the staff appointed?
3.	What is the basis of their salary scale?
4.	How many of the B.B.G. staff are engaged in research in (a) radio (b) television programming (c) television technical research (d) educational television (ETV) (e) community antenna television systems (CATV)?
5.	How many of the B.B.G. staff are engaged in regulating private and public radio stations and private and public television stations?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Board of Broadcast Governors as follows: 1. Including the three permanent members of the board, the authorized staff effective December 6, 1966, is 44.
2.	By the Civil Service Commission.
3.	The grade of each position is set by the bureau of classification revision of the Civil Service Commission. The salary range of each grade is set by the Treasury Board.
4.	Within the current establishment of the board, each member of the staff becomes involved from time to time in some aspect of each activity of the board.
5.	44.


USE OF GOVERNMENT FACILITIES BY BROADCAST GOVERNORS
Mr. Reid: 1.	Does the Board of Broadcast Governors use the functions and/or facilities of the federal government or any provincial government to any purpose and, if so, what are these purposes and what are the functions performed and/or facilities provided by the federal government or any provincial government?
2.	Does the Board of Broadcast Governors use the functions and/or facilities of universities or foundations for any purposes and what are the functions performed and/or facilities provided by these institutions?
3.	Does the Board of Broadcast Governors commission special studies relating to its duties as set out by parliament to private individuals or to private organizations and, if so, how many of such studies have been commissioned since the board was established, and what subjects have these studies investigated?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Board of Broadcast Governors as follows: 1. The Department of Transport has the responsibility for the technical operation and technical standards of broadcasting stations. The technical adviser of the board is in constant touch with the transport department on technical matters. The board uses the services of the Civil Service Commission and of the Treasury Board; and has used the data processing services of the Department of National Revenue.
2.	No.
3.	Yes, seven studies are now in process.
These are studies in connection with
E.T.V., study of library and documentation services, study of the market areas in which one television service only is being offered regarding costs of introducing and maintaining two services and of the advertising revenue which might be available; study on the possible use of computers as a management-information service for the board; to review and analyse the financial operating results of the privately owned Canadian television stations and C.T.V. network: Study on multiple ownership; study of monitoring processes.


DEDUCTION FROM WAGE ARREARS BY RAILWAY COMPANIES
Mr. Allard: Are the railway companies withholding 15 per cent of the 18 per cent raise for arrears, plus deductions for the government and company pension plans and, if so, is this 15 per cent deduction justified under the Income Tax Act as it relates to individuals?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: The railway companies are withholding 15 per cent of the dollar amount of the 18 per cent retroactive pay increase in addition to deductions for the government and company pension plans. This is justified and in accordance with the relevant income tax acts and regulations.


MOTOR CAR PRICE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN CANADA AND U.S.
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has the government taken or is it taking any act to remove the price differential, reported to be as much as $3,000 on the more expensive models, between similar cars sold in the U.S.A. and in Canada and, if so, what action?
2.	Are cars manufactured in Canada sold at a lower price in the U.S.A. than they are in Canada
January 23, 1967

and, If so (a) for what reason (b) who benefits from the extra cost of the ones sold in Canada?
3.	Are cars manufactured in the U.S.A. sold at a lower price in the U.S.A. than they are in Canada and, if so (a) for what reason (b) who benefits from the extra cost of the ones sold in Canada?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1.	Traditionally there has been a sizeable price differential between similar cars sold in the United States and in Canada. This situation arose because of the fact that the market for motor vehicles is much larger in the United States than in Canada. Consequently, vehicle manufacturers in the United States were able to realize the economies of large scale production and specialization. On the other hand, because of the limited size of the Canadian market, it was not possible to specialize and costs and prices reflected the disadvantages of shorter production runs in Canada.
The government has taken positive steps to substantially reduce the differential in prices between Canada and the United States. One of the central features of the Canada-United States automotive agreement has been the elimination of the tariff barriers which prevented Canadian companies from gaining access to wider markets. Consequently, Canadian companies are now able to rationalize production and achieve significant increases in growth and efficiency. Although differentials in prices still exist, progress achieved under the automotive program has already resulted in a very significant reduction of these differentials.
In 1965, prices of volume models of motor vehicles made in Canada were reduced and the average level of the price differential was diminished from 8 per cent to less than 5 per cent. In 1966, the differentials were again reduced. As the economies of volume production are more fully realized, it is anticipated that the forces of competition will bring about a further diminution of the remaining price differentials.
2.	If the Canadian companies wish to export their vehicles to the United States, they must sell at a competitive price in that market, otherwise they would have to forego the extensive exports which have been made possible by the automotive program. The loss of these exports would, in turn, reverse the rationalization which has taken place in Canada and could result in an increase in costs and prices in this country. The terms and conditions of sales of Canadian made vehicles in other countries are, of course, private commercial transactions between sellers and buyers. Prices in these markets, which may vary
Questions
considerably depending on local market conditions, are determined by competitive forces in the particular area.
Although costs and prices have been substantially reduced in Canada, it has not yet been possible to realize the full cost benefits of increased production and rationalization. It is doubtful that anyone benefits from the remaining higher costs of production in Canada.
3.	International price comparisons, to be meaningful and valid, have to be based on an examination of actual sales under identical or very similar conditions. In the case of automobiles sold in Canada and the United States it is exceedingly difficult to find such closely comparable actual transactions. There are a number of factors which influence and determine the levels of prices and which have differential effects in the two countries. One of the most obvious is the rate of exchange between the currencies of the two countries. Other factors include variations in transportation costs between the factory and the retailers, the levels of sales tax, which vary from state to state and province to province, dealer margins differ from agency to agency and the range of options normally differs from car to car. Even a single dealer's price for the same model may differ according to the circumstances of a specific sale. It is possible to say, however, that prices of practically all motor vehicles sold in Canada, whether of domestic manufacture or imported, are now much closer to the price levels prevailing in the United States.


EXPO '67-VISITS BY LOW INCOME AND HANDICAPPED PEOPLE
Mr. Basford: 1.	Are provisions being made to permit people with low incomes, or those having large families, to visit Expo '67?
2.	What plans is Expo making to permit handicapped people to visit the exhibition?


Mr. Jean-Charles Caniin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. Expo Express, which is an electric train capable of carrying up to 30,000 passengers an hour, is free and visitors can travel on this train as long and as often as they wish.
Entrance to all pavilions, including all theme exhibits, is free. This also includes national pavilions and those sponsored by private participants. There is no charge to see

January 23, 1967
Questions
the various displays. The Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition is sponsoring free entertainment in the band shells and plazas which are located at strategic points in the various sectors. There are six Expo service areas where food and drink can be purchased at controlled and reasonable rates. There are also three large parks with tables and benches where visitors can have picnics and bring their own food and drinks.
2. Provision has been made for a special transportation system for persons in wheel chairs to be used in place of the free of charge Expo Express. The majority of the pavilions and restaurants are equipped with ramps and will thus be easily accessible to wheel chairs. Where possible, Expo '67 projects have adhered to the national building code for the handicapped which provides exterior ramps, interior ramps or elevators, rest room facilities and so forth. A list of accessible areas will be issued in the official guide book. Wheel chairs may be rented in several locations.
Sponsorship is presently being requested for a Braille map of the site to familiarize blind visitors to their surroundings before and during their visit.


PERSONAL INCOME TAX, 1965
Mr. Maiher: What, In 1965, was the total in dollars of personal income tax?


Edgar John Benson: Tax collection figures are maintained on a fiscal year basis. For the fiscal year April 1, 1965, to March 31, 1966, inclusive, the total personal income tax revenue, net of refunds, was $3,166,638,662. This amount includes federal income tax of $2,142,510,735, old age security tax of $494,900,000 and provincial income tax of $529,227,927.


DEFENCE EXPENDITURES, 1965
Mr. Mather: What, in 1965, was the total in dollars of defence expenditures?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Defence expenditures for the fiscal year 1965-66 amounted to $1,548,446,784.
[Mr. CantinJ


C.N.R. SALARIES TO MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL STAFF
Mr. Godin: In 1965, what salaries were paid by the Canadian National Railways to (a) the 4,764 members of the management and supervising staff (b) the 3,003 professional and technical assistants?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: The total figures which are derived from those contained in "Part VI (Employment Statistics) of Railway Transport" published annually by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics are as follows: (a) $37,973,939; (b) $21,177,518.


REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES OF C.N.R. EMPLOYEES
Mr. Godin: 1.	Has the Canadian National Railways ceased to record expenses for which its employees seek reimbursement?
2.	If so (a) in what year (b) is it the company's intention to re-establish a records section for this purpose?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. and 2. No. See also answer to question No. 1,887 in Hansard of October 5, 1966, page 8,334.


CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, PENAL INSTITUTION SPRINGHILL, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the original amount of the contract awarded to the Foundation Company for the construction of the young offender's penal institution at Springhill, Nova Scotia?
2.	Was a clause included in the contract to the Foundation Company as to a completion date and, if so, what was the completion date stipulated?
3.	What has been the total amount paid to the Foundation Company to date and if this is in excess of the original amount, for what purpose were the additional monies paid?
4.	Has the problem associated with the supplying of water to the institution been solved and, if so, what agreement has been reached and with whom for the supplying of water to the institution?
5.	Who constructed the fence around the institution, what was the original cost of constructing this fence, how much damage was done to the fence by the recent storm, who has assumed responsibility for repairing the damage, and what is the cost of repairing the damage?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: 1. $8,890,800.
2. Yes, May 9, 1966.
January 23, 1367

3.	$8,825,438.67.
4.	No.
5.	Foundation Maritime Limited at a cost of $99,000. An investigation is under way to ascertain the extent of damage, responsibility and cost of repairs.


SHARED COST HIGHWAY PROJECTS, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Jamieson: 1.	How many shared-cost highway projects were
active in Nova Scotia in 1966 under (a) the trans-Canada highway agreement (b) the Atlantic Development Board agreement No. 1	(c) the
Atlantic Development Board agreement No. 2?
2.	What is the total value of these projects?
3.	What is the estimated value of the work done
in 1966 under (a) the trans-Canada highway agreement (b) the Atlantic development agreement No. 1	(c) the Atlantic development agreement
No. 2?
4.	What is the estimated total of Canada's share of the cost of the work done in 1966 under each of these agreements?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Public Works and Transport as follows: 1. (a) 64, (b) 11, (c) 14.
2.	Trans-Canada highway, $33,823,103, Atlantic Development Board agreement No. 1, $5,842,650, Atlantic Development Board agreement No. 2, $9,513,088.
3.	(a) $18,812,500. (b) $2,365,037. (c) $4,506,089.
4.	Trans-Canada highway, $16,931,250, Atlantic Development Board agreement No. 1, $1,182,518, Atlantic Development Board agreement No. 2, $2,253,045.


POPULATION OF YELLOWKNIFE, N. W. T.
Mr. Laprise: What is the present population of Yellowknife?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The preliminary count of the 1966 census of Canada shows a population of 3,674 for the town of Yellowknife.


GANDER AIRPORT-CONTRACT OF COMMERCIAL CATERERS
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Do Commercial Caterers Ltd. pay to the government or any agency thereof any part of their employees' rent in houses at the Gander Airport, and, if so, what amount of the monthly rent?
Questions
2.	What is the time period contained in the present contract of Commercial Caterers Ltd. with the Department of Transport at Gander Airport?
3.	Is this contract on a cost plus basis?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes. Employees of Commercial Caterers pay rent to C.M.H.C. calculated on a percentage of their salary as follows: 20 per cent of the first $3,000 of annual salary, and 30 per cent of annual salary in excess of $3,000. When the rent so calculated is not sufficient to cover the economic rent of the unit occupied Commercial Caterers pays the difference. The average monthly rental subsidy per employee paid by Commercial Caterers is $33.14.
2.	Five years, May 12, 1964 to May 11, 1969.
3.	No. Commercial Caterers is paid a management fee. The company pays all expenses and turns over to the department each month all revenue in excess of expenses.


RELATIONS BETWEEN FEDERAL AND QUEBEC EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
Mr. Godin: Will the Canadian Manpower Centre offices have official relations with the Quebec provincial employment offices?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary fo Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Canada Manpower Centres maintain working relations with several departments and agencies of the provincial governments. In Quebec, these working relations are with the Department of Education, the Department of Family and Social Welfare, the Department of Labour, the Eastern Quebec Planning Bureau, and other agencies.
Similar relations are also maintained with the Quebec Provincial Employment Offices as the need arises.


DISTRIBUTION OF NEW ZEALAND BUTTER
Mr. Godin: By what Canadian companies will the butter now being imported from New Zealand be distributed, and what was the purchase price of that product?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: The butter will be distributed by the Canadian Dairy Commission to firms in need of supplies at the same price as Canadian butter. It is not considered to be in the interest of the commercial operations of the Canadian Dairy Commission to disclose the price at which this butter was purchased.

January 23. 1967
Questions


PURCHASE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NEW ZEALAND BUTTER
Mr. Howe (Wellinglon-: Huron):
1.	Did the newly established Dairy Commission purchase the 2,240,000 lbs. of butter from New Zealand directly or through an agent and, if through an agent, who was the agent and was he acting on his own behalf or for a Canadian company?
2.	Will this butter be brought into Canada duty free and, if not, what is the duty?
3.	Will this butter be labelled to indicate that it is imported from New Zealand?
4.	Will this butter be sold to the consumer at the same price as Canadian butter?
5.	Was this action taken because of the decrease in butter production?
6.	Will the government consult with the cream producers before announcing the dairy policy for 1967, in order that this segment of the dairy industry will receive returns equal to all other dairy farmers?


John James Greene: 1. The butter is being purchased by the Canadian Dairy Commission directly from the New Zealand dairy board.
2.	The duty is five cents per pound.
3.	The containers in which the butter is imported will carry a New Zealand designation. There is no requirement for it to be so labelled in print form.
4.	It will be sold to Canadian wholesalers at the same price as that at which Canadian butter is sold by the agricultural stabilization board.
5.	The action was taken to supplement the limited stocks available for sale by the stabilization board to ensure adequate supplies and prevent an escalation of butter prices in the latter part of the winter.
6.	Representations with respect to dairy policy are welcomed from any segment of the dairy industry. Cream' producers now receive identically the same federal subsidy payment per pound of butterfat as is paid to manufacturing milk shippers.


REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, OROMOCTO, N.B.
Mr. MacRae: 1.	Were representations made by any member of the government of the province of New Brunswick to the federal government in the months of May or September, or any other time in the year 1966, relative to elected representation on the board of commissioners of the town of Oromocto?
2.	If so, who made such representations?
3.	If representations were made, what answer was given by the government?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. Yes.
2.	Hon. William Duffle.
3.	The matter is under study.


ENCOURAGEMENT TO CANADIANS TO HOLIDAY IN CANADA
Mr. Laniel: Does the Canadian government travel bureau encourage Canadians to vacation in their own country and, if so, how?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Increased attention is being given to interprovincial travel promotion to encourage Canadians to see more of their own country. This campaign, called "Know Canada Better", is being actively supported by the travel bureau, the provinces and the transportation companies. In particular, federal matching grants totalling $250,000 for provincial advertising expenditures in Canada, which were provided by the travel bureau in 1966-67, are having a decided impact in stimulating travel by Canadians in Canada. During 1967, it is expected that this travel will be unusually large.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What Is the reception procedure for inmates at the prison for women in Kingston?
2.	Where do they go after reception and how is this determined?
3.	(a) On what basis do inmates go to the new building and (b) are new inmates, particularly first offenders, kept apart from inmates who have a long record?
4.	How are behaviour problems met?
5.	(a) When is solitary confinement used and (b) in the past three years, how many of the inmates have been given solidtary confinement, and of those given solitary confinement, how many have been on solitary confinement once, twice, three times, more than three times?
6.	How long can inmates be held in solitary confinement?
7.	Is there a limit on the number of days in a month or a year that an inmate can be held in solitary confinement?
8.	What are the physical facilities in solitary?
9.	Under what circumstances is the mattress removed?
January 23, 1967

10.	In how many cases have mattresses been removed from the cells of inmates in solitary confinement, and what are the facilities for sleeping when the mattresses are removed?
11.	What is the menu in solitary confinement?
12.	Under what circumstances is the menu changed in solitary confinement?
13.	What provision is made for supervision of those in solitary confinement?
14.	Are the senior department officials and prison staff familiar with studies of psychological effects of solitary confinement?
15.	Are any provisions made to help persons in solitary confinement to avoid any harmful psychological effects of complete isolation, as is done at Ontario provincial institutions for women, where special efforts are made to maintain close contact with inmates during their short stay in solitary confinement, and, if so, what are they?
16.	What treatment facilities are available for inmates who are (a) ill physically (b) ill mentally?
17.	(a) Under what conditions are handcuffs used on inmates and (b) in each of the past three years, on how many occasions were handcuffs used on inmates, and in how many cases were handcuffs used on more than one occasion on any inmate?
18.	What kind of clothing does an inmate wear for trips outside of the building while still serving sentence i.e., to court, to see a child?
Return tabled.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister say whether a reply has been made by the government of Canada to the administration in Washington in connection with the Mercantile Bank? At the same time will he advise whether in that communication or in another a protest is being made by the Canadian government to the United States administration against the tightening of rules in respect of the purchase of drugs, whereby Canadian subsidiary corporations engaged in the drug business have been specifically directed that they must not make any sales of drugs which will find their ultimate home in North Viet Nam?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the first question is concerned, it is expected that the reply in question will be considered and dealt with by the cabinet tomorrow, and I hope it will be delivered to the United States government later in the day or on Wednesday morning.
In reply to the second question, the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a statement on
Inquiries of the Ministry this matter on Friday morning, and in the light of the fact made public by the minister at that time in which he emphasized that Canadian companies, whether subsidiary or otherwise, obey only Canadian laws, and as there is no deposition in Washington to quarrel with that statement, I do not think the circumstances require a protest on the part of this government.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister say whether in the two notes received from the United States in connection with the Mercantile Bank matter there was implicit a threat that the proposed acion by the government or parliament of Canada to limit operations of the Mercantile Bank would place the administration of the United States in a position where restrictive or restraining legislation might be introduced in the congress of the United States by way of reprisal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, of course I cannot state to the house what is in the United States note, especially since no reply has been sent to that note as yet, although I hope it will be tomorrow. The publication of the note and the reply would depend on agreement between the two governments. Of course I cannot give any assurance on what the congress of the United States may or may not do in respect of any legislation introduced into that assembly, but I can assure the house that there is nothing in the position we have taken which would warrant any action of the kind suggested as possible by my right hon. friend. Our attitude in that regard is well known by the government of the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have just one more question. Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to a very lengthy article in today's Gazette under the byline of Arch MacKenzie in which it is stated in effect that there is a danger that congress will take this action by way of reprisal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have seen that article and I do not propose to comment on it, because we feel there is no situation which would require any action of that kind by the United States congress or the United States government, and we can only hope and expect that no such action will be taken.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Priftie (Burnaby-Richmond):: In
the absence of the Secretary of State for
12096	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry External Affairs, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Before doing so, may I wonder out loud if the Prime Minister and the cabinet saw the report of the remarks of Mr. Robert Mackenzie to the effect that our question period is much better than that of the British House of Commons.
My question is this. On January 9 I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the Canadian government had received from the Canadian Quakers a request for aid in the shipment of medical supplies to both North and South Viet Nam. I ask now whether that request has been received and what reply has been made.
Righi Hon. L. B. PearsoniPrime Minister):
So far as the first part of the question is concerned, professor Mackenzie lives in London and does not have the privilege of attending this house. I do not know if that might alter his opinion.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs may have received a letter on this point. I will look into it right away.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the well deserved tributes being paid these days to the memory of the late Nik Cavell, I wonder if the government would not agree that this would be a good time to make a substantial increase in Canadian contributions to developing countries.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is not one that can be asked now. It should be placed on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then may I try to phrase it in a different way Mr. Speaker? Can the Prime Minister say whether any statement will be made to the house during this session as to any increase in aid to developing countries planned by the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps Mr. Speaker, you will permit me to say that I do not believe anyone in the house is in a better position to appreciate the distinguished service of Nik Cavell to his country and to developing countries through external aid than I am. I lament, with other members, his loss.

DEBATES	January 23, 1967
So far as the second part of the question is concerned, the government increased our external aid very considerably this year. We aim to reach a total of 1 per cent of the national income within a short period of time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question supplementary to one I asked earlier this afternoon. Could he arrange for the tabling in the house, either by himself or by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, of a document showing the contributions that add up to the 1 per cent of our national income which the Prime Minister says we will be making by way of external aid this year, or very shortly?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the detailed figures of our contributions to external aid during the current year have been made available to the house. If there is anything to be added to what has already been said in the house I shall be glad to put it on the record.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: My question is also directed to the Prime Minister and relates to the proposed visit to Africa by the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Mount Royal. I ask the Prime Minister when he expects a parliamentary association will be established for the French language nations, and what nations would comprise it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt if the question is of an urgent nature, and I suggest the hon. member cannot ask it at this time.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to restate my question and hope it will be acceptable. I ask the Prime Minister simply if his parliamentary assistant is in Africa attempting to form a parliamentary association of French speaking nations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary assistant is visiting a number of capitals in French speaking Africa including Dakar and Tunis, where resident Canadian embassies were opened during 1966. This visit will serve to mark Canadian interest in the further development of bilateral relations with French speaking Africa and will, it is hoped, provide opportunities for informal discussions with
January 23, 1967

African leaders regarding the various proposals put forth in recent months for increased contacts amongst the Francophone countries. My parliamentary assistant will, of course, wish to examine on the spot the progress being achieved in the development of the Canadian aid program in these countries.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's answer can he also tell us whether it is planned for the provinces to participate in the fashion that they participate in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think this question is acceptable.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of Finance. It is twofold in nature. Now that the so-called high powered five nation monetary meeting in Britain has concluded with the recommendation that interest rates on international borrowing should be lowered, could the minister state his own policy regarding the decision of this meeting?
Second, in view of the fact that the group of ten, along with the officials of the world monetary conference, begin their sessions tomorrow, can the minister inform the house what will be the policy of Canada at this meeting?


Mitchell William Sharp: In reply to the first question asked by the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, Canada has welcomed -and I have said this quite specifically-the recent relaxation of credit stringency that has prevailed throughout the world. I think it would be very much in the interests of the world as a whole, including Canada, if interest rates were to be lowered. This is one of the aims of Canadian policy.
In so far as the second question is concerned, our delegates to the group of ten deputies, which include my deputy and the deputy of the governor of the Bank of Canada, I understand will be concerned mainly with questions of international liquidity. Our position in that respect is as I have publicly stated it in this house and otherwise.

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



REQUEST THAT CHAMPIONSHIP SKI PICTURES BE SHOWN IN INTERIOR B.C.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State of Canada based on an urgent telegram from the mayor of Trail, British Columbia, supported by the mayors of all other cities in the interior of British Columbia. In view of the fact that the national ski team including Miss Nancy Greene will be taking part in the du-Maurier championship events being held at Mount Garibaldi on January 28, 29 and 30, and in view of the fact that pictures of this event will be shown to all British Columbia residents in the coastal area after the eleven o'clock news on these days but not in the interior of British Columbia, will the minister bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate officials of the C.B.C. so that arrangements can be made for this very interesting program to be shown on all interior British Columbia T.V. stations?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



APPEARANCE OF MR. VON THADDEN ON PROGRAM &quot;SUNDAY&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether the fact that so important and influential a minister as the Minister of National Health and Welfare appeared on the program "Sunday", at the time when Mr. von Thadden also appeared, is any indication of the approval by cabinet of this gentleman's appearance on C.B.C.
Second, was the question of von Thadden being allowed to appear or not appear considered by the C.B.C. board, and did Maxwell Cohen, a distinguished member of that board, approve of von Thadden's appearance?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, my colleague in health and welfare did not ask me for permission, and neither did the C.B.C., to air what I thought was a very entertaining section of the program last night, if my views are important. Nor, I might say, did anyone ask my permission with respect to broadcasting the rest of the program. I do not know whether the matter was considered by the board of the C.B.C., but I shall be happy to direct an inquiry to the management in this regard.

January 23, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Secretary of State in a position to indicate what was the response of the C.B.C. to the suggestion of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that she said a week ago today she would pass on, namely that other spokesmen from Germany might also be aired by the C.B.C. so that we might have a balanced picture of the political scene in that country?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, that request was conveyed by sending a copy of the daily Hansard to the C.B.C. management. There was no formal response, and I have not had any discussions with the management since then.



INQUIRY AS TO USE OF ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as house leader. It is prompted by recent reports of the public statement of his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare in connection with voting procedures in this chamber and the desire to bring us all into the twentieth century. In this connection will the house leader advise whether serious consideration is being given to the installation of that twentieth century device, the electronic voting machine?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the question is extremely urgent or requires an urgent answer. I suggest that the hon. member might wish to put the matter on the order paper or perhaps discuss it later in the day, if he so wishes.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Ten o'clock, sir.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. May I ask him whether he has received telegrams from the Kitimat-Terrace and district labour council and the Kitimat building trades council protesting the schedule of the centennial train through their part of the country. If so, what action did he take with respect to those telegrams?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did receive the telegram in question just before lunch. 1 have made inquiries and I find that the centennial train itinerary in each province was worked out by the centennial commission jointly with the provinces concerned after extensive consultation with both railway companies. In each case the itinerary has received the full approval of the province concerned.
I am also informed that a number of factors had to be taken into account, such as accessibility to as great a population as possible, availability of spur lines on which to park the train, time to be spent in the province, the visit of a caravan to follow in the area, and other considerations. I can only express my own regret that the train is not able to visit all communities in Canada, including that from which the telegram has come, Kitimat, British Columbia.



PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE-AVAILABILITY OF CENTENNIAL TRAIN TO SCHOOL CHILDREN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Porlage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State, and I ask this in connection with the schedule of the centennial train. It is understandable, of course, that in some communities the train will have to be stationed for week ends only. At Portage la Prairie where the train is to spend a Saturday, Sunday and Monday, the community has been told that it will not be available for display on the Monday, and no organized school tours therefore will be possible. Will the Secretary of State please inquire to make certain that the train will have the best possible exposure in our community.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if it is the wish of the house to have questions asked about the progress of the centennial train across Canada. I suggest to hon. members that they might make representations directly to the minister; or if they feel that the question is particularly urgent though normally it would be ruled out of order at this time, it could be discussed perhaps at ten o'clock.


Siegfried John Enns: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I accept your ruling readily on the general question, but I have another question which I believe is of wide concern. Must the train be serviced or maintained during school hours, so that children are prevented from touring through it?
January 23, 19G7


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I was not aware that it would be closed any day. I thought it would be open seven days a week. I shall be glad to look into the matter and advise the house.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, may I correct the interpretation of my answer to question No. 2,358 put by the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise), who asked:
What is the present number of (a) English speaking (b) French speaking (c) bilingual, civil servants in each division of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?
My answer must be construed as follows: There are 2,841 civil servants who say they speak English only; five, French only; and 672, bilingual. It must not be surmised that there are only five French speaking Canadians in my department.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: have a question for the Minister of Transport. Since it is obvious now that the existing ferry Bluenose is unable to handle all traffic between Yarmouth and Bar Harbor, has the minister any information to give the house regarding progress in establishing a second ferry between Gloucester and Nova Scotia?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I have the same information that I am sure the hon. gentleman has. I have also read the Halifax Chronicle-Herald.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for implying that I have as much information about his department as he should have. In view of the importance of this problem to the tourist industry of Nova Scotia and to the Atlantic provinces generally, I ask the minister to study this situation and give the house and members for the Atlantic provinces a report as soon as possible.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that the initiative in this matter is coming entirely from the United States. A colleague in the house this morning asked me if I would see a delegation at an early date. I have agreed to do so. After I have seen this delegation I might be more communicative than I can be at this moment.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Pefers (Timiskaming):: May I
ask the Minister of Industry a question. Can he now reply to the question asked by the hon. member for New Westminster on Friday regarding the report of a national research organization on the safety effects of steel studs in snow tires?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: At
the behest of and for the Department of National Defence an analysis was made of the effectiveness of steel studs in snow tires. I should be glad to see that a report on the matter is made available to all those who are interested.



BILL OF RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In the absence of the hon. lady some time ago, I asked the Prime Minister, considering the continuing heavy demand for copies of the Canadian Bill of Rights, whether he would look into the matter of having it reprinted to meet the demand. He suggested at that time that he would take up the matter with the Secretary of State. Perhaps we might be told what conclusion has been reached.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Some time last summer, I think it was, the supply of copies of the English version of the bill of rights ran out. I was informed of this some weeks afterward. We have been looking at the situation; it would seem to me that the demand should be checked. There was not a very heavy demand for it in the latter part of 1966, but we anticipate that 1967 will stimulate a greater demand. Instructions were therefore given that the document should be reprinted. I have not yet seen a copy; it is not yet off the press, though it should be very shortly.

January 23, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I would ask the minister whether he is aware of the estimate made by the United States Department of Finance which would seem to indicate a reduction in the year 1967 in the order of $100 million in United States investment in Canada? Is he also aware of less official estimates which predict a reduction of $400 million or $500 million in United States investment in Canada and a corresponding increase in investment in Europe? If the minister is aware of this, does he consider that any extraordinary action on his part is warranted?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have seen those estimates. I cannot confirm that the information offered is accurate, but I see no reason arising out of those estimates for the Canadian government to change its present policies.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: May I direct a question to the Secretary of State. A week ago Thursday, I believe, I raised a question of privilege in relation to correspondence between the Candian Broadcasting Corporation and other people having to do with the application of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. I would inquire whether some comment might be forthcoming in reply to that question of privilege.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sorry, but the matter was not brought to my attention. I will look into it right away.



REFUSAL OF HOCKEY ASSOCIATION TO SEND TEAMS TO EUROPE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister about the refusal by the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association to recognize two Expo '67 Pee-Wee hockey teams 
and to authorize them to make a European tour during 1967.
In view of the fact that both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) have appealed to this sports organization, is the Prime Minister in a position to tell us whether the reply he expects shortly and which he will communicate to the house will be favourable and if not, whether legislative action is contemplated to enable these hockey teams to undertake this European tour?


Lester Bowles Pearson: All I can say is that the strong feelings of certain members of this house, both on the government side and on the other side, with regard to this matter have been passed on by the minister and myself to the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association. However, I do not know what official position they will take. I hope this is something which can be done without government intervention.


Georges-J. Valade: This morning's Montreal Matin said the hockey association had refused to consider the demand of the Prime Minister. In these circumstances would the Prime Minister consider legislation to make this organization more democratic than it is right now?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not think my question is in any way contrary to the rules, and I believe the Prime Minister was ready to give this information in connection with what I believe to be an important matter.



HOCKEY-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO CONTROL OF PLAYERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Arising out of the question asked by my hon. friend with regard to hockey teams, I would ask the Prime Minister whether complaints have been received from the Quebec Aces regarding the present draft system whereby N.H.L. clubs get first choice of Canadian players, and complaining also that Canadian clubs spend millions of dollars training and encouraging boys who are later picked up by American teams.
The request is that there should be a full and complete investigation into the manner of recruiting and control of hockey players, to
January 23, 1967

the end that no monopoly in the United States may have any direction or power over the recruitment of Canadians into Canadian teams. I ask the Prime Minister whether he will look into this and give consideration to an investigation into a matter which is believed by some to be a gross exercise of monopolistic privilege.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is my recollection that some consideration was given to this matter a few months ago when the National Hockey League was expanded to take in certain United States cities. At that time the monopolistic aspect of professional hockey was, I believe, examined. But I will be glad to look into this in so far as the government has any authority in the matter, in the light of the right hon. gentleman's question.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The day after he met the Ontario Union of Indians I asked him in the house whether his department was checking a statement made at that meeting to the effect that the United States government did not prosecute Indians who hunted on their own reserves. The minister indicated he would look into this question and answer later. I wonder whether he has done so.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I apologize to the hon. member for not having answered earlier, but I have been out of town. We have now checked with the United States authorities, and we find that the rules with respect to taking migratory game as applied to people on Indian reserves are identical with those which exist in Canada. It is illegal to do so.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I take this opportunity to reply to a question asked by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition on Friday last regarding the ratification of the international covenants on human rights. The three covenants which 23033-765J
Inquiries of the Ministry were adopted at the last session of the general assembly were (1) an international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights; (2) an international covenant on civil and political rights; and (3) an optional protocol to the latter covenant concerning the right of petition by individuals for the redress of alleged violations of the rights described in the civil and political covenant.
Basically these covenants are designed to give effect, by means of the binding obligations of international treaties, to the principles embodied in the universal declaration of human rights which was adopted by the general assembly in 1948. They represent a major piece of work by the United Nations and have been under consideration for 14 years.
Their adoption last year by the assembly represented, I believe, a significant step forward by the international community in the field of human rights. Canada voted for the adoption of all three instruments, and over the years during which they have been under consideration we have been privileged to make some constructive contributions to the drafting of those instruments.
A substantial number of the provisions of the covenants fall within provincial jurisdiction, so we are consulting the governments of the provinces in order to obtain their views. This is, I think, an essential step with regard to the implementation of these provisions. In addition we have set up an interdepartmental committee to review the covenants as finally approved last December from the federal point of view to the end of ensuring signature and ratification by Canada at the earliest possible date. However, before the covenants can be submitted to the House of Commons I believe we should consult with the provinces with respect to those provisions which concern the provinces from the standpoint of implementation, and await the report of the interdepartmental committee.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may be allowed to say so, in view of the lengthy statement made by the Prime Minister, I agree with him that these agreements are of far reaching significance and that they represent a distinct step forward in the preservation of fundamental freedoms in all parts of the world.
However, in view of the important decision I think in 1936, when the Privy Council decided that while these undertakings have treaty obligations they do not in any way cause a
January 23, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry signatory nation, such as Canada, to be bound in respect of those things that are within provincial jurisdiction, I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the great importance of the two treaty arrangements and the third protocol arrangement, he would convene a dominion-provincial conference on this question so the provinces, realizing the importance of these treaty obligations, would be prepared, in so far as the treaties themselves are concerned, to accept them as necessary and material to peace in the world?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. gentleman's suggestion might be a very useful one indeed, but I suggest that before a conference is called we could perhaps deal with this matter at the next federal-provincial conference of heads of governments. The provinces then would have a chance to examine the conventions and give us their views in writing, with more consideration than at this time. We have taken that initial step, and I hope that before long we can take the step suggested by the right hon. gentleman.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: As a
supplementary question I would ask the Prime Minister whether he would discuss with the provincial governments, and also refer to the interdepartmental committee, the question of whether some of these basic freedoms to which he has referred might be appropriately incorporated into the fundamental law of Canada, which is the constitution of Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is another question, Mr. Speaker, and it will have to be considered when we have reached the point when we are considering the present constitution, its amendment and revision. Undoubtedly one of the matters to be reviewed at that time will be the role of the federal government in the whole field of external affairs. I would not like to consider that matter in relation to these particular conventions at this time. I would hope it could wait until we get to the general subject of constitutional amendment and revision, and we hope that will not be too long.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's statement on human rights and civil rights I would like to direct a question to the Minister

of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which he can take as notice, with reference to parks. Would he investigate whether his department is now using the law of expropriation to halt cases brought to test his policy on leases? I put this question because it has to do with civil rights and the ownership of property. Is his department now using the law of expropriation to halt cases brought to test his policy on leases in national parks? The particular case I have in mind is the case of Mr. Gourlay.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may wish to place this question on the order paper. I do not see how the hon. member can require an answer urgently.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, the security of tenure of land is at stake. By the time I get an answer to a question on the order paper this man's civil rights, putting it mildly, will be sabotaged by the minister and his department. However, if that is your suggestion I would like to debate the question at ten o'clock.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask whether his prospects of being promoted, shall we say, from his present cabinet post, have caused him to lose some interest in matters coming under his jurisdiction, and is that the reason he has not answered several letters of mine?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I have not lost interest in the Department of Justice or in my work in this house. As to the letters he has referred to, I shall look into them and see that he gets an answer as soon as possible.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare may I put this question on record. Have any provinces concluded agreements with the federal government to implement the Canada Assistance Plan, which has been on the statute books for about eight months now?
January 23, 19S7



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 20, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-231, to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof, and to enact other consequential provisions-Mr. Pickersgill-Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order. Clauses 1, 16 as amended, 22 to 28 inclusive, 50, 58, 59 and 74, together with the schedule, have yet to be disposed of by the committee. When the committee rose on Friday last clause 58 was under discussion.
On clause 58.


Mr. Forreslall:: Mr. Chairman, when we rose on Friday afternoon we had spent only 10 or 15 minutes on what, within the next two or three hours, will be a last ditch stand made on behalf of the ports of Halifax and Saint John. I am glad to see that the Minister of Finance is in the chamber, because it is money that we will be talking about.
First of all I should like to deal in depth with the amendment moved by the minister on Friday providing for protection or certain clauses that have been long standing on Canadian statutes, going back to 1903, 1911 and 1914. On behalf of those directly associated with the ports of Halifax and Saint John I want to tell the minister that his amendment is not adequate.
Earlier the minister chided me by saying that I spoke from ignorance on matters of transportation. I am prepared to accept that I do. I have never pretended to be an expert on transportation. Anything I say this afternoon will not be born of malice, and if it arises from ignorance I only hope the minister will be kind enough to overlook my very junior position. Despite the assurances the minister gave us two or three weeks ago that the amendment he would move would be adequate, now that we have read it we can see that it is not at all adequate.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I intend to propose a substitute amendment to that of the minister which will have to be dealt with at the proper time and place. The minister's amendment to clauses 58 and 59 states in part:
Nething in this act except section 334-
Transportation
We agree with that first part, but we are then hauled up short because of the exception in respect of section 334. Without going into detail let me be brutally honest with the minister by telling him that the reaction in Halifax has been expressed in the form of the question 'When do we quit?" The amendment continues:
-shall be construed to affect any obligation imposed upon any railway company subject to the jurisdiction of parliament by any other act or any agreement made pursuant thereto requiring the company
(a)	to maintain rates on export traffic-
There is no mention of import traffic. The amendment continues:
-moving through any Canadian seaport located in the "select territory"-
Again I suggest to the minister that the select territory provision does not go far enough so far as those who are most directly involved in Halifax are concerned. The amendment continues:
-as defined by sections 2, 7 and 12 of the Maritime Freight Rates Act at a specified level, or at a level specified in relation to other rates; or
(b)	to route export traffic through Canadian seaports.
The minister will have to explain the relationship between (a) and (b) before we will know whether they should be included in our proposed amendment.
There are four areas in which this amendment appears to fall seriously short of our intent. First it fails to mention import traffic but deals only with export traffic. We are not unmindful of the fact that perhaps Canadian dollars and cents are going to foreign countries in subsidization of traffic which-


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


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The purpose of this amendment, as the hon. gentleman properly pointed out, is to maintain the law which now exists and to make sure that it is not touched in any way except in that one respect. I will have a word to say about that later. Does the hon. member know of any statute at all that applies to import traffic? I do not know of any statute that does so.


J. Michael Forrestall: The minister is absolutely right. What I am saying is that some concern exists because it does not. Perhaps there is good reason for this not covering import traffic, but I simply ask why it does not, and I

January 23, 1967
Transportation
hope the minister will provide that answer in a few minutes.
There is an exception in section 334 in relation to export traffic. All it provides is that as long as the rates are compensatory, traffic going to United States ports will be the same as to Saint John and Halifax. That is based on the general position which existed when the statutes were placed on the books in the first 15 or 20 years of this century, or some 45 to 50 years ago. That general proposition may have been valid at that time but it is no longer valid today. The minister knows that in order for the rates to be economically feasible the C.N.R. will have to lower its rates, particularly if it is to adhere to the principle of the bill that is before us. We will refer to that situation at some length.
The third shortcoming of this amendment is its lack of reference to North Atlantic-United States ports. The closest it comes to any reference of that kind is in (b) which states:
(b) to route export traffic through Canadian seaports.
Perhaps that was the intent of the old act, but the most charitable thing that can be said about it is that it is not clear what areas are to be protected or how they are to be protected. As the minister agrees, all we are protecting are the old sections of the act. They are being put in proper context.
Perhaps it would be wise at this point to review them briefly. There are three, the first dating from 1903 and the second from 1911. They can be found in the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the transport and communications committee, at page 2537 in volume No. 37.
These three sections appear in the brief presented by the maritimes transportation commission. The first refers to the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway company in 1903, which provided that-
-the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination, shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports.
This was renewed in 1911 by section 13, chapter 6 which refers to the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company. This particular section provided that:
-the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports.
Again we find that chapter 20, acts of 1914, re the Canadian Northern Railway System provided that:

-the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall not be greater via Canadian ports than it would be via United States ports; ... and that the Canadian Northern and the several constituent and subsidiary companies shall not in any manner within its power or control directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of any such freight by routes other than those above provided.
These statutes were valid 50 years ago and, indeed, their concept is not only valid today but absolutely essential to the survival of the ports of Saint John and Halifax. We suggest that by just going that far the job which must be done will not be done.
We intend to deal with the fourth shortcoming of this amendment at some length this afternoon. It is, of course, the fact that there is a restriction as to "select ports" as defined in sections 2, 7 and 12 of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. As the minister well knows, the select area is simply that area which encompasses the two meaningful ports in the maritimes, Halifax and Saint John.
We have all observed the erosion and whittling away of the effects of t he Maritime Freight Rates Act on traffic into and out of those two ports. Halifax no longer enjoys parity with Saint John. It is about time we stopped this game in the maritimes, as someone put it not long ago, of an indigent taking from an indigent to form a greater needy area. What we are doing is taking away from each other, and there is nothing to protect us in this regard. The economy of our area and the ports of Halifax and Saint John depend almost entirely on transportation. The minister does not need to be told this. In no small way this is the basis of the principle upon which we will propose an amendment.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
We have heard the arguments about the effect on our secondary manufacturing industry of the national transportation system. We have been told over and over and over again for 150 years how absolutely necessary it has been and is to have an adequate transportation system. In the old days it used to be water; now it is our rail system. On the basis of our rail system, what secondary manufacturing industry we enjoy has survived and grown economically.
The whole basis of this bill seems to be cutting away from that principle. If we are to survive at all economically, if we are to foster and encourage the development of secondary industry, our national transportation system must continue to be a viable instrument of not only national but regional development. It
January 23, 1967



must not die; it must remain. As a matter of fact, it must be something very precious, close and dear to us, particularly during the next 10 or 15 years.
The underlying assumption, I suppose, to set the background in this respect, is that the interests of Canada as a whole demand that there remain in the maritime provinces a substantial number of people who are able and capable of putting their talents and brains to work in the development of secondary industry. If we lose sight of this principle and assumption, and indeed we seem to be heading toward that position now with this new piece of legislation, the federal authority will have to find something else to embrace and make use of to assist the economy of this area.
It has been said recently by meaningful and very responsible people in the maritime area that we have on the one hand the federal authority, through the Atlantic Development Board, pouring millions and millions of dollars into the development of the Atlantic economy, the study of methods of development, the encouragement through certain services of industrial parks and so on, the area incentive program under which God only knows how much money is being spent in the maritimes, and then we depart from that principle in respect of the one thing that is absolutely necessary-as a matter of fact, it is the only thing that is absolutely necessary-to the orderly and economic development of secondary manufacturing. I refer to rail transportation. We come along with this measure and cut the ground out from under that orderly and economic development.
It is not enough to stand here today and make these remarks without suggesting improvements in this area. We now understand that the special study has been completed and should be in the minister's hands very soon, much sooner than we anticipated. Perhaps the minister could shed more light on that subject. We thought this study would be handed down some time next month and placed before us. The study might clarify many of the doubts in our minds. However, I expect we will wait considerably longer before receiving it. I say again that it is not enough for us to accept what might be in eight, ten months' or a year's time a very profitable position for us to adopt. I believe these principles have to be built in and safeguarded in the bill itself. They should be built in in terms of positive and very clear statements.
Transportation
In case the minister has not bothered to look at the shipping tonnages recently, it is rather interesting to note the figures for Halifax, Saint John, Montreal, and Quebec. They show what has happened to foreign traffic coming into Canada in the last ten years. I will not go through all the statistics but just refer to seven or eight years. I take first the 1957-58 shipping season. I am taking the total of the eight winter months for those two years. I have included December because it is a part month, as is March, but essentially the months are January, February, March and December. In the 1957-58 season Halifax and Saint John enjoyed 1,627,000 tons of shipping. In that same four-month period covering December, January, February and March, Montreal and Quebec enjoyed 309,000 tons, every last ounce of which was handled in the first ten days of December and the last ten days of March.
I should now like to quote the figures for the 1961, 1963 and 1964 shipping seasons, the same eight months. They are for general tonnage and do not include petroleum, wheat or anything like that. They refer to general cargo, which is the only type of cargo meaningful to our economy, in terms of dollar impact. The ports of Halifax and Saint John handled 1,-
437,000	tons of cargo. That figure is down
200.000	tons. What do we see in regard to Montreal and Quebec? We see a rise from
309.000	tons to over 518,000 tons. In 1965-66, taking those eight months, Halifax and Saint John dropped off to 1,377,000 tons while Montreal and Quebec went up to 648,000 tons. The minister knows the 1966 figures. I think there has been more traffic in and out of the port of Montreal in the last six weeks than has been in and out of both the ports of Halifax and Saint John in the last two years. There is no work on our waterfront.
But look at the position of Montreal and Quebec. Go back 100 years. At that time there was no traffic in and out of the ports of Montreal and Quebec, absolutely none. But in 1966, in the period I have quoted, 233 foreign-going ships cleared the port of Montreal. And these figures are already two weeks old. How many have been in and out since then? I cite these figures because they show so dramatically what has happened. Traffic is not coming to the port of Halifax; it is going to the ports of Montreal and Quebec.
There is good reason for this and it is an understandable one. Perhaps because of my very junior and ignorant position in the house I have never been in a position where I could

January 23, 1967
Transportation
criticize the minister or the government about winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river. However, I do not believe criticism is necessarily the proper attitude. Indeed, I could go much further and ask the minister to give us a few dollars so that we may convert the port of Halifax to deep water shipping. There is need right now for positive planning in this regard. It has been done in connection with the Delaware estuary running into Maryland, where it was found that for a piddling $200 million ships could be moved into that area. The government does not necessarily have to assign an icebreaker to the port of Halifax. If they wanted to they could put a crew in there with picks and shovels to keep the slush out. They could make it a free port up to the lakehead if they wished. But we should get something in return, and quickly. I do not want to go into these other points in any detail, but I draw these matters to the attention of the minister for his consideration.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The amendment I have before me is not typed but I have many amendments in front of me which I propose to move one at a time. I will start with the least line of resistance. A little later I will move an amendment along these general lines. It reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contained in this or any other act, rail rates (to and from shipside) on export and import traffic to or from eastern ports, as defined in section 329A of this act, from or to the points of origin or destination shall at no time be greater via any such Canadian port than via any other such Canadian port or via United States north Atlantic ports.
We do not intend to move this amendment lightly. The minister grins. I should like to ask him whether in commenting on the amendment he could suggest what else can be done in order to save the ports of Halifax and Saint John. Unless the government expends money to re-equip these ports, and particularly to equip the port of Halifax for the advent of the deep-water mammoth ships about which people, are talking these days, unless the minister has something he can suggest and is prepared to do immediately, then some action in the nature of the amendment which I read will have to be seriously considered.
No less an authority than Mr. Mingo, who for a long time has been chairman of the port of Halifax commission and who does not pretend to be an expert on rail rates, port parity or port structures-and since he does not share my particular political pursuasion I can quote him as being an objective authority-has said that unless something is

done now the end is in sight for the ports of Halifax and Saint John. The minister was good enough to stand this section, and we took his amendment home to Halifax to let the people there see it because they are the ones who are concerned. The opinion which was voiced there was that the amendment did not do anything. If that is all we are going to get we might as well give up. Indeed, I think the minister probably heard Mr. Mingo's opinion when he was in Halifax on the annual ports day.
Mr. Mingo in his address to that august gathering of shipping people from Halifax and Saint John suggested that indeed it is perhaps time that the minister and the government gave consideration to the establishment of a board, either within the present context of the new transportation commission or outside it. He did not elaborate on the suggestion but he made it quite plain that unless a board composed of people living in the area who have dealt with rail and water transportation over the years is established, all we will be doing is treading water. I suggest that treading water in any field is tantamount to becoming stagnant and in fact going backwards. The minister is very much aware of these points.
The other things that come immediately to mind are so obvious that they do not need repeating at this time so I will not go into them in any depth. The minister is aware of the fact that the unemployment situation in the maritimes is very serious at present. The figures which were published on January 15 showed that the national average is 4.5 or 4.6 per cent while the figure for the maritimes is 10.7 per cent. One does not have to spell out the effects resulting from the loss of winter traffic, the loss to longshoremen, ship brokers and stevedoring companies and the loss to the port of Halifax in fees and costs. One does not have to point out the urgency of correcting this situation before it hits rock bottom. I suggest that we are close to rock bottom and the only way to avoid reaching it is to move meaningfully in the direction of an adequate port parity structure which would involve not only the ports of Halifax and Saint John but also the United States north Atlantic ports and all the ports up to and including Montreal.
We realize that this will cost the government a lot of money and we are not making suggestions without being aware of the effects they might have. Somehow or other we have to create an atmosphere in which we can keep people in the maritimes, in which we can keep their intelligence and their brains at home. We
January 23, 1967

must keep our labour pools fluid and accessible to new industry which might want to come in. The only way in which we can do so is through transportation. It surprises me, now that we are discussing port parity, to see so few people here from the maritimes. Perhaps they are not interested. Perhaps the minister has made sure that they are not too far away and possibly during the course of the afternoon they may come in and contribute in a small way toward making the minister a little more pliant than he appears to be. We would welcome any comments he might have.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to raise a point of order which may contribute to the orderly consideration of the balance of the amendments that are before us, particularly amendments to clause 50. Does the minister propose to move any more amendments to the clauses that have been stood, and particularly to clause 50 with regard to repairing the damage which was done to the definition of grain and ports under section 329, so that we may know what amendments, if any, he intends to move? I think this would assist the committee in dealing with these clauses as we come to them.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not believe, sir, it would be proper for me to interrupt the discussion now to do more than say that I did indicate an amendment I would like to make to clause 16. A similar amendment would be required to clause 1. The other day I indicated that my disposition would be to go ahead with that, and that with respect to the definition of grain rates and other related matters I hope to be in a position when we have disposed of this matter now before us to move an amendment to clause 74 which I think would deal with the problem.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: I should like to support the hon. member for Halifax. I have a few thoughts I want to put on the record which will bring the matter up to date so far as I am concerned. I could speak at length but I feel that a quick review will give the minister an idea of how serious I at least think this matter is. Perhaps after he has replied we can then decide whether it is going to be necessary to indulge in a serious and lengthy debate on this subject.
First of all, I want to compliment the hon. member for Halifax upon the work he has done on this clause. I think it is commendable that a newer member has taken this interest and has made himself quite knowledgeable on the subject. I believe he has devised an 23033-766
Transportation
amendment that expresses the feeling of everyone in Saint John and Halifax, if not in the whole of both of those provinces. I know that this week end the hon. member for Halifax made the arduous journey to Halifax in order to secure first hand information. I hope the minister realizes that anything the previous speaker put forward was from the horse's mouth, so to speak, in so far as this matter is concerned.
The history of this subject is quite well known and it goes back to confederation. I am not going to bore the committee with quotations from all the speeches that were made at the time guarantees were given to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia concerning ports and other matters when they joined confederation. We were located away off on the edge of the Atlantic ocean, far from the source of activities in the main hinterland. Over a period of time from about the turn of the century a port parity structure was built up by which the eastern ports were guaranteed that export and import rates would be maintained at parity with rates to United States ports. This fact is acknowledged in many of the statutes, but I realize it is not possible to find a specific reference to it in the Railway Act.
A moment ago the minister asked the hon. member to give the reference to port parity in the Railway Act. The minister asked if the hon. member had any further knowledge of these guarantees. I suggest that the onus is on the minister in this regard. He is the one who is introducing this bill which is taking something from the ports which they enjoyed at a bad time in their history and which we understood was a solemn confederation promise. These guarantees are in some of the statutes of Canada, but I will not put them on the record now.
The Maritime Transportation Commission presented a brief on Bill No. C-231 to the standing committee. The commission was worried about the new cost oriented scheme of rate structure. I know the minister does not like that phrase but this is what we are faced with, a cost oriented scheme. Perhaps it is based on a recommendation of the MacPherson commission, but the scheme takes away the old equalization rates. We know this is going to be detrimental to us and will put the maritime ports at a disadvantage in relation to other ports.
If one can give an example of how easily one can be fooled, during the committee hearings I had assumed in my naivete that the statement of the minister and others that

January 23, 19G7
Transportation
there would not be any change was true. I asked Mr. Craig Dickson of the Maritime Transportation Commission a question on this subject. It is recorded at page 2501 of committee proceedings No. 37 as follows:
There has not been any indication yet of readjustments?
Mr. Dickson replied:
Well, yes there has, Mr. Bell, although I want to be fair to the railways.
Perhaps I should put the whole paragraph on the record in order to be fair and because it explains the situation better than I could.
I think in instances up until this year at least, they had been quite fair in attempting to maintain this parity rate structure. We have had rates adjusted to Halifax and Saint John to equal the rates to New York or other American ports when we could show them there was traffic to move.
There have been instances in those negotiations where the railways have put this qualification on it: We are prepared to publish rates to Halifax and Saint John the same as to New York provided they cover our costs.
This is a reference to the old compensatory rate that was in section 120 and has been redrafted almost exactly in section 231.
I cannot think of an example at the moment where they said it did not cover costs, but there have been some, I think, that were rather questionable. Oh yes, there was an ore movement, I believe, from down around the Niagara Falls area, where the cost of handling this via the maritime ports was not sufficient, the railways alleged, to cover their cost and they could not meet the competition of the United States ports. We rather fear from several recent developments that there may be a move to get away more and more from this parity rate structure.
Whether we like it or not, this matter has been taken out of the position in which it was under the old act and is now within the discretion of the railways. This has nothing to do with the Maritime Freight Rates Act. These rates are now at the discretion of the railway. I believe all maritime members should stand in complete unity on this subject. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough knows a great deal about the problem of freight rates in the maritimes. I know he agrees that the Maritime Freight Rates Act is not working very well. I believe there is still some value in the act but from what I have read I understand the hon. member feels there is no value in it. However, neither of us likes the way the Maritime Freight Rates Act is working now, although he may be more discouraged than I am. I would be interested in hearing what he has to say about the matter of parity for Halifax and Saint John.

Another matter of importance is the subject of winter navigation. I am not going into the whole history. We know there has been progress, but the figures placed on the record by the hon. member for Halifax concerning the movement this year are very disturbing. On Friday we learned that the Department of Transport is instituting a five-year study of winter navigation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to make a correction. I think the hon. gentleman misconstrued, and perhaps he was right in misconstruing, what I said. There is to be a study of the ship channel in the St. Lawrence but it has nothing to do directly with winter navigation. It has to do with navigation. The channel through Lake St. Peter is not satisfactory for the volume of navigation there is in the summertime, and this is the reason for the institution of this study. It is not primarily or directly related to winter navigation but to navigation itself.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Thomas Miller Bell: I hope that when the minister replies he will be able to give us some further information in this regard. I should like to ask him whether he pointed out to the officials who framed the bill how important this matter is to us, and how carefully they considered this amendment. Did these officials search through the files and examine previous decisions of the board and the like? Did the minister charge them with the importance of this matter?
I hope that in a matter so important to the maritimes the officials did not say: "Let us get through with the big part of the bill which affects the west so that we can ride along with that, and the maritimes part will be tagged on. We will hope that everyone will then be tired and fed up with the bill, so we will stick a few words in one of the clauses to make them feel happy".
This feeling has caught on in the maritimes, Mr. Chairman, and the minister is not going to be very popular in that area. He did have a pretty good image but lately it has begun to suffer. For example, this is one of the newspaper headlines: "Mr. Pickersgill Looks At Us Through Rose Coloured glasses".


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman would like me to use blue ones, I suppose.


Thomas Miller Bell: I certainly think the glasses the minister is looking through are becoming a bit tinted and that he is being too optimistic. He is being too much of a Pollyanna, I think the phrase is, in looking at our future through rose tinted glasses. I have another report here reading in part, "They are having another gay party on the St. Lawrence with icebreaking and we are picking up the tab".
This is the point, Mr. Chairman. It is not so much that the maritimes are against progress but that we are paying part of the price to bring about our own funeral. In all the talk about progress and moving ahead the significant factor is that we are paying our share. The seaway cost $500 million or more and a formula was established by which it would pay for itself within a few years. It was the seaway that was the beginning of our downfall. It took business further inland and yet it is not even beginning to pay. So far the minister has taken a hard line on tolls and I hope he will continue to do so; he will certainly have my support. But in all this progress the poor old maritimes are paying their share.
Let me end with this quotation. I have put this statement on the record before, but it does give the minister an illustration of the 23033-7661
Transportation
classic problem that we are up against. It is a statement made by a shipping official in Quebec, taken from the Ottawa Journal for December 22, 1966. This official is promoting shipping activity at Quebec and says that the government should do more icebreaking in that area. He goes on:
They have to think about the voters in the maritimes too. But the fact is that this discouraging policy hurts the whole country, not only Quebec. Ships that do not come to Quebec and Montreal do not always go to Saint John or Halifax. They may just as well go to New York.
Then he goes on to say:
Newsprint, for example, loaded in Saint John costs $14 more a ton than it does loaded in Quebec.
The two points that I am making are contained in that statement. I do not blame this fellow for trying to promote activity in his own port because that is what he is paid to do, but this is a classic example. Newsprint costs $14 a ton more going through Saint John than if it were loaded at Quebec, and even then some business might not go through the St. Lawrence but instead go down to New York. Why do we have a freight rate structure in Canada, Mr. Chairman? We came into confederation because we wanted parity of treatment with the ports in the United States and along the St. Lawrence. It is that simple.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I believe it was the Secretary of State who moved the amendment which is now before the committee, and the hon. lady is not here at the present time. However, I am sure she would agree if she were here that I should substitute a new amendment. If it is agreeable to the committee I should like to substitute for the amendment that she moved another amendment which I am sure the Minister of Fisheries would be very glad to move. I pick the Minister of Fisheries deliberately in this context because of his province. I should like to strike out of the previous amendment the exception relating to the proposed section 334. This amendment would mean that instead of the amendment that has been moved reading as it did the other day, it would read:
Nothing in this act shall be construed to affect any obligation imposed upon any railway company.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, whether or not a rate was compensatory it would remain the law if it is in the law now.
I may say that I am willing to do this the more readily because I am going to propose an amendment to clause 74 which would make it possible, if a rate is not compensatory, for the railways to make representations to the

January 23, 1967
Transportation
commission, and it would enable the commission, if it so wished, to recommend to the Governor in Council that the loss be paid out of the treasury.
There seems to be no reason whatever for making this exception. The hon. member for Halifax indicated that this exception could conceivably be a very serious gap in the protection offered. If the exception is taken out then there can be no such gap. In other words, instead of having to get somebody, after the amendment has been adopted, to move another amendment to that amendment, I think it would save the time of the committee if we had unanimous consent to substitute this new amendment for the one now before the committee, if that course is agreeable to the committee.


Mr. Robichaud:: I would so move, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether hon. members want the amendment read. There is only the one change in it and that is that these words to which I have referred are struck out. May we deem the amendment to have been moved?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


The Deputy Chairman:: Is it agreed that the hon. minister may substitute this amendment for the other amendment presented on Friday by the Secretary of State?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment, as I explained originally is to ensure that every statutory protection that exists in the law of Canada at the present time to provide for specific rates, parity in rates or the routing of traffic through the ports of Halifax and Saint John shall remain in force notwithstanding anything in this bill.
The hon. member for Halifax properly said earlier this afternoon that some of these rates which might at one time have been compensatory might conceivably be argued to be not compensatory now and we might therefore be eroding this protection. Hon. members can tell that I thought the same way the hon. member thought because I anticipated his objection and had this mimeographed copy of the amendment ready. I confess that I woke in the middle of the night, the night after I moved this amendment, and began thinking about it. I thought what I really should have said is, "notwithstanding section 334" instead of having made the exception. When I talked

about this with the law officer advising me he said, "You know, there is a much simpler way to do it and that is to strike the words out". In any event it seems to me that there can be no doubt whatever that everything that is now in the law protecting those ports will remain in the law. This amendment will remove any possible doubt.
The hon. member for Saint John-Albert asked whether I had asked the law officers of my department to check the law, to ascertain what the various laws having to do with the matter were. I think it would have been much better if we had been able to spell all of them out. The hon. member also rightly said that some of these laws have been interpreted by the courts. It is very easy, if you try to specify these things and you do not know for sure what all of them are, to leave something out. A compilation is being made. All the law is being thoroughly searched at the present time, and this search has been going on for several months. It involves searching a great proportion of all the statutes of Canada enacted since confederation and many legal decisions.
To be absolutely sure that nothing is left out, if we say that everything that is part of the law of Canada remains the law of Canada there can be no danger of any kind of mistake. As soon as this compilation has been completed I intend to make it available to hon. members and other interested parties for their information and to bring it to the attention of the new commission as soon as possible so that it may have an opportunity to peruse it.
I do not think hon. members will expect me to say anything more about winter navigation on the St. Lawrence than has been said already. It is a subject on which there are continuing differences of view. I can only commend the very reasonable and sensible attitude taken by the hon. members for Halifax and Saint John-Albert. They do not believe, if navigation during winter becomes technically feasible, that it can be stopped by law. They do not expect it to be, and I am sure all reasonable people take this view. That does not mean, of course, that we should not do everything possible to maximize traffic through the ports of Saint John and Halifax and other eastern ports where we can maximize traffic.
Though this is strictly not relevant to the clause, I wish to reiterate the position I have taken. Since I have been Minister of Transport the National Harbours Board has been
January 23, 1967

given tangible evidence of my disposition, because I am the minister who has to take responsibility for its budget. My position has been that in every instance where we have had any sound reason to believe that improvements either to the port of Halifax or the port of Saint John would result in increased traffic or would attract more traffic-and sometimes it was a bit of a gamble-we have been willing to go ahead with those improvements, and considerable improvements have been made and are being made in both ports. Some of the most notable improvements in both ports have been to the grain handling facilities and to the facilities for handling general cargo.
I assure the hon. member for Halifax that as long as 1 am Minister of Transport-and I believe this will be the attitude of any government-if there is any reasonable prospect, and I believe there is, that the new superships will come into service and if, with the proper facilities, they can use the port of Halifax which perhaps is the only port on the east coast with sufficient depth of water and other conditions to make it possible for these ships to be used, the facilities will be put there. They can be built faster than the ships. I do not think we can have any doubts that these developments will take place as rapidly as possible.
With respect to the point raised by the hon. gentleman about imports, quite frankly I know of no statute that now protects anything having to do with import traffic. I know of no statutory requirement-and it is rather difficult to see how one would do what the hon. member has suggested-which gives statutory protection to import traffic. I would hesitate to import the word "import" into the law, if I might make an inexcusable pun, without considering carefully what its real effect might be.
I think that the suggested amendment, which I am glad was not moved, of the hon. member for Halifax might raise difficulties. I think the committee would find it difficult to understand its import correctly. It reads:
Notwithstanding anything contained in this or any other act, rail rates (to and from shipside) on export and import traffic to or from eastern ports, as defined in section 329A of this act, from or to the point of origin or destination shall at no time be greater via any such Canadian port than via any other such Canadian port or via United States north Atlantic ports.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I do not know precisely what the effect of this proposed amendment would be but my
Transportation
guess is that the freight rate from, say, Ottawa to Montreal would also be the freight rate from Ottawa to Halifax. Of course, that has never been the situation at any time in the history of Canada. We would be saying in effect that any advantage as far as location is concerned would be destroyed by legislative action. We would be saying that the people of Canada generally must pay the cost, because the railways, obviously, could not bear these costs. The hon. gentleman himself has suggested they would be substantial. The taxpayers would have to pay the additional cost of carrying to Halifax goods which anyone wanted to send through the port of Halifax, notwithstanding the fact that all this money could be saved by shipping them through Montreal. I really think this would be going far beyond anything which it would be reasonable to ask the Canadian taxpayer to bear, no matter how strongly any hon. member favoured his own community.
If one happened to represent Montreal instead of Halifax, would it be argued that any shipper who wished to ship goods from Amherst could direct that they be shipped at the same rate via Montreal instead of via Halifax, or from Yarmouth? That would be importing the same kind of principle.


J. Michael Forrestall: That is going to the extreme.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My whole point is that the amendment, if it means what I think it does, does go to the extreme, and I do not think you could possibly expect parliament to legislate to that extreme. It is another matter to say that the rate from any place outside the select territory to any place inside the select territory should bear some relation to rates to United States ports, because there will be comparable distances-


J. Michael Forrestall: That is the major part of our contention.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is the next point I should like to deal with. I have a feeling that we are unlikely in this committee to be able to patch up the situation without the benefit of the studies which are now going on in this field. The hon. gentleman is right in saying I am hopeful the results of the study on Atlantic transportation will be to hand some time in March, maybe in February. It would not, I think, be very profitable for us to do a little patchwork and try to change the law as it now stands. We could not be sure we were accomplishing anything very substantial, because we do not really have much evidence

January 23, 1967
Transportation
that there is a significant amount of traffic through New England ports, or New York, which would be likely to go through Saint John or Halifax. I think it is vitally important that we preserve the law as it now is so that there is no erosion on any kind, and that is why I asked my colleague the Minister of Fisheries to move the amendment to which I have referred. But I do think it would be very much better to deal with this question in a thoroughgoing manner on the basis of the study than to attempt a little piece of patchwork at this stage.
I am very happy indeed to make the vital amendment for which the hon. member for Halifax has asked. I am also happy to undertake to put forward the other amendments to which I have referred, the amendments to clause 1 and clause 16. I feel these amendments go a good deal of the way toward meeting the situation he has in mind. I refer to "an undue obstacle to the movement of commodities through Canadian ports", and the inclusion of this principle as one of the principles of the legislation for the guidance of the commission and of the government in working out the policies which will be laid down, I hope, in 1968. I say "in 1968" because I do not want to hold out false hopes; I do not think we will get legislation ready in the autumn of this year, because after we get the results of the study it seems to me there must be an opportunity for hearings and for public debate. But I sincerely hope we shall have legislation on a fairly large scale in 1968, not dealing exclusively with freight rates but with the whole of the transport complex of the Atlantic provinces.
Having regard to the statement of principle in clause 1 and clause 16, and in the knowledge that the transportation study is virtually completed and that action to deal with Atlantic transport generally will be the next big job of whoever is Minister of Transport-I hope there will not be a sudden change-I hope the hon. member will not feel it is necessary to divide the committee on any further amendment.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Before this amendment is carried may I rise on a point of order? The amendment referred to by the Minister of Transport is the amendment reported at page 12053 of Hansard for January 20 and moved by the Postmaster General. May I say I have been authorized by the Postmaster General to ask leave to withdraw the amendment he introduced on Friday last and replace it by the

amendment which I moved a few moments ago?


Maurice Rinfret: Is it unanimously agreed that the amendment which was moved by the Postmaster General be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it unanimously agreed to consider in substitution for that amendment the amendment now before the committee which was moved by the Minister of Fisheries?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Miller Bell: Before we discuss the substance of the amendment I wish to complete the record in connection with this subject of ice-breaking, because our position is misunderstood by many people. The question in the minds of many people in the maritimes is not whether they accept the inevitability of winter navigation. They are concerned about the fact that, according to the minister the other day, it will cost $100 million.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was just a guess.


Thomas Miller Bell: I appreciate that, but the hon. member for Halifax and I do not wish to be misunderstood. We are completely opposed to winter navigation, though we accept that moves are being made toward it. But in the light of the tremendous cost involved, we want to know what is to be the quid pro quo for Halifax and Saint John. I do not wish to provoke a debate on the subject. I want to explain our position.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
As to what the minister said about new facilities for Saint John, we need better facilities but what is the use of them when the traffic is drastically dwindling. That is why we are hoping to get something a little more than we had. I am glad the minister threw out that horrible abortion of Friday which we said at the time we did not feel he was really serious about. He has thought about it over the week end and has come up with something better. At least everything that we had previously will still be given to us under this new amendment. I had hoped for something a little more definite but we are glad that the week end helped.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The week end weakened
me.
January 23, 1967


J. Michael Forrestall: I join with the hon. member for Saint John-Albert in thanking the minister for taking out what was referred to as an abortion. He has now dealt with two of the four shortcomings that we saw in the amendment.
I accept the minister's position on import traffic. In effect we would be subsidizing people in any of 150 countries, and Canadian funds can be used for a better purpose than that. Therefore I am content to remove that part from my suggested amendment but not for the reason that the minister spoke of, namely, that it is not dealt with in any present statute. Just because it has not been dealt with by statute previously is no reason why at this stage of our development, when we are 100 years and some 23 days old-


John Whitney Pickersgill: We don't become 100 years old until July.


J. Michael Forrestall: Anyway, the minister knows our position in Halifax. The special transportation study is almost completed. It will require detailed consideration by the department and the government, and in addition representatives of the area and of industry there will need an opportunity to express their views on it.
I feel strongly about the necessity to extend the select area. As the hon. member for Saint John-Albert has pointed out, the parity structure of Saint John and Halifax has been so whittled away that, for example, the largest mover of newsprint has stopped picking it up in Halifax and is taking delivery at Saint John. This makes economic sense but we must maintain the principle of creating an atmosphere in which people can still live in the maritimes.
We have been told by the Economic Council of Canada and other bodies which have examined maritime problems that our future, particularly in Nova Scotia, will be based on secondary industry. Progress has been made in that direction in recent years, aided by successive governments, but we need to do a little more if we are to keep the maritimes in the Canadian picture. We are so far behind because of distance, geography and, I suppose, history that there is no way we can catch up and so drastic measures are required.
I am sure everybody in Halifax will welcome the minister's assurance that the government can move quicker to provide the facilities to accommodate the new super ships than those ships can be built. I would hope
Transportation
this could extend to the concept of the integral train and all the problems involved as between privately owned rolling stock and our old transportation system equipment. We need to keep the ports of Halifax and Saint John alive but the amendment which the minister has moved today will not accomplish that. They are still going downhill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman will admit that a year ago the government put an item in the estimates, which is now included in this bill under new section 329A, that underwrites the reduced rates that the Board of Transport Commissioners said were too low for wheat and flour going through the Atlantic ports. Those rates are safeguarded for good in this legislation. In a sense those are the only new rates that are being established by this legislation.


J. Michael Forrestall: I appreciate that. We welcome it as something absolutely necessary, but who in the name of all that is holy is going to ship flour from the port of Halifax when it can be shipped from Saint John?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman will find that a good deal will be shipped from Halifax.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


J. Michael Forrestall: That is excellent, but it is a bulk commodity like oil and gypsum which do not provide much employment at the port. We must attract the type of business that will sustain the stevedoring companies which employ hundreds and hundreds of men. Perhaps it is not a matter of particular concern, but I have had a card entitling me to work on the waterfront in Halifax for many years. There are only 15 or 20 men as young as I who have card numbers lower than mine. My card number is 9,060.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope the hon. gentleman is not doing any moonlighting on his week ends.


J. Michael Forrestall: No. I am not like the minister who can find time to lie in bed and think up amendments to earlier amendments. Perhaps we should encourage him to do that.
The whole concept of our waterfront industry has changed in the last three or four years. At one time a great number of stevedores came from the ports of Montreal and Quebec to work in Halifax. They not only earned money there but spent it in that community for rent, food, clothing and other

January 23. 1967
Transportation
things that longshoremen enjoy. As was pointed out once, in the fraternity of spirit of Sir John A. they spend money. These men no longer come to Halifax because work is not available.
Tonnage statistics still show that the volume of traffic is being maintained. This is true because of the bulk shipment of wheat, gypsum and oil. General cargo traffic, on the other hand, is dropping off to practically nothing. Hundreds and hundreds of jobs are being eliminated. This is becoming a serious problem as indicated by the fact that the mari-times now have 10.5 per cent of their workers unemployed. Even in the minister's own province the unemployment situation is not as bad as it is in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
We must have new and drastic action. Perhaps we should extend the select territory, although I realize this would be costly and would involve many ramifications.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question? I do not understand what he means by extending the select territory.


J. Michael Forrestall: To use the terminology of section 329A, perhaps there could be some parity of ports including the three eastern ports and Montreal. It is understandable that this would involve a tremendous subsidy, but unless there is some form of parity in relation to the select territory nothing is going to change in respect of the movement of traffic. We suggest that the next step should be taken. We might be assured if the minister would say that in two years' time following the special study something will be done regarding a viable port parity structure to assist the ports of Halifax and Saint John. Perhaps we could be assured that if nothing appears in the report following the special study in this regard the government will take some action.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am certainly prepared to undertake that if this subject is not dealt with adequately during the special study, and I feel sure it will be, it will be one of the first subjects the research side of the new commission will be specifically asked to look at.
We have made great investments in the ports of Halifax and Saint John, a great deal of which is of recent origin, and we intend to put those ports to maximum use. I have no hesitation in assuring the hon. gentleman and the committee that if perchance this subject does not appear to be dealt with adequately in the transportation study the research side of
[Mr. Forrestall.l
the new commission will be asked to undertake this as one of its first and most urgent tasks.


Mr. Nowlan:: I am sure the minister's last remarks will shorten the length of my remarks. I am particularly concerned about the situation referred to by the hon. member for Halifax because, although I am not from a seaport, I represent a part of an eastern province. I hope the minister will give consideration to the suggestion of the hon. member for Halifax, even though it may involve tremendous ramifications in respect of export and import traffic. Surely the fact that the minister proposed one thing in the house on Friday to eliminate an abortion, a phrase which has been used in the connotation of a pun, and has suggested something quite contradictory on Monday is an indication that serious consideration should be given to this subject.
So far as the suggestion about the operation of icebreakers in the St. Lawrence Seaway is concerned, I agree with the minister that we cannot legislate against the use of icebreakers. I am sure the people in the eastern provinces are aware of that fact. On the other hand, the two main ports in the maritimes can be assisted by legislation. While we cannot restrict the economic use of the ports of Montreal and Quebec, we can certainly help the ports of Saint John and Halifax by taking the bold step of bringing the ports of Montreal and Quebec under the port parity concept. I do not think any discrimination would result from the inclusion of the ports of Montreal and Quebec within the port parity formula.
There may be no specific reference to this formula in many acts but the formula is to some extent in practice. By including the ports of Montreal and Quebec perhaps the two eastern ports could take advantage of the benefits provided through increased facilities by the National Harbours Board. This would also remove the handicaps suffered at the present time by the two eastern ports.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
We are very pleased with the assurance given by the minister that if this subject is not dealt with by the transportation commission it will be looked into by the research branch of the new commission. Certain people in the east have had doubts whether this matter would be investigated adequately. From what the minister has said in the house in the last few days, and certainly from what he said today, I know that he is very much aware of this problem. The minister is aware of it, although perhaps other hon. members cannot
January 23, 1967

understand why there is such anguish and consternation over this clause. It seems fairly harmless on the face of it. In effect, in a small way this particular clause, especially as it was worded on Friday, is as important to the ports of Saint John and Halifax as the Crowsnest pass clause was to the west. I may be making more of an analogy here than I made a few days ago when attempting to write very euphemistic phrases to put into the legislation with respect to the Maritime Freight Rates Act. I admit the handicap under which I was suffering in putting my intention into legislation.
We wish that the draftsmen had exercised themselves earlier and suggested to the minister what was suggested today. We could have just deleted the freeze altogether and have had no freeze at all for two years rather having the freeze to continue until the transport study has been made and the government is ready to move in this respect. But that is the question for yesterday. The question for today is of as much concern to these ports, and therefore to the two provinces concerned, as the Crowsnest pass rates are to the west.
It gave me a great deal of pleasure to see the minister rise at the beginning of the debate today and, in confession and repentance, take out a contradictory phrase in a clause which on the face of it seems pretty innocuous to the majority of hon. members but which in effect would not have reserved but destroyed the rights which are enjoyed in this area. The only thing I can say in extension of what has been said by the two hon. members for Halifax and the hon. member for Saint John-Albert is that the government is establishing a new concept in grain rates under new section 329, and in the context of the remarks I have made I hope it is clear that it became evident, upon reflection over the week end which is a period of somnolence and dreams, that an error was being made which was corrected this afternoon.
In the same context, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the minister and his draftsmen accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Halifax, take it under advisement and not necessarily be so bold as to extend this provision to imports but at least extend it to exports to include the ports of Montreal and Quebec so that the handicap of distance vis-avis the four ports of Montreal, Quebec, Saint John and Halifax will be removed. In this connection there are still obvious handicaps. Industry will settle in Montreal, Toronto and Quebec whereas it may never settle in Saint
Transportation
John or Halifax. The problem is not simply distance. The MacPherson commission points out that perhaps transportation is the real reason that the maritimes have not blossomed and bloomed in the economy of Canada. But there are other factors which will prevent the maritimes experiencing any great growth of industry. If we can only eliminate the handicap of distance we will see a stimulus to the economies of the ports of Halifax and Saint John. The figures presented to us by the hon. members from those two ports show that their economies have not only not been holding on but have been declining.
If we eliminate the problems of distance and bring the port of Montreal into the port parity situation, I for one, without living in the past, will have to face the consequences of what I have said in this connection. If we could eliminate the distance factor by reason of port parity the question of icebreaking would not be of such concern. Let the other ports have the icebreaking facilities. If we had port parity the ports of Halifax and Saint John would be used much more than they are at the present time. The ports of Montreal and Quebec will certainly be used more with the extension of icebreaking services, which are there as a fact of life.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, hope springs eternal. Whether hope is good enough here I do not know and I am somewhat reluctant to accept that philosophy. But we are faced with the fact of this section. We will see the results of the transportation study. The minister is certainly very aware of the problems. I do not wish to say anything further at this stage in view of the assurance of the minister, but I hope the whole question of port parity will be looked into and we shall see the elimination of the abortion-this may be a pun on words -that is creating havoc in our ports. This would resolve my own dilemma and difficulty in this regard. On the basis of the minister's assurance, those are the only remarks I shall make at this time.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word or two here. I wish to ask the minister a question and to commend the hon. members from the Atlantic provinces for bringing to our attention a subject which, while it is of more particular concern to the Atlantic coast ports, is of concern to Canada.
In the course of his remarks the minister said that to ask the taxpayers of Canada to make up the difference in freight charges between, say, Ottawa and Halifax and Ottawa and Montreal would be asking rather too

January 23, 1967
Transportation
much provided the charge was the same to the two ports from the point of origin at Ottawa. In following the debate and listening to the discussion carried on by hon. members from the Atlantic provinces, and recalling to mind the many questions asked over the last several years, particularly by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, with regard to icebreaking in the St. Lawrence river, it has become very clear that the minister will have to consider very seriously something in the nature of compensation for the Atlantic ports if he is going to ask the taxpayers of Canada to provide millions of dollars for icebreaking facilities to keep the St. Lawrence river ports open in winter. I do not think there has been any disagreement with this icebreaking policy in other parts of Canada.
However, Mr. Chairman, what caught my attention was the minister's reference to the taxpayers as a whole. Being a taxpayer, it occurred to me that I should ask him, not necessarily to elaborate at this moment in this respect because he has been elaborating too much for the last two weeks but to have his study groups look into this situation very carefully, because I believe hon. members from the maritimes have made their point. If, as the minister says, the geographical advantage enjoyed by Montreal over Halifax would be destroyed by having a freight rate which was the same from Ottawa to Montreal as from Ottawa to Halifax, the minister is destroying the geographical advantage of the ports on the Atlantic coast by keeping the St. Lawrence river open the year round. That being the case, the maritime provinces will suffer accordingly and the general taxpayers of Canada will benefit the ports on the St. Lawrence and the business of central Canada at the expense of the people who live in the maritime provinces. I wonder whether this will appear to be quite fair to people generally, much as we want to see the development of year-round navigation.
I recall a few years ago a distinguished scientist and engineer pointing out to me that it might be possible to keep the St. Lawrence open not by icebreakers but by another system.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Blowing bubbles.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, by blowing air bubbles, which I thought should be considered, or by the introduction of warmer water to prevent the freezing of the river. In any event, an

expense of some millions of dollars, as I recall, would be involved. Perhaps the experimentation is still going on. Whatever is done the taxpayers generally will pay for the cost and the ports on the Atlantic will have decreased income and traffic. Over the years we have been trying to give the Atlantic provinces fair treatment with regard to their development along with the rest of Canada. Being a westerner and understanding the problems of the Atlantic provinces better than people who live in central Canada I sympathize with their position. I know that the maritimers and the westerners have always joined forces in encouraging the development of central Canada but not at the expense of either the west or the east. So I suggest to the minister that the argument advanced by hon. members from the east coast had had its effect on all members of the house. They have been logical and reasonable in their arguments. We hope that the minister will be convinced that any disadvantage which may accrue to the Atlantic ports by the maintenance of year-round navigation on the St. Lawrence river will be offset in some way so that the Atlantic provinces will not be placed at any further disadvantage.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman has thrown real terror into my heart, not so much by the fact that he spoke as by the content of his speech. Having come from Manitoba I went to the Atlantic provinces to find a seat, and I hope the hon. gentleman is not thinking of moving down there to try to defeat me because I really would be terrified if that was why he had intervened in the debate. However, that is probably not the case.
To speak quite seriously about the points raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, and very briefly, bearing in mind his admonition that I explain too much and start new debates, I want to reiterate my view that the problem of making the most effective and fullest possible use of the ports of Halifax and Saint John and of the vast national investment in capital facilities in these ports is a national problem. It is not just a problem of the Atlantic ports. I have great hopes that with the development of superships and of integral trains for traffic that is not rated quite high enough to go by air but where the greatest possible speed of delivery is important, there will be a great future for Halifax in particular because of the great natural advantages of that port. One of the most interesting possibilities of this kind of traffic going through the port of Halifax is the
January 23, 1967

number of days that could be saved, and this may come about in the not too remote future. The hon. gentleman and I heard a little about this from some of the people who are conducting studies on the matter.
I wish to say generally that I feel that this subject is one which needs urgent, pressing and full research. Since I have substantially met two of the points put forward by the hon. gentlemen and since I really do not think that at the present time, here in the committee without really expert assistance and quite a lot more study, we could improve this bill in any way, I would hope that perhaps the hon. gentlemen would not feel it necessary to press any further amendments.


J. Michael Forrestall: I think possibly what the minister has said in the last hour makes a fair amount of sense. I think we will lick our wounds and lay us down for a while. I wish the minister had found some way to write into the bill a meaningful guarantee that the parity structure with regard to export traffic at least through Halifax and Saint John and within the select territory would not only be maintained but would be designed in such a way as not to discourage their full use. I am referring to a guarantee that in no way would a shipper in a manufacturing concern somewhere in central Canada find it necessary to give consideration whether he should use the port of Saint John or the port of Halifax that indeed he would feel quite free to look at the pool of available foreign-going ships and regardless of whether they left from Halifax or Saint John would use the one that suited him best.
I am not suggesting I am an expert but I am not satisfied that these things are happening in a controlled manner. Port parity between Halifax and Saint John does exist but I think it is there more in word and spirit than in actual fact.
As was pointed out on Friday when we first read the amendment, we thought that the minister had been away from Newfoundland too long and had completely lost his senses. We are pleased that he has removed the very cumbersome section 334 qualification from his amendment. We hope he will keep his word in regard to the special study. If there is nothing in it about port parity he had better go back to Newfoundland because this will be no fit place for him to live when we finish with him.
We are now approaching the culmination of what must be many months of dreaming, hoping, praying, sweating and working on the part of the minister, and therefore we believe
Transportation
it is not incumbent on those representing the ports of Halifax and Saint John to frustrate him further. We will give him the assurance that we will not move further amendments dealing with this matter. I simply reiterate and re-emphasize the fact that we still believe very strongly that now is the time to do something drastic. I do not think that the government should wait for integral trains and superships. Now is the time we should be moving. I caution the minister that unless something is done very quickly to retain the long-shoring and stevedoring capacity, the skills and understanding that have been built up in Halifax since 1749 and also in Saint John and unless the government does it now, these ports will not have the men with the skills to cope with greater traffic and the advantages that flow therefrom should traffic increase.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment carry?


J. Michael Forrestall: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the present clause 59 as amended and renumbered carry?
Clause as amended agreed to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would you now call clause 74, Mr. Chairman?
On clause 74-Cessation of "bridge subsidy".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Notwithstanding what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has said, and I appreciate the spirit in which he said it, I will have to make fairly extensive observations on this clause. It is the clause that provides basically for the transitional subsidies to the railways. It provides that these transitional subsidies shall be reduced year by year by a certain fraction until they ultimately disappear. There is provision also for certain specific payments that would be made to the railways in respect of certain services that may be imposed upon them in the national interest. These payments would replace some part of these subsidies at a time when the subsidies were sufficiently reduced so that the railways would require the other money to make up the difference.

January 23, 1967
Transportation
In other words, the railways will not get both the transitional subsidies and the specific payments for specific services. When the total of the specific payments equals the transitional subsidies, the transitional subsidies would not be paid any longer-at least, the amount would not be paid twice. The other day the committee saw fit to disregard my entreaties and knocked out of clause 50 the proposed new section 329 of the Railway Act. I believe, sir, that in so doing what the committee was seeking to assert was that they did not feel parliament should direct the new commission to conduct a mandatory review of the revenues and costs connected with grain rates. Although I did not like the decision of the committee, I respect it. If my interpretation of the decision made by the committee is a correct one, I am not going to suggest that this basic decision be reversed. In other words, I am not going to ask hon. members to insist upon a mandatory review by the commission of the financial effects of the carriage of grain as prescribed in this bill.
However, the adoption of the amendment had some perhaps not incidental but ancillary effects that are quite important. It had the effect, for example, of removing the protection for freight rates on a great many grain products other than wheat and flour, which I am sure most hon. members who voted for that amendment had no intention or desire of removing. It is quite true the hon. member for York South made a statement that in clause 15 of the bill there was adequate power of review of any matter that the government might wish to have reviewed. I feel I would prefer not to rely upon clause 15, particularly when the committee has expressed the view that it does not want a mandatory review of these matters.
The hon. member for Acadia, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and others pointed out, and I thought there was some substance to their argument, that by asking parliament to require the commission to make this review a presumption was being created that the rates on grain were not compensatory. I have no desire to ask a committee or the house to create any such presumption. Indeed, in this matter I was seeking to be completely neutral and to leave it to the commission to determine what the facts were. I do agree that in perhaps a sentimental or a notional way it might be said, if you demand a mandatory review of something, you imply a certain conclusion even before the review is made. I believe we should not do anything that would 
leave any such implication because I know how strongly people feel about this in western Canada.
I do not want to do anything that is going to look to anybody as though there is any bias in this matter because I assure hon. members there is not. I do believe that one or two members-I have not reviewed the debates sufficiently to recall who they were-felt it would always be open to the railway to ask for such a review. Then the onus of asking for it, the onus of proving the case, would be entirely on the railways. I accept that as a reasonable proposition. It occurred to me, therefore, that one way in which we could accomplish all the incidental things that I feel need to be accomplished in this bill without asking the committee to reverse itself on the main point that there should not be a mandatory review imposed upon the commission, would be by an amendment I am going to suggest. There are one or two minor technical points, but so far as the main point is concerned the amendment would provide that in the case of any statutory rate, not merely grain rates but any statutory rate, provided in this bill, the railways, not earlier than two years after the coming into force of the bill, could apply to have any statutory rate reviewed by the commission. The rates we have just dealt with in the new clause 59 would come within this category too.
The fact that the rate would be reviewed could not mean a change in the rate. This would be a review of revenues and costs. Then there would be a recommendation to the governor in council on whether any relief should be afforded to the railways. The way this would work would be that the railways would have to ask for the review. They would have to take the onus and provide the proof. They would have to make their case, and if they made their case there would be no obligation on the government to provide the relief. The government would be told what relief, in the opinion of the commission, would be desirable. Then the government would have to exercise its discretion whether to bring something before parliament.
It seems to me that this procedure would meet all the objections that were voiced to the other procedure. This procedure applies to all statutory rates, and it would apply also to all rates that are set by the commission. If under clause 16 the commission sets aside a rate and substitutes its own judgment, then two years and not less than two years after such substituted rate was set a railway could claim it
January 23, 1967

was not compensatory and ask to have the
results of it assessed.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
We have made fairly adequate provision for appeals by shippers against the unfairness of rates. We have said that one of the principles of this bill is that if statutory and regulatory obligations are placed upon the railways they are entitled to be compensated for those things out of the treasury. Here we have something that does not appear to me to be open to any of the objections to which section 329 may have been open, though personally I did not think it was objectionable. However, the committee chose to think it was. But here at any rate no one can say that there is any presumption. The government does not have to take any initiative, nor does the commission; it is the railways themselves that have to make the application. Therefore there is no presumption placed in the bill, any more than there is a presumption in giving a shipper the right under clause 16 to say that the railways are taking an undue advantage of him in one case as opposed to another.
In the same amendment in a new section 471 I also propose to replace the definition of grain rates, which I believe was inadvertently thrown out like the baby with the bath water. I do not think any hon. member in any part of this chamber would want this situation to persist.
I am also going to make another suggestion. A very eloquent and persuasive plea was made by my hon. friend from Vancouver Quadra, which found an echo on the other side of the house, if I may so describe the venerable member for Kootenay West, in connection with rates on grain into British Columbia for domestic purposes. I feel about this subject in the same way that I said a few moments ago in another context I felt about a possible amendment that the hon. member for Halifax was going to move, namely, that we could not try to devise here and now a solution to this problem which would not create other problems that would also be very serious. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask the committee to agree that we direct the commission in this bill, not later than six months after the coming into force of the act, to embark upon a study of this question.
There are also a couple of small technical matters, one of which just corrects a misprint, but if the Minister of Fisheries would now move this amendment I would be very grateful.
Transportation


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I so move.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It has been moved by the Minister of Fisheries that clause 74 of Bill No. C-231 be amended:
(a)	by striking out lines 35 to 38, inclusive, on page 62 of the Bill, as reprinted, and by substituting therefor the following:
Reductions "468A. (1) The reductions in rates continued, that, immediately before the coming into force of Part V of the National Transportation Act, were in force by virtue of section 468 continue in force subject to subsections (2) to (4)."
(b)	by striking out line 30 on page 63 of the Bill, as reprinted, and by substituting therefor the following:
"that are subject to Order No. 96300 of the"
(c)	by adding immediately at the end of page 64 of the Bill, as reprinted, the following: Definitions. "470. (1) In this section,
"Statutory	(a) "statutory rate" means a rate
rate."	for the carriage of any commodity between points in Canada maintained for the public benefit at a rate or level of rates specified in this or any other Act of the Parliament of Canada; and
(b) "substituted rate" means a rate fixed by the Commission under this Act or substituted for any rate disallowed by the Commission pursuant to this Act.
Application. (2) Subject to subsection (3), a railway company under the jurisdiction of Parliament may make an application to the Commission to investigate the revenues and costs attributable to the carriage of any commodity by the company at a statutory rate or substituted rate.
(3) No application shall be made under subsection (2)
"Substituted
rate."
Limitation. (a) in the case of a statutory rate, until after the expiration of two years from the coming into force of this section, and (b) in the case of a substituted rate, until after the expiration of two years from the day that the substituted rate became effective.
Report and (4) After an investigation under this recommen- section, the Commission shall report dation. its findings thereon to the Governor in Council and shall recommend in its report the amount of payments, if any required in the opinion of the Commission to assist the company to meet its costs of operation in respect of the carriage of any commodity at a statutory rate or substituted rate.


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point
of order. Would it not be better for all members of the committee to have a copy of this amendment so that we can follow it? I am not getting anything from the reading of the

January 23, 1967
Transportation
amendment and I am not going to vote in favour of any of it until I have had the chance to read it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I will do my best to get more copies. I concluded the preparation of these amendments just before I came into the house, because it was a very difficult problem. I do have a number of copies but I hope that in a few minutes I will have some more. Meanwhile I can lend the hon. gentleman the only copy I have left.


Mr.   Kindi@: That is all right. Your intentions are good, Jack.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My heart is in the right place.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee wish me to continue?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Continue.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Presumption. (5) Where, pursuant to any action taken by the Governor in Council following receipt of a report from the Commission under subsection (4), financial assistance is provided a railway company in any year from moneys appropriated by Parliament therefor, the payment to the company of such assistance shall be deemed for the purposes of sections 314E and 469 to be a payment under this section. Crown rep- (6) Where in any proceedings be-resentative. fore the Commission under this Act the matter of the revenues or costs of a railway company under the jurisdiction of Parliament is under investigation, any Minister of the Crown in right of Canada may cause representations to be made thereon to the Commission by persons having knowledge of costing principles or matters that appear to such Minister to be relevant to the determination of railway revenues and costs.
"Grain	471. (1) In this section "grain prodproducts" ucts" means any commodities to which, defined. under the freight tariffs of the company in effect on the 1st day of January, 1966, the rates known as grain products rates, flaxseed products rates or rapeseed products rates applied on that date.
Maintaining (2) No action shall be taken under related section 470 in respect of any railway rates.	company unless the company has maintained, at the level of rates prevailing on the 31st day of December, 1966, the level of rates
(a) on grain products other than flour moving from any point west of Fort William to Fort William or to Port Arthur over
Rapeseed.
Rate differential study.
any lines of railway of the company;
(b)	on grain products other than flour moving for export from any point west of Fort William or Armstrong to Churchill over any line of railway of the company;
(c)	on grain or grain products moving for export from any point west of Fort William to a Canadian port on the Pacific coast, other than Vancouver or Prince Rupert, over any line of railway of the company;
(d)	on grain products other than flour moving for export from any point west of Fort William to Vancouver or Prince Rupert over any line of railway of the company; and
(e)	on grain or grain products moving from any point west of Armstrong to Armstrong over any line of railway of the company
(3) For the purposes of this section and section 328 and the Act and agreements therein referred to, the expression "grain" includes, rapeseed and the rates applicable to the movement of rapeseed from any point referred to in subsection (2) or section 328 after the coming into force of this section shall not exceed the rates applicable to flaxseed.
472. Not later than six months after the coming into force of Part I of the National Transportation Act, or this section, whichever last occurs, the Commission shall undertake a study of the differences between rates on grain moving for export to ports in British Columbia and rates on grain moving otherwise to such ports, and shall report to the Governor-in-Council for such action as he deems desirable or expedient in the public interest."
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Would the Minister of Fisheries explain his amendment?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I shall leave that to the Minister of Transport.


Mr. McIntosh:: It seems to me that this is bringing the Crowsnest matter in by the back door. Would the minister stand the amendment until we have had a chance to study what it does?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be happy to get more copies so that hon. members may look at them. I apologize for not having them earlier, but I think that notwithstanding the length of the amendment it will be found that it really is quite simple. It restores, beyond peradven-ture, the protection for all grain rates. Instead

January 23, 1967

of requiring the commission, as the original bill did, to conduct a review of the financial consequences of the carriage of grain it obliges a railway company, if it wants such review, to apply for it. The company cannot apply for it for two years. Two years have to go by before the application can be entertained. Of course, since such an application cannot be disposed of today or tomorrow, so to speak, there would be very lengthy hearings, and the time required for any review would be at least as long as under the previous act.
The railway company would have the right to ask for a review of the financial consequences not just of grain rates but of any statutory rate and of any substituted rate. Those rates have to be in operation for two full years before any such review can be applied for. That is all there is to it.


John (Jack) McIntosh: How does this differ from the section that was in the bill before it was defeated in the house?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The provision in the bill before related only to rates on grain. It did not relate to all statutory and regulated rates. The previous bill required the commission on its own to start an investigation, whether the railways asked for it or not. That, I think, was what most hon. members from western Canada objected to. They said that by putting this obligation on the commission the government was saying that it believed these rates were not compensatory.
The commission will be under no obligation to examine rates unless the railway makes an application for a review and makes a case. In that respect there is a fundamentally different principle here. I felt it was only right that I should respect the view of the committee in this matter and that I should not ask it to reverse its position. I do not think anyone will object to correcting the position with respect to the definition of grain and the protecting of these rates.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: In other words, judging from what the minister has said, in a backhanded way the baby thrown out with the dirty water is back in again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I thought so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And I hope it is completely uninjured.
Transportation


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: May we have a chance to study this amendment?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the reading of this complicated amendment and I will not thoroughly understand it until we have copies. I am pleased that the minister has listened to the representations made by the members for Vancouver Quadra and Kootenay West, based on the representations made by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture before the standing committee on transport and communications, and is going to anthorize a study of the problem they brought before the standing committee. I think that will provide useful information and will be of value to all those concerned about the cost of grain for domestic use in British Columbia under the present circumstances.


Richard Albert Bell: It may be dangerous for an easterner to get into the subject of the Crowsnest rates, but if I understand what the minister has proposed he intends to substitute for the mandatory proposal that the commission shall in three years examine the rates a provision whereby the railway companies two years hence may examine all statutory rates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Any statutory rate.


Richard Albert Bell: Any?


John Whitney Pickersgill: They apply to have that done.


Richard Albert Bell: If that is a concession to what the house voted on, then I confess it is totally the reverse of what I should have thought such a concession might be. Here the former mandatory situation becomes wide open after only two years; it is wide open to any railway company to make an application. I confess that as an easterner I find the minister's attitude extraordinary. Perhaps I should consult with my colleagues before expressing an opinion but I think the minister has done something that opens the matter more widely and more immediately than was originally intended.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman is quite wrong about that. I think that perhaps because he is an easterner he does not appreciate that in all the debate we had on this subject there was one problem and one problem only that seemed to be exercising the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite. I understood it very well. Hon. gentlemen opposite maintained that because the government was asking parliament to say that there must be a

January 23, 1967
Transportation
mandatory review of the effects of the rates on grain, we were ourselves creating a presumption that these rates were not compensatory. I could see why they felt that way and I could see why there was the opposition there was.
Here we have something very different, it seems to me. The railways have always maintained that the rates are non compensatory. They maintained that before the MacPherson commission. It seems to me that we cannot give shippers a wide right of appeal against rates set by the railways and not give the railways a chance to come before the commission. The hon. member for York South and the hon. member for Acadia argued they would be able to do it anyway if they wanted to, whether it was expressed in the bill or not. All we are saying here is that it cannot be done for two years. They cannot even make an application before two years have passed in respect of any rate which is statutory or any rate which has been altered by the commission substituting a regulated rate for a rate fixed by the railway. The rate has to be in operation for two years before it can be argued that it is not compensatory.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The approach I am taking in this amendment is exactly the kind of approach to the matter which hon. members opposite argued could be taken. They said they just did not want this parliament to instruct that there had to be a review of these things. I think this is now a fundamentally different position, and for this reason I feel it meets the objections which were raised.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like the minister to give a fuller explanation of what is meant by a substitute rate. Section 470 (1) (b) says:
"substituted rate" means a rate fixed by the commission under this act or substituted for any rate disallowed by the commission pursuant to this act.
Then the bill goes on to say in subsection 2 of the same section:
-a railway company under the jurisdiction of parliament may make application to the commission to investigate the revenues and costs applicable to the carriage of any commodity by the company at a statutory rate or substituted rate.
There are further references to this in section 471 (2) where it is pointed out that no action can be taken under section 470 unless the railways have maintained for two years the rates prevailing on December 31, 1966.

The minister will appreciate that we have only had this document for a few minutes. Taking all these things together, may I ask whether the commission will have any power to substitute a rate for a statutory rate and then call it the substituted rate?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. Statutory rates cannot be changed except by statute. What is meant by a substituted rate is a rate established under clause 16 after someone says there is discrimination or something of that sort, and the commission sets a rate different from that which the railway had originally set, or any rate which might be set under the maximum rate formula. Such a rate would be in operation for two full years and only at the end of those two years could the company claim that it was not compensatory and that the commission should investigate revenues and costs. There is no provision anywhere in the bill for the commission to substitute its judgment for the judgment of parliament in setting statutory rates.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As I followed the amendment, several paragraphs of the section which was deleted have been reproduced almost in their entirety in the new section. As far as I can see, the minister has reintroduced all the definitions of grain products which were previously contained in three paragraphs of section 329.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. Not only have we done that but the definition of rapeseed which was previously arrived at by a reference to some order of the board, I believe, has been expanded a little. It was thought that the phrase originally in the bill necessitated a reference to documents and that it would be better to spell out the definition in the legislation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The wording of section 471 (3) seems to require some explanation. The subsection says that the rates applicable to the movement of rapeseed after the coming into force of this section "shall not exceed the rates applicable to flaxseed". The reference here is to a rate applicable to flaxseed. Is there some other place in the bill where the rates applicable to flaxseed are more specifically laid down than they are in this subsection?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The reason for that is simple. Flaxseed is described as a grain or a grain product and is covered by one of the definitions. But rapeseed was not described as a grain; it was described as "comparable to flaxseed". Although it was directly stated to
January 23, 1967



be a grain product, it was said that the rate for rapeseed should be the same as the rate for flaxseed so as to make absolutely sure that both were covered.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister has done in part what I expected he would have to do after what took place last Wednesday. In order to explain the amendment which I moved then may I say that I endeavoured, first of all, to frame a complicated amendment such as the minister has provided but I decided subsequently that it would be better to put forward a very short amendment, about whose details there would be no dispute in the committee at all, and then let the minister bring in any changes which would have to be made. In other words, when amending a bill it is possible to strike out or to add words, or it is possible to strike out and substitute. I thought it was simpler to strike out. Then, if something had to be substituted the minister, with his officials, would bring in the substitution. This is what has happened on the present occasion.
I believe the members of this committee will need to study the proposed amendment with some care to see whether it is altogether satisfactory. The minister correctly summarized our arguments the other day as to the mandatory nature of the original provision in the bill making it obligatory on the commission to investigate the Crowsnest rates. Now he is suggesting that, instead, permission should be given to the railway companies to state their case with regard to statutory rates. We shall have to look at that proposal to decide whether it is really a satisfactory solution.
I would grant offhand that it is a neat way around the problem. The reference to the review of Crowsnest rates has been struck out of the bill, and that is one of the things which we were asking. But whether or not the back door has been left open too wide is one of the things we have to consider during the course of the day, possibly during the supper adjournment if there is to be one.
We did not intend to discuss the Crowsnest rates during the passage of this bill but perhaps this aspect of the debate has not been without useful result because we have had a look at these rates and considered various definitions. I challenge anyone to find in any of the relevant acts, whether the Railway Act or the Grain Act or the act pertaining to the Board of Transport Commissioners, a satisfactory definition of grain and grain products. In fact, I myself was not able to find anything
Transportation
with regard to grain products. Grain itself is not very carefully defined, perhaps for a good reason.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
As new cereals are developed unknown ones may come into use and be included under grain, whereas if grain were defined very carefully there might be an exclusion of newly developed cereal production. Therefore there may be a very good reason for not defining grain clearly.
Grain products seems to have crept in by way of the Board of Transport Commissioners. The Turgeon commission reported in February, 1951, and had this to say at page 238, chapter 9:
The scope and application of the Crowsnest pass rates have been greatly altered since they first became effective. They are at present in force (partly by statute, partly by order of the Board of Transport Commissioners, and partly by action of the railways themselves, as will appear) in respect only to shipments of grain and flour and certain other grain products, and they are held at a level which is three cents per 100 pounds less than the rates charged by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in September, 1897, on shipments of grain and flour from all points on its main line on the prairies west of Fort William to Fort William and Port Arthur, and they apply as follows:
Then the commission goes on to mention grain and flour moving from point to point and in subparagraph (e) says that the Crowsnest pass rates apply:
To shipments of certain by-products of the milling, distilling and brewing industries, and also certain feed products, not included by strict interpretation within the meaning of "grain" and "flour" in the foregoing paragraphs-
That commission took note of grain and flour, and grain products. The minister said on Tuesday, January 17, as recorded at page 11927 of Hansard:
-the effect of striking the whole of section 329 would be to destroy a part of the legal foundation of the Crowsnest pass rates, because it is in this section that there is a definition of grain, and without that definition the safeguards for those rates would disappear-
I think that was incorrect. Perhaps the minister was not feeling his best at that particular moment. Then on Thursday, January 19, as recorded at page 11986 of Hansard, the minister said:
The amendment for which hon. gentlemen voted yesterday removes the protective rates for barley screenings, barley meal, bran, buckwheat flour, chopped feed, crushed barley, crushed oats, feed grain, grits and groats, flaxseed screenings, linseed meal, linseed oil, cake meal and cake linseed oil.

January 23, 1967
Transportation


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was not the whole list because I was interrupted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I never finished it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, the minister's officials provided him with a lot of material and members of his staff rushed to get in touch with press representatives. As a result the Winnipeg Tribune of Friday, January 20, carried an article with a great big headline which I will not bother to read-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Read it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: All right. The headline reads "Pickersgill Says Tory Crowsnest Victory Costly," and one paragraph reads as follows:
His staff was passing around today a list of 36 grain products which would no longer be protected by the Crowsnest pass rates agreement, as a result of the opposition elimination of a clause calling for a study of that agreement.
Then the paper did a little interpreting of the news, I presume with the assistance of the minister's staff, and again I quote:
This could mean an increase of anywhere between 10 and 50 per cent on these "Crowsnest related rates" involving everything from barley screenings, flax and rapeseed to crushed oats, rye flour and wheat germ.
I object to this attempt by the minister to scare the public. He says here in this chamber that we have taken away some of the legal basis for the Crowsnest pass rates, something which we did not do at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Related rates.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We did not affect the agreement and act of 1897 or the act of 1925. But the minister through his staff has word placed in the press in order to alarm the public, hoping to counteract what I called his political inept move with regard to western Canada, and so we got this headline in the Winnipeg Tribune. I hope that through the amendments which the minister will present, if this one is not satisfactory, that we can settle what the Crowsnest pass rates govern. The Turgeon commission said not only grain and flour but certain by-products.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Flax and rapeseed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, flax and rapeseed are all considered here. Over the years the Board of Transport Commissioners has been dealing with this matter. The minister now has us terribly confused. He says that the section we eliminated destroyed the definition of grain and that without that definition the Crowsnest

pass rates would not be effective. Those rates have been in effect for 70 years and I would point out that in new section 329A of this bill another definition of grain is given. It is as follows:
"grain" means the commodities referred to in paragraph (6) of Order No. 121416 of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada dated the 18th day of July, 1966.
In effect there were two definitions of grain in the bill, one of which we struck out, and the minister is now trying to bring it back in again.
All through the years the Board of Transport Commissioners has treated grain and products derived from grain as grain, and the rates have been applied accordingly. If the rates have not been applied under the Crowsnest agreement why would the minister say that because his definition was not accepted these rates would become ineffective? How can they become ineffective if they had been applied all these years under the authority of the Board of Transport Commissioners? There may be an explanation for that but at present I do not know what it is. I found another definition of grain in the interpretation section of the Canada Grain Act of 1925. It reads as follows:
"grain" means and includes all kinds of varieties of grain, the inspection of which is provided for by this act;
And also:
"western grain" means grain grown in the western inspection division.
There is a section in the Canada Grain Act dealing with grades and samples which talks about statutory grades, commercial grades, off grades and screenings. Then there are two schedules to the Canada Grain Act, chapter 25 of the Revised Statutes of 1952, which list the various grade names for western grain. There is reference to red spring wheat, white spring wheat, winter wheat, amber Durum, mixed wheat, oats, barley, rye, mixed grain, flaxseed, buckwheat, corn and sunflower seed. Perhaps that has reference to the eastern division, but there is a slight difference between western and eastern grain. I am afraid I am wrong because there is reference to flaxseed, sunflower seed, soybeans and peas in schedule 1 which is entitled "statutory grades of western grain".
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
That is the way in which grain has been defined, and that is how all these types have come under the Crowsnest rates. When it came to our attention in 1961 that rapeseed
January 23. 1967

was becoming an important agricultural product in western Canada the act was amended to include rapeseed in the general category of "grain". In the last paragraph on page 12 the minister has incorporated the wording of the amendment moved to the Railway Act on July 13, 1961 and has used the phrase, grain includes rapeseed, and the rates are the same-they shall not exceed the rates applicable to flaxseed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that resulted from a bill sponsored by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, and until he did so we were not aware of the importance of rapeseed in western Canada. He has kept us aware of that fact ever since. It was at his insistence that the amendment was brought in, after which the wheat board began to take notice of rapeseed.
The Crowsnest rates have been applicable by statute or regulation of the Board of Transport Commissioners, or by action of the railway companies themselves, to grain of the types I mentioned, to flour and by-products of the various grains. Unless the minister can produce other evidence I think he is wrong in suggesting that we are striking out advantages which accrue to people shipping grain, flour and products of grain in those areas of western Canada to which reference is made in the act. I hope the definitions proposed by the minister will be satisfactory, but I wonder whether or not they are really necessary. Perhaps that does not really matter if in the future parliamentarians 20 years from now, who I am sure will be dealing with this subject, find it easier than we have to understand this act. If that is so I am prepared to accept the minister's definition of grain and grain products.
We must be very clear in future regarding grain and grain products. It strikes me as being very odd that a grain product such as flour should be treated in a different way than products of grain are treated, and I refer to wheat germ, bran or any other type of grain product. They all come from grain, including wheat, oats, barley and so on.
It is after six o'clock and I have nothing more to say about the detail of the amendment the minister has put forward, but let me conclude by saying that I had intended to be rather severe with the minister but changed my mind. I felt that I should treat him rather gently. If we have a proper supper adjournment and maintain our good humour perhaps we can pass some of these clauses. I have
Transportation
exercised a great deal of restraint. I should like to examine some of the words of this amendment and discuss them with my colleagues. Before doing so let me say the minister has made a real effort to meet most of the objections we raised last week, and he now admits that we were correct in raising those objections.
At this time I should like to know whether by granting permission to the railway companies to raise the issue of statutory rates with the commission we are going a little bit too far. In the past the railway companies have been able to complain, grumble and groan about these things, and the answer of the government has been to appoint a commission periodically to consider the alleged complaints by shippers or producers or the complaints of the railway companies. That was perhaps a more difficult process than the one to follow the adoption of this bill which says that within two years the company may raise this issue. Why should we not wait until pressure builds up on a government to appoint another royal commission? Perhaps we should just leave the statutory rates entirely alone. In any event that is what I should like to consider before we accept or reject this amendment.
Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl: I am prompted by the question posed by the hon. member for Carleton to ask another question. Can the minister give us a list of the statutory rates? I have noted the definition but is there a list of all the rates which have been incorporated in our statutes at certain levels now available to hon. members?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely the difficulty we faced in respect of clause 59. When statutes are revised, as every lawyer knows every change does not find its way into the revised statutes. Some are left out by inadvertence, but they still remain the law of Canada. I think we all know pretty well what most of these rates are.
By this bill we are saying in principle that the railway companies set their own rates but that under clause 16 there can be an appeal to the commission from those rates. The commission can then set a rate to be called a substitute rate. We are also saying that the commission cannot touch certain rates which are fixed by statute but that the railways are entitled to ask for compensation for carrying goods when parliament imposes the duty upon the railways to carry those goods at a rate to which they do not consent. One of the principles of this bill is that they may receive compensation under those circumstances.

January 23, 1967
Transportation
In this bill we are saying that the railway companies should carry goods in respect of which the rate is statutory for a period of two years without making any kind of appeal. We are stating that they cannot have a review of those rates for two years but that after two years they may allege that the rates are not compensatory and ask the commission to review them.


John (Jack) McIntosh: May I ask a question on that one point? What is the significance of the two year term? Why is it not five years, ten years or one year?
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think there are many reasons why one might pick two years. For example, wage agreements on the railways usually run for two years. In recent years the railways' costs have pretty nearly always gone up after each one of these wage adjustments. A rate that was compensatory in 1966 may not be compensatory in 1968. If it is a rate set by the railways it is up to them to look after their own affairs, but if it is a rate set by parliament, when the commission has the power that is given under this bill to review the matter it does not seem unreasonable to have this provision. We have also asserted the principle that the railways are entitled to compensation for obligations imposed on them as national obligations, and have also said that after there has been enough experience to enable some data to be gathered so as to know what the effects are there can be a review on application by the railway. It is just a matter of trying to be reasonably fair to everyone concerned.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I know that the Crowsnest pass rates are fixed at statutory levels. There is no problem there. But I do not think this provision satisfies the Maritime Freight Rates Act. I refer to the percentage reduction on a fluctuating basis.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This provision would not apply to the Maritime Freight Rates Act at all. The 20 per cent and 30 per cent apply to rates on which the reductions are made. It would not apply to the Maritime Freight Rates Act because the payments under that act are specifically for the purpose of compensating the railways, so they could not argue that they were not being compensated in respect of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. This provision might apply to the rates that will continue to be frozen. That is one good

reason why there is a limit of two years. There cannot be any review for two years, so those particular rates cannot be reviewed at all. We intend them to continue for two years until parliament reviews them, which we hope it will.
It could also apply to some of the rates that were referred to in clause 59 and to the At and East rates. The railways are getting some compensation from them now, but two years from the passage of this act it might be said that the compensation was no longer adequate in respect of the At and East rates; and it might not be adequate. We admit, because of the judgment of the Board of Transport Commissioners, that they are entitled to be paid something in respect of those rates.
However, two years or less than two years once the commission had set a rate seemed to be a ridiculously short period. I would guess that in most of these cases it would take at least three years, and probably more, to get a determination. You have to consider the time taken from an application being made and advertised. It has to be made known to everyone so that anyone who wants to object to it, including the Minister of Finance, has the opportunity to do so.
This is one thing I should have pointed out, but did not do so, in respect of the amendment. I am sure this will be particularly interesting to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. He will recall that several hon. members asked who was going to make the case for the other side. Therefore I caused to be put into this amendment subsection 6 of new section 470, which says:
Where in any proceedings before the commission under this act the matter of the revenues or casts of a railway company under the jurisdiction of parliament is under investigation, any minister of the crown in right of Canada may cause representations to be made thereon to the commission by persons having knowledge of costing principles or matters that appear to such minister to be relevant to the determination of railway revenues and costs.
It was always my thought that if the subsidy was going to be paid the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Transport or both would want to be represented anyway, but I thought we should put it beyond any shadow of doubt by including this provision. I think it will help many hon. members who said that the provincial governments in the past had been under an obligation to spend a great deal of money on these matters. They may wish to make representations too but they will know now that under this law, in order to protect the treasury, representations are bound to be
January 23, 1967

made by a minister of the crown. I think it is a good thing to have this provision in the bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister a question.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. Before the committee hears the hon. member for Medicine Hat may I ask the indulgence of the committee to give information concerning the proceedings on the adjournment motion at ten o'clock tonight. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Rinfret: It is my duty, pursuant to standing order 3 9A, to inform the committee that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this evening are as follows: the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) -Education-Toronto-Possible closing of schools for immigrant children; the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise)-Agriculture-Quebec-Proposed compensated discount on milk; the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams)-National parks-Use of expropriation to halt court cases.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the minister this question. Will the crown's representative be asked by the Minister of Transport to appear before the commission only in cases where there is a possibility that a subsidy will be paid in respect of any statutory or so-called substituted rate, or will there be other cases with regard to which the federal government will take on the burden of establishing the costs that are relevant to the movement of the commodity involved, where large regions or large industrial shipments of primary goods would be involved and it would be in the public interest that someone appear on behalf of the crown?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would think that in any case where there was a possibility of a subsidy any government would be guilty of negligence in not being represented in order to see that as far as possible all the costs that were alleged by a carrier, whoever he might be, were properly checked and audited. I would think that when the commission undertakes its first big job it will be the job of establishing the costing techniques, on which there will be public hearings. I am quite sure that the Minister of Finance, probably the Minister of Transport also and maybe other ministers, will wish to be represented at the hearings on costing procedures and costing techniques. As the hon. member for Medicine Hat well knows, the costing procedures and techniques
Transportation
are almost as important, and perhaps more important, than determining the costs of individual shipments. Once the techniques are established, the other things are perhaps a matter of rather complicated computing, but arriving at the right techniques is the essential thing. In this respect we would want there to be no doubt.
In the case of a dispute involving, say, a big mining company which was asserting that the railway company was taking an undue advantage in connection with its own rate, I think one would be governed by the circumstances. If the issue seemed to be purely a matter between the shipper and the carrier, in which no obvious interest of the government of Canada was involved, it might not be necessary for the crown to be represented. But I would think, since all these things tend to be related one to another, the government would want to be represented all the time at all these hearings.
There is another reason for the government being represented at these hearings. There is an appeal from the commission to the governor in council. If the government is represented by an expert, by counsel so to speak, at the hearing, the minister and other ministers would have the advantage of consultation with counsel who would understand what had transpired at the hearing before the commission. This would apply in those cases where appeals have to be heard. So I would think that in all these cases it would be desirable, but even here it does not say so because it is not customary to order the crown. It just says that the crown may be represented, but there is no doubt as to the intention.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)	[DOT]


Thomas Miller Bell: If there are no other questions I would like to ask the minister whether we can interpret the look on his face as a hungry look and whether he thinks we could have a supper recess at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think both the hon. members for Medicine Hat and Swift Current have other questions to ask, but any moment that we feel we do not want to discuss this matter further until we have had a chance to consider it I will be quite willing to have this clause stood and perhaps we could take part II and make some progress on it. We might even reserve one clause there in case any hon. member who is not here now wanted to comment on it. I really want to make progress. In any event I understand that the committee wishes to rise between 7 and 8 p.m.

January 23, 1967
Transportation


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There is one more comment I should like to make. First, I want to say to the minister that he has said something for which I have waited for months and months, and that is that the federal government, in the name of the Minister of Transport in particular but also perhaps in the name of other ministers, will assume the role which I think they should have assumed in the past. I am referring to the fact that as long as we have the adversary system which is used before the Board of Transport Commissioners and which it appears will be used before the new transport commission, it is necessary for some large public bodies such as the federal government to take the side of the public interest. The minister said that the government would be guilty of neglect of the public interest if it did not assume this role, particularly when subsidies are involved. I agree with him but I think I would go one step further and say that this government in some cases and the previous government in other cases have been in my opinion somewhat guilty of negligence in not taking the side of the public interest in the case of substantial public service involving passenger trains or the abandonment of railway lines being withdrawn provided the railways were successful in their applications.
All I want to say with respect to section 470(6) is that we have waited a long time for the Minister of Transport to say what he has just said, that the government will take an active interest in presenting the case for the public before these hearings. I have been to some hearings in which the public interest was involved and at which a municipality or other interested party did not feel it was strong enough or had sufficient resources behind it to take on such powerful bodies as the railway companies, especially in the gathering of evidence and the presentation of the case for the public interest. Therefore I am very pleased to have heard this statement from the minister finally and I commend him for it. I hope that in the future we will see this being done in the spirit which was indicated by the minister a few minutes ago.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I would like to endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Carleton. I think this is a very confusing amendment and it is much broader than the one which was defeated. There is one point to which I should like to draw the minister's attention. I refer to the wording in the fifth line in section 471(1) on page 2 of the amendment where it is said that grain products

include rapeseed products. Therefore we can say that rapeseed is grain and that the byproduct of grain would include rapeseed products. However, the section reads in part as follows:
-the rates known as grain products rates, flaxseed products rates or rapeseed products rates-
Why are rapeseed products rates not the same as grain products rates? The minister said that rapeseed is a grain. This is rather confusing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman heard the very excellent exposition on this subject of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre in which he pointed out that the original Crowsnest agreement applied only to the C.P.R. and only to wheat and flour. Through the years it had been extended by the Board of Transport Commissioners

the hon. member read from the report of the Turgeon Commission-and in some cases extended by the railways to other commodities. I think the latest extension was through a bill introduced by the hon. member for Hum-boldt-Melfort-Tisdale which was passed in 1961. Over the years other grains and grain products have been added and given the same statutory, regulatory or board order or in some cases have been recognized as grain by the railway companies themselves. What we are seeking to do, and the lawyers have done their best to do it, is to ensure that every grain and grain product now covered by the rates which we usually call the Crowsnest rates will still be covered under the new legislation. I have accepted the view of the lawyers that the language used here seems to them to be desirable to make sure that we protect all the rates which everyone wants to protect and certainly which every western farmer wants to protect.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I should like to point out to the minister that the hon. member for Carleton is also a lawyer and the argument advanced by the minister did not seem to me to meet the remarks of the hon. member a few moments ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the hon. member for Carleton said anything about the definition of grain. He was talking about the possibility of making an appeal, and that is a different matter.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The reason I rose when the amendment was first presented and asked the minister if we could stand this section was so that we could study this matter further.
January 23, 1967


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course I am quite prepared to do that.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I certainly do not intend to speak at length on the amendment except to say in all fairness to the minister that I do not think this amendment can in any way be construed as impinging on the continuation of the Crowsnest rates. I did not feel that the original clause in the bill had that effect. However, an argument arose about whether this might be the likely effect after the holding of the study, and objection was also raised to the fact that the Crowsnest rates were being singled out for special and in the opinion of some, undesirable attention. In this respect this amendment is less offensive and possibly should receive the support of the members of the committee.
I am rising at this time to ask the minister for clarification with respect to section 471(2) of the amendment which appeared in the same form in the original section 329 and I could have asked the question at the time when we were considering it. I am puzzled by the wording in paragraph (c) of section 471(2) which reads as follows:
on grain or grain products moving for export from any point west of Fort William to a Canadian port on the Pacific coast.
These rates are statutory and I really do not understand the wording "unless the company has maintained. .. the level of rates". There can be no question about it since the company must maintain that level of rates because they are statutory. Can the minister explain the use of the word "unless"?
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: The point is that not all rates are statutory. That is precisely the reason. The rates set out in proposed section 328, which are covered by the statutes of 1925 and some other statutes, are statutory. Some of these other grain rates which are set at the same level as the statutory rates, have been set by orders of the board and are not statutory. Some others have been set by the railways themselves and have never been embodied in any order of the Board of Transport Commissioners. Therefore, what we are saying here is that if the railways disturb those rates in any way, then they can never receive any compensation even if they can show that the rates at which they are carrying the products are non-compensatory. I believe that is an accurate explanation.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I think it would be worth while to take another 30 seconds to follow this
Transportation
up. I realize that some of the rates applied to certain grain products are not statutory in the exact sense of the word "statutory". If these rates are not set by statute, then surely they must be set either by order in council or by an order of the commission, in which case they are still legislative or quasi legislative rates, are they not?


John Whitney Pickersgill: They are rates that are in force now. It was never suggested by me that anything we had done here would take these rates away. I said the provision would remove the protection. This is the device by which we will be sure, or as sure as we possibly can be, that the railways after the passage of this bill will not touch any of these rates. This is the purpose.


Edward Richard Schreyer: There is one last point for clarification. I understand the minister's reasoning in large part, although I must confess not completely. Let us take for example the reference in proposed section 471, subsection 2, paragraph (c), to a level of rates on grain moving for export from any point west of Fort William to the Pacific coast. Surely that category of movement comes under statutory rates?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Wheat does, but I am not sure about all grains. In some cases, this provision makes the same doubly sure.


Mr. Rapp:: Actually, sir, rapeseed is better defined under the heading "grain" now than it was in the original.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought the monument to the hon. gentleman should not be lost.


Thomas Miller Bell: I thought the minister was very skilful in the way he avoided answering the question raised by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, particularly as to what additional statutory rates were being swept into this clause. When the committee voted, it voted in relation to the Crowsnest rates. The minister has come back with a proposal under which all statutory rates are to be in this new section. The hon. member for Saint John-Albert asked what are the statutory rates? The minister said: Well, because of the difficulty when we consolidate statutes I do not want to outline these in the house.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it is a very well known rule of the courts that what is said in this House of Commons is never a matter which is before the court or before the Board of Transport Commissioners. The minister therefore is not under any inhibition. I agree with

January 23, 1967
Transportation
him completely that he should not enumerate them in the legislation. I think his definition of statutory rates is a good definition. However, I think the committee is entitled to know from the minister the list he has in front of him from his officials outlining just what he has brought under this provision. This will not prejudice the matter in any way when it comes before the new commission or before the courts for interpretation. What he enumerates are just words which have been uttered in the House of Commons. They are not matters of evidence before the courts.
I think before we vote we ought to know what the minister believes he is now including by way of rates in this definition, which were not included in the old section which was defeated in the committee. I think it is a simple matter for the minister to outline. This list does not have to be all inclusive. If the minister misses one or two, that will not prejudice anything. The list would provide a basis upon which the members of this committee could exercise intelligent judgment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that is a good suggestion. I do not believe I could give the list now, and I will not pretend to. I will have to produce a list when I come back after eight o'clock. I do not believe I should try to do that without the advice of my officials and, notwithstanding what the hon. gentleman says, I do not have a list in front of me. There are quite a number of them and I do not know the correct name. If we are prepared to stand this clause now and go on to something else, I should like to say one word about another aspect of it before we do so.
I am just making this as a declaration of the position of the government on this matter, and it will not affect this bill directly at all. I think I owe it to hon. members to make this statement. It was represented to us in the standing committee by the Canada Steamship Lines that their rates had been frozen at the time of the rate freeze put on by the previous government in 1959, and that they had participated in consequence in the payments that were made to the railways. However, since they are not a railway they are not included in this bill. Since the company has had to keep these rates at that level for all these years, they could not suddenly adjust them upward, and it was represented they were entitled to some transitional subsidy.
I have given a lot of thought to this matter, and I felt perhaps we might amend the bill to do that. However, I have come to the conclusion that because the transitional subsidies for
[Mr. Bell (Carleton).l
the railways are made up of a number of different things, upon some of which Canada Steamship Lines has no claim to any share, this computation should be made very carefully. I have consulted my colleagues and it will be our intention to make a suitable provision in the supplementary estimates for what we deem to be a fair and equitable transitional payment to the Canada Steamship Lines based on the same principle of payment as in this bill. I thought it was only fair to say that now, while the bill was before the committee, since the matter had been brought before the standing committee, so there would not be any misunderstanding about it. This is the appropriate clause on which to make the statement.
If hon. gentlemen would prefer to stand clause 74 now, perhaps we can make some progress with the next part until seven o'clock.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have one question which relates to proposed section 470, subsections 2 and 4. These deal with applications the railways may make after two years. These subsections refer to the railway making an application to the commission to investigate the revenues and costs, and then, after the investigation, the commission shall report its findings. There is no provision there requiring a public hearing. Perhaps the minister can tell me if there is such a provision somewhere else. An investigation may or may not necessitate a hearing before the commission. If there were interested parties who wanted to present their case, where would they find the right to demand, if I may put it that way, a hearing?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the draftsmen are listening. My view is that it is provided in part I of the bill that there must be a hearing on any of these matters whenever any interested parties want a hearing. If there is any doubt about that I will bring forward a suggestion to remove it. But in fact I do not think there is; I think there has to be a hearing.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am concerned about this because it would be possible for the railways very quietly to apply for an investigation, and for the investigation to go forward without general public knowledge that it was under way, if there was no hearing. I would not like to see that happen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Neither would I. I certainly do not want to see the commission suddenly
January 23, 1967

present to the government a bill tor X millions of dollars without the government having had the chance to be heard in the matter. That is what is involved here. There is no doubt about our objective, and I think there is no doubt that the bill as it now stands provides for that. However, I will verify the matter.
I wonder whether we could now go to part II, Mr. Chairman, on the understanding that we try to complete part II and then come back to clause 74 after part II had been completed. We would also rise between seven and eight.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, before we go on to part II, the minister brought in a reference to Canada Steamships. Can he say anything now about the progress which has been made on the subject of St. Lawrence seaway tolls? Is there any danger of those tolls being increased?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think I would be breaking the rules of the house if I did so, and everyone knows how reluctant I am to do that.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee now agree to stand clause 74 and the amendment moved thereto by the Minister of Fisheries?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it the wish of the committee to revert now to part II of the bill, clause 22 to be found on page 13?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Ballard:: Mr. Chairman, part II of Bill
No. C-231 has to do with commodity pipe lines. I believe this is the first time that commodity pipe lines have become the subject of government regulation. Commodity pipe lining is a new endeavour in Canada, indeed in any country in the world.
I notice that the revised bill brings a new definition into the proposed act of a combined pipe line; this is to be found in paragraph (a) of clause 22. The original act had no such definition or made no reference to a combined pipe line. I believe it was I who first raised this question in the transport committee hearings, when I asked the minister what body would have jurisdiction over a solid pipe fine where the fluid of transmission was oil. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment the minister has made to the bill has gone about the matter in the wrong way. I 23033-767
Transportation
would rather have seen combined pipe lines taken out of the bill altogether, instead of subjecting them to the provisions of the act.
As I said before, Mr. Chairman, pipe lining is a relatively new concept of materials handling. As a matter of fact, only two briefs were presented before the transport and communications committee, one of them by the C.N.R. which did not appear to be very interested in pipe lining. The C.N.R. seemed to be well enough satisfied to subject pipe lining to the provisions of the bill, provided the act made it as uncomfortable for the pipe lines to operate as it did for the railways.
The sum and substance of the presentation of the C.N.R. is to be found at page 1839 of report No. 24 of the committee on transport and communications. One of the paragraphs of the brief was as follows:
If all modes of transport are to be treated alike then commodity pipe line companies should also report to the transport commission in the same fashion.
The information filed with the transport commission by all modes should either be available to all or to none-
It is interesting to note that the recommendation of the C.N.R. was that the pipe lining companies' activities and accounts should be open to the same scrutiny as the activities and accounts of the railways themselves.
I think that the legislation before us is good. The minister and his officials drew up the terms of the bill with not too much background on this type of movement of goods. As a matter of fact, the MacPherson report did not consider commodity pipe lines at all. '
The other brief which was presented to the transport committee was much more sophisticated and informative. It was presented by the Shell Oil Company and appears at page 2089 and following of report No. 29 of the transport and communications committee. Incidentally Shell Oil Company have quite an interest in pipe lining because they are considering construction of a pipe line from Alberta to the west coast for the movement of sulphur from Alberta to the seaboard. This is going to be a $50 million project and will mean a lot to the economy of Alberta. The manufacture of sulphur involves the use of large quantities of the surplus natural gas we have in that part of the country
In their brief the Shell Oil Company pointed out that pipe lining is going to be the means of transportation in the future for quite a number of different primary products. Some of these now come to mind. I mentioned sulphur; others are potash, coal, wheat, and

January 23, 1967
Transportation
wood chips lor the pulp and paper industry. Another interesting point the company make is that the experience of pipe lining is that the unit cost has gone down over the years, whereas the cost oi moving similar goods by rail transport has steadily increased.
One of the objections I have to this clause, in the first instance, is the definition given of combined pipe lines. According to clause 22 (a):
"combined pipe line" means a commodity pipe line through which oil and gas, or either, can be moved;-
The key word there, Mr. Chairman, is "can". I should point out to the minister that any pipe line can move oil, but not all pipe lines necessarily can move gas. They can be adapted from one kind to the other very easily. Really, what the minister is saying in this definition is that all pipe lines are combined pipe lines.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does not the hon. gentleman think that perhaps what the draftsman meant was not "can", in the sense that it would be theoretically possible but in the sense that the pipe line would be built from the place where there was oil to be moved? While in an abstract sense, the hon. gentleman is correct, in what he says, there might be a situation for example where there was no oil within several hundred miles of the pipe line. However, a pipe line which was used for some other liquid would theoretically be capable of carrying oil though in practice it might not carry oil.


Harold Raymond Ballard: I thank the minister for making this explanation. What he is saying is that it is within the realm of possibility that all pipe lines originating in the prairie provinces, all of which produce oil, will come under the provision of this bill regardless of the fact that they transport commodities other than oil.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I think the hon. gentleman has misunderstood this. Any pipe line that does not carry a commodity, other than oil or gas, cannot be a commodity pipe line and therefore does not come under this at all. There must be both oil or gas, and some other commodities as well; it does not matter whether it is oil or gas, but it must be some other commodity before it is a combined pipe line. If that is not so, it is just an oil or gas pipe line and comes under the National Energy Board, and this commission has nothing to do with it.


Harold Raymond Ballard: I appreciate what the minister says, and this is what I understand by "combined pipe line". But it does not say that in the bill. I still contend, according to this definition, that any commodity pipe line originating in any of the prairie provinces would of necessity be called a commodity pipe line. I bring this to the minister's attention in the hope that he will produce a better definition of a combined pipe line, a definition more in line with the explanation he has just given.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will consult the lawyers about it, but I am sure they must have thought of this point.


Harold Raymond Ballard: I leave that with the minister. I thought that was one of the things wrong with the provisions of the bill. Do I understand, Mr. Chairman, that we are dealing with part II as a whole, and that it is permissible to refer to other sections?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder, if the hon. gentleman has nothing more to say about clause 22, if we could not hold that clause and go on with clause 23. I wish to see as many clauses adopted as possible.


Harold Raymond Ballard: I wish to object in any case to the inclusion of a combined pipe line in this bill. The minister in later clauses of the bill has built up a super bureaucracy which makes it almost impossible for a commodity pipe line to get started. We know of the cost and the time consumed by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to make a presentation to the National Energy Board, in the recent hearings involving the Great Lakes pipe line. The cost was approximately $1,800,000. Over two years was spent in the preparation of the report, and that report was put before the National Energy Board and the Federal Power Commission of the United States almost one year ago.
It is the type of preliminary cost I have mentioned which is necessary to impress these commissions. Much time is involved, and it would be almost impossible for a new company to get started in this field. Certainly the obstacles will discourage people from going into the business. They will be discouraged even more when faced with a board twice as large as it ordinarily would have been. I suggest to the minister that commodity pipe lines be placed under one board or the other, under the Transport Commission or under the National Energy Board. For goodness sake do not let us fall into the trap where companies must have approval from both these organizations before they can begin construction or expansion.

January 23, 1967


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman looks at clause 25, as I am sure he has, he will see in paragraph 3 that there is no requirement that a company should appear before both boards. There has to be a combined hearing at which, I would guess, probably one or two members of the Transport Commission would sit with members from the National Energy Board. They have to make a combined report to the governor in council. It could not happen that one board could accept the application and the other refuse it; it just could not happen.
The reason that it will be unacceptable to the gas and oil company generally if these pipe lines, these combined pipe lines were taken out of the purview of the National Energy Board, so far as gas and oil are concerned-and I am saying a word about this, so that the hon. gentleman may reflect about it-is that it would mean a regime might be applied to gas and oil different from the regime that was applied to gas and oil pipe lines which did not carry some other commodity.
The Transport Commission will not be concerned at all with the carriage of the oil or of the gas. It will be concerned only with the carriage of the commodity, the other commodity that is in line. If the hon. gentleman will not mind looking at page 2, clause 3(b) of part I he will see that a commodity pipe line is defined there. I think when that definition is looked at in relation to the other one he referred to, it does seem that there must be the fact-not just the theoretical possibility-but the fact of having oil or gas as well as some other commodity before it would be a combined pipe line.
It was understood that the committee would rise for one hour at 7 o'clock-unless the hon. member wishes to go on for a moment or two.


Harold Raymond Ballard: Mr. Chairman, may I call it seven o'clock?
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand that the house wishes to suspend sitting from now until eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that at eight o'clock the work of the committee shall resume?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Transportation




[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-231, to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions-Mr. Pickersgill- Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: I do now leave the chair. SITTING SUSPENDED
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)



SITTING RESUMED

[Stage Direction]
The committee resinned at 8 p.m.
Maurice Rinfret: House again in committee of the whole to consider Bill C-231.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are on clause 22, I think.


Harold Raymond Ballard: When we suspended the sitting
at seven o'clock I was putting forward the contention that, first of all, the phrase "combined pipe lines" was not properly defined in clause 22. I hope the minister and his staff can arrive at a more appropriate definition than the one which is now in the bill.
I should also like to say in connection with clause 22 that the minister might well consider exempting combined pipe lines from the provision of this bill altogether. In other words, in my opinion an undue hardship is imposed on anyone trying to construct or operate a combined pipe line by making such pipe lines subject to the regulations of both the National Energy Board and the Transport Commission.
The minister's argument that an application need only to be made to a combination of these two boards, in other words, one submission, was not convincing. I would expect the National Energy Board and the Transport Commission to have a different outlook on the movement of goods; they would have differing regulations which might even be in conflict one with the other. I can foresee that it will be almost impossible for an applicant to satisfy the members of both boards.
The Shell Oil Company, in making its presentation to the committee on transport took the same view and recommendeded that commodity pipe lines-that is a newer description

January 23, 1967
Transportation
-should come under one board or the other, but that they should not be subjected to the regulations of both boards. In fact, Mr. Ritchie, who presented the brief for Shell Oil, summed it up in this way as reported on page 2903 of the minutes and proceedings of the transport and communications committee, volume 29:
If sole jurisdiction over commodity pipe lines were placed under the National Energy Board there would be no duplication of effort in administering these lines together with hydrocarbon pipe lines. On the other hand, should commodity pipe lines be placed under the Canadian Transport Commission, then in order to avoid dual jurisdiction, it would seem necessary that the commission also should be responsible for hydrocarbon as well as commodity pipe lines.
I submit that we already have a group of experts serving as members of the National Energy Board-people who are familiar with pipe lines, the possibilities and pitfalls of this type of transmission. I suggest they are quite capable of handling all questions concerning combined pipe lines.
There will not be many pipe lines built in the near future. The one which Shell Oil proposes to build will be the longest commodity pipe line in the world-from southern Alberta to the west coast. I believe the longest pipe line in existence at the present time is about 107 miles long. Another is about 70 miles long. All the other commodity pipe lines in North America run for only very short distances.
I suggest it would be more practical for the National Energy Board to handle all pipe lines where hydrocarbons are the commodities being transmitted, also that it would be more practical for that board to have jurisdiction over pipe lines which use hydrocarbons merely as a carrier for other solids, whether in capsules or in slurry.
I trust the minister will take note of my suggestion that a better definition of combine pipe lines be given, also that he will note my proposal that combined pipe lines be excluded from the provisions of this legislation and that combined pipe lines as well as oil pipe lines be administered by the National Energy Board.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wish to support the contention of the hon. member for Calgary South, that there will be much division in jurisdiction so far as regulatory bodies are concerned. Provincial governments also have their own agencies to deal with pipe lines. The minister has said that since there are no pipe lines which would presently come under the jurisdiction of the new Transport Commission, this

is only enabling legislation granting that commission power to make and enforce regulations if and when the need arises.
In the foreseeable future it is only pipe lines built for the transmission of oil that will carry other commodities. In other words they will be combined pipe lines, and under Part II of the bill the new Transport Commission would be involved with them. On the other hand, in certain cases clause 27 allows the governor in council to give sole jurisdiction over a combined pipe line to the National Energy Board. Since the National Energy Board is the only agency with experience of pipe lines, save for certain provincial bodies which govern pipe lines within a province, perhaps it should be given all the authority necessary to see that the federal law with respect to pipe lines is carried out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What the hon. member for Calgary South and the hon. member for Medicine Hat have said is largely true. The only such pipe line project that has received much discussion is the one mentioned by the Shell Company, about which it made representations to the committee. As a result of those representations we changed the bill quite markedly.
The only interest that the Transport Commission would have in a pipe line that used oil as the carrying medium for the carriage of some other commodity, would be in relation to the rates or tolls charged for the carriage of that other commodity. As the hon. member for Medicine Hat has said, apart from certain provincial bodies the National Energy Board is the only one with any experience of dealing with pipe lines. I cannot conceive the Transport Commission would in the slightest degree be interested in dealing with matters relating to the construction of a pipe line, but the National Energy Board at present has no power under the law to regulate the tolls for commodities other than oil and gas. Thus there is a gap in the law.
This question was discussed at length both at the official level and between ministers, and in deciding where the division should come it seemed to us that if we were serious about our attempt to co-ordinate all forms of transport under one body, then the new Transport Commission should be given power over toll charges for commodities carried by pipe line.
The hon. member for Calgary South spoke rather eloquently on the subject. Before long pipe lines may become serious competitors of the railways. I would not mind if they did, because anything that improves our transport
January 23, 1967

by increasing its efficiency and decreasing its costs, although it may be temporarily inconvenient for a competitor, would give a net dividend to the whole Canadian people and we should all welcome it. There should be no problem so far as combined pipe lines are concerned.
When someone comes to incorporate a company and get a charter for a pipe line, all that will happen is that one or two members of the Transport Commission will sit with the National Energy Board pro forma to hear his application, so that they will know what other commodity or commodities are proposed to be carried through the pipe line and under what sort of conditions. They will not be in the least concerned with the carriage of oil, nor will they have any right to say anything about it. Quite frankly, unless one assumes that these bodies are going to be negative and obstructive in their attitude and try to prevent progress, something which our Canadian experience does not suggest they are likely to be, then I do not anticipate any greater difficulties than if only the National Energy Board or the Transport Commission dealt with the matter.
It would be quite impossible to think of splitting the jurisdiction over the carriage of oil between the National Energy Board and the Transport Commission. That has to be under one board. On the other hand we would fail to achieve the kind of co-ordination we hope for if, with respect to the regulation of the traffic in other commodities, the new Transport Commission, which will deal with all other forms of transport, did not have jurisdiction over that.


Harold Raymond Ballard: At present we have several oil pipe lines in Canada operated under the direction and the watchful eye of the National Energy Board. If as the result of technological improvement these oil pipe lines in the future can be made to carry capsulized solids, would the minister consider that the new Transport Commission would be committed to honour the decisions laid down in the past by the National Energy Board in terms of construction and operation?
* (8:20 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: If this involves a question of existing lines carrying commodities, let me state that, so far as I am aware, no existing line can carry commodities without some adaptation in respect of valves and pumps. I am not particularly familiar with the actual operation of pipe lines, though, as a listener,
Transportation
during a previous parliament I had a great deal to do with that subject in this place. It is my information that all existing pipe lines would have to be adapted to the transportation of commodities such as oil.
It is inconceivable that the commission world be any more anxious than the board to impede progress of that kind. Surely that kind of progress is so patently in the national interest, the development of economic modes of transportation will not be impeded. I do not anticipate any trouble at all in this context.
We are putting the general provision in our law that no carrier may carry commodities at non-compensatory rates, and that seems to be a reasonable position. We do not want these pipe lines to carry commodities at non-compensatory rates, to put some competitor out of business. I do not envisage the likelihood of such a thing happening because it would not make sense. It is only those aspects which relate to the transportation of similar commodities by other modes of transportation which would be in the interest of the new Transport Commission.


Mr. Korchinski:: I should like to ask one question arising from the minister's reply. Will there be any obligation on transportation companies to make transportation as low in cost as possible? I have in mind such things as the transportation of grain in capsule form, or perhaps coal or other solid commodities. Is there any obligation under this bill on transportation companies to develop economic modes of transport? As I read the bill before us, there is no obligation on anyone to go out and develop a cheaper method of transporting goods. The only obligation to do so results from public pressure. Can the minister give us some explanation in this regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At the present time there is no contemplation, though there may be at some time in the future, of having the government build a pipe line. It is our hope, and frankly it is my expectation, that before very long we will observe one, two or perhaps three enterprising firms putting private capital into these lines. As a government we want to be in a position to assist them in order that they can make a go of things. We want to have a law in effect under which they may operate, and that is the only reason for Part II of the bill.


Stanley James Korchinski: You see no incentive at this time?

January 23, 1967
Transportation


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are no commodity pipe lines in existence now.


Mr. Cantelon:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to follow a course entirely different from that followed by those who have spoken so far today. I am one of those individuals who would perhaps impede progress, as the minister has put it, or obstruct progress. I am not enthusiastic about the development of commodity pipe lines because in western Canada, and in particular in the province of Saskatchewan, a great deal of industrial development is required.
In this field of industrial development we in western Canada have not done too badly, but there is a great more that must be done, and done as quickly as possible. In my opinion the development of commodity pipe lines will not add to the industrial development of my province. My feeling is that such development will accomplish exactly the opposite. Transportation will become efficient and economic to the point that products such as potash and sulphur will be moved to other areas where development will take place. I have no objection to this development taking place in Vancouver, for example. What does bother me is the thought that a great deal of the potash produced in Saskatchewan, which by 1970 will amount to about half of the world's production, will be moved to areas such as Min-neapolis-St. Paul or Chicago, where it will be turned into fertilizers and other chemical products.
Germany founded its chemical industry on the production of KC1, or potash, as it is commonly known. I should like to see that same kind of chemical industry developed in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta where the natural products are in abundance. We have potash and coal in tremendous quantity. Those provinces have the power to develop a tremendous chemical industry in western Canada. For that reason I do not want to see this natural product moved south by means of commodity pipe lines.
Let me hasten to add that I would not mind this product being shipped to the Pacific coast for processing, but I certainly would object to its being shipped south by cheap commodity pipe line transportation systems. If that were done there would be no incentive whatsoever for the development of this industry in those places in Canada which lend themselves to such development.
For those reasons I cannot support the provisions of Part II of this bill in respect of commodity pipe lines. I should prefer to have
[Mr. Korchlnski.l
a provision to the effect that commodity pipe lines should be developed only when they do not obstruct the development of those areas from which the product is removed. That is perhaps Utopia, but that is my hope.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I will be in direct conflict with the hon. member who has just spoken, but there are certain things we have in common. We are both concerned with the interests of Canadian people. The hon. member for Kindersley was interested in obtaining information, knowing that certain commodities are transportable by commodity pipe line.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I know there are rumours as to certain possibilities. For example, I know there are rumours of the possibility of wheat being transported via pipe line. In this regard I do not think the hon. member who has just spoken, the Minister of Transport, or even his sneering parliamentary secretary, would argue with me. I do not know why the parliamentary secretary to the minister insists on adopting this attitude. He does it continuously. I wonder whether he is doing it in the form of a joke or whether he thinks it makes him look more serious. However, Mr. Chairman, I hope he will understand that the difficulties presented by certain sections of the bill are not of the type that can be passed off in an easy manner.
I know that avenues are opening whereby some commodities can be transported via pipe line. I very much wish that certain other commodities could be transported in this way. In this regard I am thinking of the parliamentary secretary; I wish we could dispose of him by this means of transportation. I do not include the minister in these remarks, because I think he really wants to be serious about these matters. However, Mr. Chairman, I think that every one of us must realize that we may eventually be transported via pipe line. I hope this will be so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley James Korchinski: Laugh as you like; but I wish the time would come when we would not have to depend upon the minister, or any parliamentary secretary to the minister who sneers all the time, for improvements in our transportation system, because they should realize the seriousness of the problem. We
January 23, 1967

must transport our commodities to the markets that are available to us. There are commodities that are very important to the economy of the country. We have to realize that there may be a new Nova Scotia coal mine that will be producing coal that needs to be transported.
Mr. Chairman, I wish the Minister of Transport would pay a little more attention to my remarks, because I am not putting forward just a western-oriented problem; in my estimation, this is a national transportation problem. The minister and I may be subjected to a great deal of ridicule in this regard, but I think one must realize that a problem in transportation is not just the concern of western members or involved with western products but is one of transporting as a country whatever products are available from whatever part of Canada. We as a unit want to say: This is Canada, and we want to do these things. I do not know whether what I have said makes too much sense. I would point out that I did not read it from any notes. Like the Minister of Transport, I want to make a speech off-the-cuff. Perhaps because of this I will be subjected to the same type of criticism as the minister.
I admire the minister for the way in which he has been able to overcome this type of criticism. Perhaps over the years I have not been able to overcome it to the same extent. But the fact is that we have a large, common problem. Whether the problem concerns a pipe line that will bring our wheat from the western part of Canada to our ports, or whether the problem is in bringing coal from Nova Scotia to our ports, I do not know. I do not know what will be necessary to make this bill and, as a result, Canada function more effectively.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Transport is taking these matters into account. I do not want him to think that because I am a member on the opposition side of the house, representing Mackenzie, I should be sloughed off with respect to the arguments I present. I do not want him to think that because there is another hon. member in another part of the house who may be interested in these matters, I should be slighted. Quite frankly, I do not know exactly what technical knowledge is available today to our technicians upon which they can decide how best wheat can be transported to the lake-head. I do not know what technical knowledge
Transportation
is available today to improve the transportation of coal from Nova Scotia to central Canada, where we need it.
All I say, Mr. Chairman, is that if this information is available, whether I explain it in the way the minister wants or whether 1 gesticulate in a manner that he dislikes, it does not matter to me at all as long as we make use of the information. I want the minister and the department to know that people are thinking about these problems and how we can best improve our economy in transporting commodities. I do not care whether the newspapers ridicule me. I have had the doubtful benefit of being ridiculed by the newspapers. If we have available a method of transportation that is cheaper than the method now used, and the minister is informed of it, he should tell this house today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps I could help the hon. gentleman quite a bit if he would allow me to interrupt him for a second. I believe that one of the advantages of passing this section of the bill would be that the commission would then be clearly told that the subject of commodity pipe lines was one of the matters under its jurisdiction. This would encourage the research side of this new commission to study the very problems that the hon. gentleman quite rightly thinks ought to be studied, and ought to be studied urgently. I think therefore he has made a very useful contribution in drawing this point to our attention.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate what the minister has said. I do not know whether he is trying to build me up as one the useful members of the opposition; but I do not think the minister's contribution was warranted in the sense of what I really think is necessary in this connection. I believe that this type of research has always been necessary. I do not know whether the department will think this type of research is necessary because of the speech I have made. Whatever the result of these remarks upon the department, I hope for better things for the minister, as the newspapers have forecast for him.
The point is, Mr. Chairman, that I do not think the research necessary in this field is encompassed in this bill. I do not think anything is envisioned in the bill that is capable of accomplishment in the next 10 years.
Even though we hope that certain things will be accomplished, even though the government might direct research bodies to conduct

January 23, 1967
Transportation
research in this direction, I do not think we will really accomplish what should be accomplished in this area. I am pointing out that what should be accomplished for the one commodity with which I am very familiar, namely wheat, will not be accomplished.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The government does not do anything for bulk commodities such as coal or motorcars. I do not care how they are shipped, the point is that the cost of transportation should be cheaper. The point I am trying to make is that a cheaper method of shipping commodities must be found. I am not familiar with the technical language; I am sure that the minister is better versed in it than I am. In fact I am sure he can talk circles around me. Can he tell me whether commodities such as wheat, shirts, coal, or even politicians can be shipped east in a cheaper capsule. I do not know how to express this, and I apologize to the house. We want the cheapest transportation possible and we are not sure that this legislation will provide it. I wall ask the minister to tell us the exact way in which this legislation will affect bulk commodities.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Chairman, there are a few questions I should like to ask the minister. Can he clarify for us the meaning of the wording in clause 23 which reads:
No person, other than a company, shall construct or operate a commodity pipe line to which this act applies.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before we consider clause 23 perhaps we can agree to pass clause 22.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall clause 22 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 23-Construction and operation of commodity pipe line.
Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Can the minister clarify the wording of clause 23? Perhaps I could elaborate on my question. In the construction of gas and oil pipe lines I have seen situations where a pipe line was constructed by a Canadian firm down to the boundary line, and another pipe line would come up from the United States. In that case another company would have to be established to build a pipe line about half a mile long to join the other two. In some cases pipe lines constructed within a province are built by individuals, not companies. As a matter of fact a co-operative pipe line is being started in my area to distribute natural gas to a number of farmers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question, which would save us both a lot of time. Such a pipe line is entirely constructed within Alberta, I understand. Any pipe line that was constructed entirely within any province would not come under this legislation but would be incorporated by the provincial authorities. It is only if it goes beyond the boundaries of a province or of Canada that the company would have to come to parliament to get an incorporation, so that any local pipe line carrying commodities would be in the same position as one carrying gas or oil. If it is entirely within the province it would not come under this law.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: The other question which I should like to put to the minister is to ask why it should be spelled out in the act that no person other than a company shall construct a commodity pipe line? We have a lot of men who have built their fortunes on oil and it is probably true that they would establish a company before they built a pipe line.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman
would look back to clause 22 he would see there a definition of a company. It says there that "company" or "commodity pipe line company" means a person named in an act of parliament. Under this law he would be a company. I know this sounds kind of silly and Irish, but that would be the effect of it. All that it means is that no one who has not been authorized to construct a pipe line may do so. He cannot do so without getting prior authority.


Mr. Keays:: I wonder if the minister really meant what he said when he used the words "kind of silly and Irish"?


John Whitney Pickersgill: All I was suggesting was that the Irish have a gift for words that some of the rest of us are not given.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: There are one or two other
points which I should like to make. There are several instances in the bill where the phrase mutatis mutandis is used. I should like to ask the minister first of all what is the meaning of this Latin legal term. Second, can the minister tell us whether there are no other words that could be used, so that the public can understand the bill without having to resort to a dictionary. These are concepts, and unless one has taken a course in law he would not know what they meant. Can the minister give us an explanation as to why simpler words are not used in this bill?
January 23, 1967


John Whitney Pickersgill: The expression to which the hon. member referred is in clause 26. If we could pass on to consideration of other clauses I could get an explanation from the lawyers, because I would not want to give one on my own. Can we pass clause 23?


Mr. Harkness:: I must apologize to the committee for not being here while the discussion on pipe lines was taking place, but I wonder whether any simple definition has been given as to what pipe lines would come under this act and what pipe lines would come under the National Energy Board Act?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman
would not mind reading clause 26 while we are dealing with the other clauses I think he would find that three quarters of the explanation are there, and I can do my best to give him the remaining quarter when we come to that clause.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have read the section but I am still not completely clear as to the distinction. Would the minister mind giving me one quarter of his explanation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, if the hon. member does not mind waiting until we get to clause 26.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. Bower:: I think we are still on clause 22-


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, 23.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 23 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to.
On clause 26-Tolls and tariffs.
John Whitney Pickersgill: While I am awaiting the explanation of mutatis mutandis, perhaps I could answer the question asked by the hon. member for Calgary North. We had some discussions on this point before the hon. member came into the committee in response to questions from the hon. member for Calgary South and the hon. member for Medicine Hat. Nevertheless I think I should repeat what I said, as nearly as I can, because this is very important.
Under the law, if an application is made for a commodity pipe line in which oil or gas is being used as the medium through which the commodity is transported, then under this act it would be a combined pipe line. Any application with respect to it, in order to save 23033-768
Transportation
the time of the applicants and everyone concerned, would have to be heard at a joint hearing of the National Energy Board and the Transport Commission.
Now, the National Energy Board has exclusive jurisdiction over the transport of oil or gas through a line. The Transport Commission will have no authority over that whatever. The authority of the Transport Commission will extend only to the transport of the other commodity. It is my expectation, since the National Energy Board has had considerable experience in dealing with these applications, that in so far as the building of the pipe line is concerned, the specifications and everything of that sort, the new commission will rely entirely upon the National Energy Board. All the new commission would, in fact, really concern itself with would be the actual operation of the line, and only with that aspect of the operation which related to the other commodity being carried in the line.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I ask the minister if it is spelled out definitely either in this bill or in the National Energy Act, as he stated, that the new commission will rely entirely on the findings of the National Energy Board with regard to a pipe line of this type?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Regarding the construction and specifications?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would think it would be very difficult to spell that out absolutely because a problem would arise if there were a pipe line that carried no oil or gas at all. I believe that the first thing that would be done by the two agencies in respect of the first application would be to lay down certain general principles that would be followed, so that when an application came forward, if one did, for a pipe line that would not carry oil or gas, the commission would know how to deal with the matter. I suspect that for a long time to come the Transport Commission would be apt to consult, perhaps even invite a member of the board to be present at any hearing for a pipe line that did not carry oil or gas, in so far as the construction and specifications were concerned. These are matters on which the National Energy Board has a great deal of knowledge. Fundamentally, all that the Transport Commission needs to be interested in, beyond making sure that proper specifications are made for safety and things of that sort, is the transport of the commodity and not the building of a line.

January 23, 1967
Transportation
It is our desire, and the bill has been so framed after the closest consultation at the official level and the ministerial level between my department and the National Energy Board, that we have a practical method of doing this which is not going to incommode the public.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I appreciate that the authority for the construction of the pipe line should rest with the National Energy Board. However, as indicated by the first question I asked, there is an ambiguous area here. I think it would be advisable, since it is not spelled out in the National Energy Act, that it should be spelled out in this bill when the committee is considering it. I wonder if the minister, and the expert draftsmen who are available to him, could produce some type of wording which would make this matter absolutely clear and definite?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest to the hon. member for Calgary North that clause 26(2), does precisely that. In effect, the clause says that any company operating a combined pipe line shall not charge tolls except tolls specified and approved by and filed with both the commission and the National Energy Board. Then, the provisions of sections 50 to 59 of the National Energy Act shall apply mutatis mutandis-I will say a word on that in a moment-in respect of the carriage by the combined pipe line of any commodity, as if the commission were referred to in those provisions instead of the National Energy Board.
I interpret that to mean that the rules that have been laid down in the National Energy Act for the governing of tolls are applied as though they were the provisions of this bill for the purpose of making tolls with respect to the commodity referred to here.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister says he interprets this provision in a certain way. As he has indicated in the house on many occasions, he is not a lawyer and neither am I. Has he asked the law officers of the crown for their interpretation of this clause? I know some of the law officers have drafted this particular section, but has he asked the deputy minister of justice for his interpretation of it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The whole of this part of the bill respecting commodity pipe lines was drafted, as the hon. gentleman knows, by the Department of Justice in consultation with the officers of my department and the National Energy Board. They were specifically

instructed to make sure that there was a clear definition of the functions of each, with no possibility of conflict on these matters, in so far as could be foreseen. I simply have to rely in this connection on the advice I receive. I am advised that both my department and the National Energy Board are completely satisfied we have dealt with this problem in a manner that will work. Of course, you can never tell, as the hon. gentleman knows, until you put this to the test.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You cannot tell what the courts will do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right. I am advised that mutatis mutandis indicates that the provisions will be read with the necessary changes being made in the actual language to make the provisions apply. I think this is the reason they use Latin, they can say in two words what it means. If I could put that in my rather vulgar, colloquial English, I would think the mutatis meant change and mutandis meant changing. This means you change the clauses from one bill to the other and you make the necessary changes in words so that they will make sense without changing the fundamental meaning. I am sure the hon. gentleman understands completely.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: It is as clear as mud.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, I would be quite happy to leave this matter at this point. I am not talking about mutatis mutandis; I am talking about the statement the minister has just made and am merely expressing the hope that his interpretation of this clause is that given him by the law officers of the crown and will be accepted in the future as the meaning of the phrase, which has not always been the case with other legislation we have passed in this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I join in the prayer.


John Oates Bower: Mr. Chairman, I would have preferred to speak on clause 22, but apparently I missed it. However, I think the kind of questions I have to raise are relevant to clause 26.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would mind, but the hon. member for Macleod was half way through a question when I interrupted him. Would the hon. member mind letting him finish his question first?
January 23, 1967


Mr.   Kindi@: I thank the hon. gentleman tor permitting me to complete my question. I still did not understand from the minister whether a change was going to be made, or is the wording going to remain exactly as it is? I realize that he can always consult a dictionary and find the meaning of these Latin words- and some of us here have taken Latin. But it rubs me the wrong way, as I am sure it does the people of Canada, when I pick up a statute and find certain Latin phrases used in it. Even the Roman Catholic religion is changing from Latin to English. Surely the minister does not want to allow his legal advisers to use words in an act of which the minister has to send out for the meaning. In other words, he himself is not too sure what they mean.
The reason he does not know is because they are a concept that the lawyers may interpret one way, that the minister may interpret another and that somebody else may interpret yet another way. It is like many of these economic concepts; there are legal interpretations there too.
I contend that in this kind of public statute this sort of language should not be used. I do not believe that the legal officers of the justice department should be permitted to put Latin words into this bill which the general public do not understand. I understand that the minister is going to change them; is that the thought?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; I am going to appeal to the hon. gentleman's better nature. I am trying to make what is an almost desperate effort to get a new transport bill through. I think it is asking a little more than one human being should be asked to do, all at once, to change the whole system of legal drafting at this time. If the hon. gentleman would give me 48 hours to get my bill through I will then have a hassle with the Department of Justice to see whether I can get them to go as far into the twentieth century as the Catholic Church is going. But please do not ask me to do that on this bill.


John Oates Bower: 
John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I can save the hon. gentleman and perhaps the committee a lot of time if I point out that a commodity as defined by this bill is what the bill says it is, not what the dictionary says it is. The bill says it is a commodity other than oil or gas. So it could not be a hydrocarbon; it would have to be something else. If it is just a hydrocarbon, then it does not count, as far as the way the word "commodity" as defined in the bill is concerned.


John Oates Bower: I have another point that I should like to make, Mr. Chairman. There are hydrocarbons which are solids, and the bill distinguishes between hydrocarbons and solids. There are solid hydrocarbons; for example, there is Grahamite, Gilsonite and Al-bertite. I know a pipe line that is presently transporting Gilsonite. A hydrocarbon can be as solid as a chunk of coal. This material is being refined in Salt Lake City. If we do not have some understanding of these terms well in hand, then later on when the act which we all hope is going to bring about a better transportation system in Canada comes into effect, we will run into difficulties of interpretation.
I should like to hear what the minister has to say about this question. How do we distinguish between a hydrocarbon which is in gaseous or liquid form and one in a solid form, which is something quite distinct? You can have solid hydrocarbons.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think I made a terrible mistake when I allowed the hon. member to lead me down this particular garden path. It is quite obvious that I am faced with an expert, and I am just a simple country lad. I think the governing words are "oil and gas", not "hydrocarbon", so far as the definition section is concerned. I think we all know pretty well what is meant by oil and gas.
If the problem became too difficult I think the governor in council would take advantage of the clause that enables him to exempt the material in question from the jurisdiction of the transport board, and to leave it entirely to the National Energy Board, the problem being too hard for both of them to solve. I think that is the way to deal with the situation, should it become that difficult. These things are usually a lot easier to solve in practice than when we are theorizing about them beforehand.


Mr. Mongrain:: Just a word, Mr. Chairman. I will not draw out the debate, because I am one of those who are beginning to admire the

January 23, 1967
Transportation
heroism of the minister who is enduring that marathon or talkathon with exemplary patience.
I noted earlier that an hon. member of the opposition tried to create a scandal about the use of the expression mutatis mutandis and even tried to insinuate that the minister was guilty of heresy, at least according to the new principle of the Catholic church. To quiet the conscience of that hon. colleague, I would like to remind him that, in all the French dictionaries-the small ones, not the big ones-as well as in all the English dictionaries-the small ones, not the big ones-he will find the expression mutatis mutandis; it is a Latin term which has found its place in the French and English languages. He will also find a quite simple and short explanation of it: with due alteration of details in comparing cases.
Therefore, I feel that the minister must not waste his time scolding and taking his legal advisers to task, because they used a word which is apparently too learned. It is quite a simple word and, as I said, it is used both in French and in English. I am of the opinion, therefore, that the minister does not have to go to confession.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
On clause 27-Application of National Energy Board Act.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The minister has tried to give us an absolute assurance that the operation, construction and all those other specifications for combined pipe lines will be under the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board. Subclause 1 of clause 27 says:
The commission has and shall exercise in respect of a commodity pipe line company and its works and undertakings the like jurisdiction, duties and powers as are vested in or exercisable by the National Energy Board-
Then, in subclause 4 we find:
The commission may, with the approval of the governor in council, by order, upon such terms and conditions as it considers advisable, require a company operating a commodity pipe line, according to its powers, without delay and with due care and diligence, to receive, transport and deliver through its pipe line any substance capable of being transmitted therein.
This contradicts the assurance that the minister has given. We are not saying that the governor in council has not the power to confer these responsibilities on the National Energy Board; all clause 27 says is that the

commission shall have authority, in so far as commodity pipe lines are concerned. Then a commodity pipe line becomes a combined pipe line if gas, oil or hydrocarbons are used in it.
I am not moving an amendment, but I draw attention to subclause 4 of clause 27. We know that there will be regulations respecting all the things involved in the standards and specifications for capsules, etc., and the terms and conditions under which a pipe line company as a common carrier will have to receive, transport and deliver things coming into its care, when this part becomes operative. Part II of the act, when it becomes operative, says that the commission will make all regulations, and it is authorized to do this under clause 27, with respect to all specifications, etc., in the v/ay the National Energy Board makes these regulations. All I am saying is that what appears in clause 27, in so far as there will be this authority, seems at variance with the assurance the minister has tried to give this committee, saving the one part where the governor in council has the right to transfer the jurisdiction with respect to a combined pipe line, in certain cases, exclusively to the National Energy Board. The fact remains, however, that when this bill is passed parliament will have said that the commission shall have this authority, and I am apprehensive about that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I can clear the hon. gentleman's point quickly. Paragraph 1 refers to a commodity pipe line, not to a combined pipe line. Nobody has any jurisdiction at the present time over a commodity pipe line, and this part refers to a commodity pipe line as one in which there is no oil or gas. Somebody must have authority over a commodity pipe line. Even subclause 2 says that the commission may use the rules laid down by the National Energy Board. My opinion is that having no other rules, they would almost be bound to do that as a matter of common sense.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A few minutes ago the minister said that all these things other than pipe lines-and I refer to specifications for construction, for maintenance, for terms and conditions, and the like-would be left with the authority that has the experience with them, namely, the National Energy Board. This disturbs me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it would be true. I am sure that the pattern with respect to combined pipe lines would be used by the commission in so far as it would operate in respect of a commodity pipe line that was not a
January 23, 19G7

combined pipe line. There must be some authority to make rulings. What I said was, not that the bill gives the National Energy Board the exclusive jurisdiction, because it does not-it quite expressly says that they must both act-but that I was sure that with a case of a combined pipe line they would follow all the rules which the National Energy Board has adopted, which are working very well. I also expressed the view, and it is supported by clause 27, that even in the case of the commodity pipe line the National Energy Board has nothing to do with it, because it does not carry oil or gas.
Even in that case they would still be almost certain, as far as possible, to use the same pattern, because it would be quite ridiculous to waste time and energy by establishing a different pattern. I am quite convinced that this sort of thing will happen. I am also pretty sure that in respect of a combined pipe line the governor in council would very likely, so far as construction and all these other matters are concerned, insist that the rules worked out by the National Energy Board be followed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will accept that for the moment because there is not in operation in Canada today anything to which the rules respecting commodity and combined pipe lines will apply. I accept the minister's explanation with this reservation; notwithstanding the minister's assurance, what he says does not accord completely with the written words of the clause. I hope the minister will understand that reservation.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I do not know if the hon. member for Medicine Hat is opposed to the substance of clause 27, but I want to express to the minister complete support for the provisions of that clause. In fact I support all that part of part II lying between clauses 22 to 28 inclusive. It seems to me that the minister and his department have succeeded here in providing for almost all contingencies. Not covered is the unforeseeable, and who can blame the minister for not dealing with that.
I am concerned with that part of the bill which will provide for an awkward or cumbersome administration of these matters. Nevertheless on a close reading of the clause it seems to me that there is sufficient flexibility here, through joint hearings and transfer of jurisdiction by order in council, to enable the commission and the government at some future date to take steps to see that there is no unnecessary bureaucratic delay. I think this part of the bill ought to be supported.
Transportation


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wish to ask a question of the minister about subclause 4, which appears to enable the commission to regulate a company to carry anything through a pipe line which is capable of being carried.
Quite a few commodities are capable of being carried through a pipe line, but some of them could be very incompatible with other commodities being normally carried. Were such a situation to arise does this legislation force the commission to say you must carry that commodity even though it will foul your pipe line and make more or less impossible the carrying of what you normally carry in your pipe line?


John Whitney Pickersgill: To avoid that risk this section says that there must be the approval of the governor in council for such a requirement. The commission cannot do it of its own volition; it can only make a submission to the governor in council. If he decides to agree with this then, as the hon. gentleman knows, because he has sat on this side of the house, the minister would make that kind of regulation. But he would only make it if he were sure he was right. This applies only to common carriers. It is to make sure that a pipe line company will not refuse to carry a commodity of its competitors while carrying its own to their detriment, that is, fail to be a common carrier.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


John Oates Bower: Further to the question asked previously by an hon. member on this side, I should like to ask the minister whether the approval of the governor in council would be necessary in the case of a combined pipe line when the introduction of another product, while not physically fouling the line, would add substantially to the cost of whatever was hitherto being transported. How could this type of incompatibility be resolved?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, this is, to me, an extreme and unreasonable situation. We shall have to assume that no government would be so silly or so careless as to allow that kind of situation to arise. The hon. member for Springfield was very charitable a few minutes ago when he said we had foreseen all that could be foreseen. I think the hon. and ingenious member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare, who has embarrassed me once already, has done so for a second time. He seems to know too much. But I think there would be an appeal as far as rates are concerned if the commission attempted to set a rate which was unfair, having regard to the rate for another

January 23, 1967
Transportation
commodity. There would be an appeal to the governor in council and this would have to be dealt with.
I really do not think the kind of situation which the hon. member envisages could arise. If it did, I think there would be such an awful row, politically, that the government which had been foolish enough to do this, would get its due desserts.


John Oates Bower: Would it not be possible to express the terms of this clause so as not to invite these awful rows five, ten or 15 years from now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think one could ever devise any legislation which would meet every conceivable and, above all, inconceivable situation. I think I have done just about the best I can in this matter.


John Oates Bower: Is it not possible to put it in another way so as not to invite difficulties later?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it is, sir. Clause agreed to.
On clause 28-Exemption.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to ask the minister to tell us the purpose of this clause. Is it designed to take care of any difficulties of the kind to which I was referring a few minutes ago? The powers conferred here are broad and I am wondering whether the clause is really necessary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where a pipe line is wholly owned by a company, and intended to carry only its own products it would need to be exempted from the provisions of 27(4). We do not wish to prevent pipe lines of this kind from operating if there is good economic reason for having them. That is one of the reasons we put in this clause. There might be any number of combinations of circumstances in which some of the provisions would be unreasonable. The hon. member will note that this, again, requires the approval of the governor in council. Obviously, anything of this sort would have to be done in public and be subject to public scrutiny so I do not think there could be any arbitrary exercise of power. Clause agreed to.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now proceed to the discussion of clause 74.

On clause 74-Cessation of "bridge subsidy".


Thomas Miller Bell: I have gone through the clauses which are still left in an effort to be helpful. There is some indication on this side of the house that we would be willing to pass anything that is left-I imagine we will want to move on to clause 16-but that we should hold over clause 74 and clause 1 until tomorrow. The minister will recall that we had only one hour for supper. We talked about getting more than an hour, but it was still just the meagre hour we have had for the last three weeks. The members interested in this matter were not able to study the amendment fully; it is extremely complicated.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall not attempt to resist.
I accept at once. Would it be possible, then, to take clause 16 and also clause 50. Perhaps we could take clause 50 first. I do not think there will be any discussion of it.
On clause 50-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would just like the Minister of Fisheries to move that in clause 50, section 329A be renumbered 329. If my hon. friend would make that amendment and the committee would accept it, I think we could dispose of clause 50.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Are there any other clauses in the bill which relate to 329?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I think this would have to be done, anyway. Once we have dealt with clause 74 there are some other technical changes, editorial changes, which I think we could agree to allow the law clerks to make. Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 16-Definition of "carrier".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Now, if we can proceed to clause 16 I should like to ask my colleague to move another amendment and this time, fortunately, I have it drafted. It affects page 9 and it changes a couple of "of's" to "to's" where the English was bad in 3(a) and it adds "or to the movement of commodities through Canadian ports".


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I move:
That Bill C-231 be amended by striking out paragraph (a) of subclause (3) of clause 16 on pages 9 and 10 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
January 23, 1967

"(a) whether the tolls or conditions specified for the carriage of traffic under the rate so established are such as to create
(i)	an unfair disadvantage beyond any disadvantage that may be deemed to be inherent in the location or volume of the traffic, the scale of operation connected therewith or the type of traffic or service involved, or
(ii)	an undue obstacle to the interchange of commodities between points in Canada or an unreasonable discouragement to the development of primary or secondary industries or to export trade in or from any region of Canada or to the move-meut of commodities through Canadian ports; or
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
This is the amendment which on Friday I indicated I would like to move and that I said this afternoon I would ask the Minister of Fisheries to move.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I so move.


Thomas Miller Bell: This is part of the package deal that the minister offered in lieu of other amendments that were proposed and, although we were more ambitious in our aim, this is a statement of intention that helps to call attention to our problems.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 16 as amended carry.


Mr.   Barnell@: I wish to ask the minister one or two questions before the clause carries. I am sure he will agree that much time has been spent discussing railway matters but I do not want to pursue that aspect of the bill. He will recall that on the first clause I raised some matters in connection with water transportation which have been of concern to me for quite some time. As I said on previous occasions in this chamber, by and large transportation by water is the only form of public transportation that appears not to have fallen under the normal form of public jurisdiction that has been applied to other modes of transportation.
To people who are virtually dependant on water transportation, proper facilities and proper rates are just as important as any of the questions that have been discussed at length with respect to rail traffic. So far as I can see the only amendment dealing with the Transport Act in this bill is a purely incidental one which would provide that the name Canadian Transport Commission be used or changed to comply with the terms of this new bill. The question I ask is what changes in substance, if any, are being brought about with regard to regulation of water transport under the provisions of this bill?
Transportation
The general purpose of the bill with respect to railways is to relax some of the more rigid controls which heretofore have applied with respect to their operations. I am not going to debate the pros and cons of that question. The minister and other hon. members have done so at length, but what changes does the bill introduce to provide public jurisdiction over water transport so that there may be some degree of parity in that respect?
Clause 16 and the immediate preceding clauses make some reference to transportation by water, and although the new commission will have some powers of investigation, of keeping records, making reports, and possibly making recommendations to the governor in council, powers such as existing regulatory bodies have had, I have not been able to see any alteration in real substance with respect to regulation of the carriage of goods and passengers by water. Can the minister indicate what he has in mind on this subject? If he can satisfy me, that may be the end of the matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman was quite right in speaking about this matter on clause 16 because it is really the only clause of the bill to which it is strictly relevant. As the hon. gentleman knows, the clause has been substantially amended in committee. It applies to all carriers under the jurisdiction of parliament, and not solely to railways.
Although it does not establish a system for the setting of rates, it does provide that anyone who feels that a rate which has been set is not in the public interest would have the right to appear before the board and, if he can make a case, get the rate changed. An amendment has provided a definition of certain aspects of the public interest that will be taken into account, such as the giving of undue advantage to one shipper over another where other conditions are similar.
It may well be that with the experience which the Transport Commission will gain it may feel it will have to go more deeply into this matter than has been the case in the past. As the hon. gentleman knows, up until now in most parts of Canada water transport rates, generally speaking, have been less expensive than other transport rates and thus have created no great problem, except perhaps with respect to the carriage of passengers in certain cases, of which I have had some experience myself. There is no question but that any rate represented to be contrary to the public interest would come within the purview of this clause.
Transportation

January 23, 1967
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Mr. Barnett:: I quite agree that in a broad and general way what the minister has said is perfectly true, but when I look at this bill I see that many of the clauses, particularly those amending existing provisions of the Railway Act, include methods by which rates are to be set and procedures are to be followed having regard to the withdrawal of existing services. I still have not been able to find where there is any means for an effective functioning of machinery in these other areas.
Let me illustrate my point by referring to paragraph (d) of subclause (1) of clause 15 which says that the commission may perform such other duties as may from time to time be imposed by law on the commission in respect of any mode of transportation in Canada, including the regulation and licensing of such mode of transportation, and so on.
As I relate that to the provisions set out in clause 16, which suggests that persons who have reason to believe they are adversely affected have the right to make representations, there does not seem to be that kind of protection set forth in respect of transportation by water as is set forth in respect of the maintenance and operation of rail services.
The minister represents a constituency in Newfoundland. When that province decided to become part of Canada one of the concerns of the people had regard to the maintenance of coastal shipping services. If my understanding is correct, in order to honour that undertaking an agreement was made that services would be maintained through the agency of the Canadian National Railways, a publicly owned transportation corporation. If it were not for that fact I think the minister might have more concern about services in other parts of Canada than he appears to have.
Certainly that is not the kind of situation which exists on the Pacific coast. The operations of the Canadian National are virtually non-existent in that part of the country. At one time there were some Canadian National steamers operating there. As one of my constituents said in a recent letter, the only service that they receive, as recently announced is to be increased by 10 per cent in cost. That is a Christmas bonus in reverse. As my constituent suggested, perhaps they should be thankful that the proposed increase is not 50 per cent.
What kind of ground rules does this bill provide whereby the 10 per cent or 15 per cent increase in cost can be justified in the interests of the carrier or its customers? These are
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
practical concerns which I have in mind. There seems to be very little reference to this sort of thing in the bill in contrast to the very expensive consideration attached to the maintenance or withdrawal of services as far as railway companies are concerned.
Could the minister be a little more specific as to what procedures he or the governor in council has in mind, that the new commission will follow when this bill comes into effect? Will a few citizens in a community have to fight for five years in order to get a hearing regarding a local situation? Will there be any modification in substance in this regard? I hope there is something more than just window dressing here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I trust that the hon. gentleman will recognize the history of this bill. The previous bill was merely an amendment to the Railway Act. The concept of the present bill evolved between 1964 and 1966. When this matter was originally being considered by the standing committee, what is now clause 16 applied only to the railway companies. That seemed to me to be an unnecessarily restrictive way of dealing with the situation. This provision was included in the first part of the bill so that it would apply to all forms of transportation.
Having regard to the case referred to by the hon. gentleman, if the people can show that this 10 per cent freight rate increase is contrary to public interest, I am sure they would be heard by the commission. I quite agree with the hon. gentleman that this aspect of transportation has been neglected. It is my view that a thorough review of the regulations in respect of water transportation should be one of the first major research projects to be undertaken by the commission. Until work of that kind has been done-perhaps not on as broad a scale as the MacPherson report-I think we would be venturing into unknown waters in attempting to legislate beyond the very considerable advance in the law represented in this bill.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister has referred to unknown waters. Perhaps we should consult a hydrographic expert in this regard. I do not wish to pursue this matter because I want to give the minister and the commission an opportunity to find out what sort of job they can do in carrying out the expressed intent of this bill.
There is one other aspect I should like to refer to. This arises from an increase in
January 23, 1967



freight rates in coastal areas of British Columbia, or at least a contemplated increase. As the minister probably knows, there have been some constitutional questions regarding the status of Vancouver Island, probably arising out of the fact that it was formerly a crown colony which joined the mainland, for better or for worse. One of the persuasive arguments for that joining was the promise that a railway would be built to Esquimalt.
It is my understanding that an application will be made within the next few days to the Board of Public Utilities in British Columbia in respect of a proposed 10 per cent increase in truck freight rates to Vancouver Island. One issue that has been raised, and I have been asked to get some information in this regard, relates to jurisdiction over transportation to Vancouver Island by water.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
It has been alleged, as I understand it, that the need for this increase in truck freight rates on Vancouver Island arises in part from the cost of transporting by water from the mainland to Vancouver Island. I was informed that the Board of Transport Commissioners exercises jurisdiction in respect of railway freight moving from Vancouver Island to other ports, and that the tariffs of the railway companies are filed with the board in respect of those rates. But to the best of my ability to determine, this has not very much relationship to the freight rates. Some people say that the Canadian Pacific line across there should be regarded strictly as part of the railway and subject to jurisdiction directly in regard to all forms of goods or modes of carrying goods on their lines. But I understand this is not a matter that has, strictly speaking, been established under federal law.
Can the minister give me any clarification as to the application necessary, if any, in terms of this bill and the activities of the new Transport Commission in dealing with a situation such as this, which in part lies, and I presume will still lie, with the Public Utilities Commission of British Columbia, the body which deals with intraprovincial trucking rates?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think the only answer I can give to the hon. gentleman, and I do it sadly, is no. I do not think I could give h'm any opinion that would be worth what it would cost, and that would be nothing. The conundrum the hon. gentleman has put is so complicated that it is completely beyond my capacity to explain. But it is something
Transportation
that I think the new Transport Commission would have to wrestle with.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, the minister knows that Vancouver Island has been an island for quite a long time. Until the minister follows through with a suggestion that we discussed earlier about a causeway or tunnel to Vancouver Island, this is a pretty important question to some 300,000 people who live on that island. I hope the minister means it when he says he will have the new Transport Commission look into this problem. I would not quarrel with his suggestion that it is a complicated matter. I have been baffled by it and do not suggest that I have a constitutional or legal answer to the problem. Nevertheless it is a very real problem to these people, and I am sure that the minister, representing people who live on an island, appreciates the problem and will have this matter studied by the new Transport Commission, perhaps in consultation with bodies like the Public Utilities Commission of British Columbia.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I have just one question to ask the minister. I think I have asked only one other question in connection with this whole bill. I believe this one was dealt with previously in regard to clause 16(1) which concerns commodity pipe lines. I notice that the definition of commodity pipe lines excludes oil and gas, which is under the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board. I take it the minister can say definitely that it does not apply to oil and gas. I would point out that I am being brief with my question. As I understand it, this clause will not apply to oil and gas transmission lines, or one or the other.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to get some problems unravelled and I think the minister may be able to help. The amendments made-I am going back in Hansard now-by the hon. member for Springfield and the hon. member for Acadia were dealt with in what way? What happened to them?


John Whitney Pickersgill: They have been passed. One of them has been further amended by my hon. friend the Minister of Fisheries to include the amendment; but that was really an amendment to the clause as amended. So that we passed the amendments that were put in when we were dealing with this clause before, and one of them has been further amended to

January 23, 1967
Transportation
include the reference to ports. This is the hope we can have those amendments before amendment the committee just adopted.	us before this clause is finally passed.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the discussion as to ports that was brought on originally by the amendment to clause 1. I want to say something about that later. But I should like to straighten my thinking on the situation. My question is really prompted by a question of the hon. member for Kindersley who asked about the Manitoba amendments. I would point out that if I had the whole of new clause 16, it would be helpful. Could I ask merely what happened to the two amendments that were made, first by the hon. member for Springfield and second by the hon. member for Acadia?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I thought I had with me the clause as amended up to now. I am sure I have it somewhere; but I am getting to the stage of having such an accumulation of papers that I cannot find it.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might clarify the point we have in mind. As reported at page 11623, the hon. member for Acadia wanted to make an amendment. This is to be found in the right hand column of that page, about two thirds of the way down the page, as follows:
That after the words "may prejudicially affect" in line 32 of clause 16 (b) the following words be inserted "the business of the complainant or"
This was before the words "the public interest." I asked a question at the time in connection with this matter, namely whether the question of the public interest was protected.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, that amendment was withdrawn; it was not pressed by the hon. member, if I remember correctly. A consolidated amendment was adopted by the committee and passed upon the suggestion of the hon. member for Acadia, the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Springfield. These changes were all put together into a single amendment. I am speaking from memory, and I wish someone would send me a copy of the clause as revised. I ought to have it here. These changes were all put into one amendment, and that clause as amended has been tonight further amended by adding a few words at the bottom with respect to the ports, as part of the previous amendment.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: That is the matter in which I am particularly interested, Mr. Chairman. I


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the document is on its way to me now, Mr. Chairman. I am sure it is in Hansard, if someone could find it.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Springfield was concerned in this amendment. The problem is that I cannot find the record in Hansard. Of course, it may appear in later editions of Hansard; I have only looked at three or four days. It may be that the record shows the withdrawal of the amendment. This is the difficulty with a bill of this complexity.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, while the minister is waiting for the document to arrive I think I can explain what happened with respect to clause 16. As is shown at page 11623 of Hansard, I was about to move an amendment to clause 16 and found that at the time an amendment was apparently before us. Therefore I did not move my amendment. Later 1 was dissuaded from doing so by the minister, who assured the committee that the intent of the proposed amendment would be incorporated in the wording of clause 16. Could I suggest to the minister that, as we have to hold the bill over for clauses 1 and 74, he undertake to show us the revised clause 16 tomorrow, rather than passing it now?
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: If that is the desire of the committee, I hope it will not breed another debate on clause 16, but I can only express my hope. I will be very glad to have a copy made of it as it was amended previously and as it has been amended further tonight and I will have enough copies tomorrow to be circulated generally. Perhaps I should not ask to have it passed but I could make a deal. Perhaps hon. members could agree to pass the schedule which we forgot the other day after we reached clause 94.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the schedule carry?


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, may we revert to clause 1?
On clause 1-National transportation policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to move an amendment on clause 1 which is the same as the amendment to clause 16.
January 23, 1967


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the minister have
exhausted all his amendments by the time we pass the bill? He seems to have a whole sheaf of them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have here a new printing of clause 1 and I would suggest that it be inserted in Hansard.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Can the minister inform us whether the amendment to clause 1 will have any effect on clause 74?


John Whitney Pickersgill: None whatsoever, but I wish to put it on record so that everyone can see it. Perhaps the simplest way would be to ask that clause 1 be withdrawn and the new clause substituted in its place.


George James McIlraith: I move:
That Bill C-231, An Act to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other Acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions, be amended by striking out Clause 1 on page 1 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
National	"1. It is hereby declared that an
transporta- economic, efficient and adequate trans-tion	portation system making the best use
policy.	of all available modes of transportation at the lowest total cost is essential to protect the interests of the users of transportation and to maintain the economic well-being and growth of Canada, and that these objectives are most likely to be achieved when all modes of transport are able to compete under conditions ensuring that having due regard to national policy and to legal and constitutional requirements
(a)	regulation of all modes of transport will not be of such a nature as to restrict the ability of any mode of transport to compete freely with any other modes of transport;
(b)	each mode of transport, so far as practicable, bears a fair proportion of the real costs of the resources, facilities and services provided that mode of transport at public expense;
(c)	each mode of transport, so far as practicable, receives compensation for the resources, facilities and services that it is required to provide as an imposed public duty; and
(d)	each mode of transport so far practicable carries traffic to or from any point in Canada under tolls and conditions that do not constitute
(i) an unfair disadvantage in respect of any such traffic beyond that disadvantage inherent in the location or volume of the traffic, the
Transportation
scale of operation connected therewith or the type of traffic or service involved, or (ii) an undue obstacle to the interchange of commodities between points in Canada or unreasonable discouragement to the development of primary or secondary industries or to export trade in or from any region of Canada or to the movement of commodities through Canadian ports;
and this Act is enacted in accordance with and for the attainment of so much of these objectives as fall within the purview of subject matters under the jurisdiction of Parliament relating to transportation."


Maurice Rinfret: Is it agreed that the new clause 1 be substituted for the original clause in the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1 as amended stands.
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, there is a point which I should like to make, because it may forestall debate on clause 1 tomorrow, it also has implications on clause 16 and, as I have mentioned before, this amendment is partly the result of representations we made. I do not wish to leave an impression on the record that my comment is very profound but I would point out to the minister that some phrases such as "undue obstacle" and "unreasonable discouragement" leave me cold. These phrases somehow create the impression that the maritimes will be getting something that they did not have before. We still have the same geographic difficulties. I agree with what the minister is doing regarding the setting up of the final debate for tomorrow and I do not think it will be a long debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I comprehended correctly the wishes of the committee, the order in which we will take the clauses tomorrow will be to take first, clause 74, second, clause 16 and finally clause 1. If that is the general wish of the committee perhaps that could be understood so that there will be no difficulty tomorrow.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it so understood?


Edward Richard Schreyer: I have one last question with regard to procedure on this bill. There was a certain amendment made to proposed section 314D, subsection 4 of the bill, and the amendment was accepted. I believe it was referred to

January 23, 1967
Transportation
the law officers for what you would call drafting amendments. Before we actually pass the bill in committee tomorrow, I am wondering if the minister would agree to circulate a few copies of the new subsection 4 of section 314D?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I would be glad to do that. I think we did actually tidy it up at the very end on Friday, in that exercise we went through.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I could check Hansard, but I do not believe it is in there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In any case, I will do what the hon. gentleman has suggested and get some copies. I trust that someone is making notes of these things that are to be available tomorrow. The clause was passed, and I do not believe there is any question about that.
I am grateful to hon. gentlemen for the tidying up of these last few items. Perhaps there is one other thing upon which we might have an understanding tonight. I am informed by the draftsmen that there are changes in the numbering of the clauses consequent upon the amendment to clause 74. If it could be agreed by the committee that these editorial changes could be made by the Law Clerk and the draftsmen before the bill is printed for third reading, I think that would save a lot of time, rather than going through a lot of minor, technical amendments that would have no consequence other than making the bill intelligible.


Mr. McCleave:: The repository of the third super-authority in this area, the Law Clerk of the House of Commons, Dr. Ollivier, exercises that right all the time and says it is inherent in his office. We had this out in the committee earlier, so I think that can be done without making a specific request.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I just did it for greater certainty.


Mr. Deachman:: In so far as providing copies for tomorrow is concerned of some of the lengthier amendments, I wonder if several copies could be made for this side of the house? There are some of us who are following the bill with keen interest, mutatis mutandis, with members on the other side.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall endeavour to anticipate the unforeseeable and get copies for everybody.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it understood that tomorrow when the committee resumes the 
order of consideration of clauses will be 74, with an amendment; 16 as amended, and clause 1 as amended?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Tomorrow?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we propose to continue, and I hope complete, the committee stage of the legislation which was occupying the time of the house today. Then we will proceed to order No. 117, the bill to amend the Judges Act. Then there are two references to the committee on privileges and elections. Then there is the Canadian National financing bill, order No. 79 on the order paper.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Then there is item 62 on the order paper, a bill to provide for the establishment of a Canadian Film Development Corporation; the resolution in relation to the adoption of "O Canada" as the national anthem of Canada and "God Save the Queen" as the royal anthem; the resolution to set up a special committee to deal with the temporary rules and other related reforms. That will be enough for tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

Mr. Speaker:: Before putting the adjournment motion to the house, earlier this evening it was announced that one of the questions to be considered during the adjournment debate, in the name of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), was allowed to stand. By agreement a question standing in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) has been substituted, with the agreement of course of the hon. member for Bow River.
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.



EDUCATION-TORONTO-POSSIBLE CLOSING OF SCHOOLS FOR IMMIGRANT CHILDREN

Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, on January 13 I inquired of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration about a request presented to the government from the Toronto board of education for financial support from the federal government for language schools for immigrant children which
January 23, 1967
were threatened with closure for lack of funds.
One such school is known as the Main Street school in the east end of the city of Toronto. This one school alone provides accommodation for 132 pupils at a time. It gives special training to children of immigrants in the 13 to 17 year old bracket, so that they can be integrated into the regular school system. They stay at this special school as long as necessary so as to be able later to take full advantage of education in the ordinary system. The average stay of these pupils is six months, and in one year roughly 250 children of immigrants are taught English in order to fit them for ordinary schooling. The additional cost per pupil is roughly $538 per year, nearly double the ordinary cost of schooling. The total additional cost per year, therefore, is in the neighbourhood of $134,000.
I am raising this question, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of principle. It is my contention that the federal government, by reason of its responsibility in the field of immigration, has a duty to encourage and assist local authorities to shoulder this burden. In his reply the minister once again hid behind the tattered cloak of constitutional lack of responsibility, and as reported at page 11755 of Hansard said:
I think there is no federal responsibility in the field of language training in schools, even for immigrants.
I think the minister is wrong.
No one denies that the field of education generally belongs to the provinces. No one, at least not I, is suggesting that this be taken away. But it is the federal authority that seeks to encourage the admission of suitable immigrants to this country and that controls the flow of immigrants. It is the federal government that quite properly provides that immigrants are entitled and encouraged to bring their children and their families to this country. It is the federal government that recently published a white paper on Canada's immigration policy.
At page 139 of the white paper it is stated that people who come to Canada should receive the kind of services that they need to start productive employment in Canada. This, it says, means that they need language training. I suggest that obviously this does not apply to adults only; the entire white paper on immigration is geared to the idea that productive employment in the future will be based on literacy, education and adaptability.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
If children between the age of 13 and 17 years who come to Canada as immigrants with their parents are to be handicapped in their education by a deficiency in or lack of knowledge of the English language, this will affect their contribution to productive employment very likely throughout the whole of their working lives.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Chapter 6 of the white paper, which starts by extolling the virtues of co-operation, ends with these words:
Above all, satisfactory ways of improving language teaching facilities will be sought.
They will be sought by the government.
I suggest that one is entitled to wonder whether the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has read the white paper put out by his department. Discussing this matter, the Globe and Mail in an editorial on January 7 said this:
Manpower Minister Jean Marchand should be, if necessary, shamed into a similar position.
The editorial refers to a position of giving financial support to the maintenance of such schools.
Mr. Speaker, I hope even if my words are not sufficient to shame the minister, some members of his own party coming from constituencies where there are many immigrants and children of immigrants will shame the minister into changing his position. Certainly a government which trains adult immigrants and teaches them English, a government which accepts responsibility for training children of persons in the armed services, a government which I understand spends roughly $50 million a year on the education of Indian children, cannot shirk its responsibility for assisting immigrant children under the pretext of some imagined constitutional impotence. I hope the minister will consider this question carefully and announce a change of policy.


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the reply of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration given on Friday, January 13, 1967, is so clear and reasonable that I must confess some surprise that the hon. member for Greenwood should raise this question here tonight. The hon. member has chosen to demonstrate that he is a lawyer, by scoffing at the law of the constitution as a tattered veil.
The minister is eager that all residents of Canada have the education or training they need to lead good lives in this country. This of

12152	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion course is obvious. I think even the hon. member for Greenwood would admit that a line must be drawn between those areas in which the government of Canada has a right to act and those in which the provinces have a right to act. The fact that a course of training or education will enable the person to enter into productive work in the economy sooner or later simply will not suffice as a definition of the federal area, because such a test-and this I think is what the hon. member proposes -would permit the federal government to swallow up all training and education.
I am told that the Department of Manpower and Immigration recognizes that the training of adult immigrants who are members of the labour force, and who need such language training to improve their opportunities for employment, is its responsibility. I am also told that the department takes the view that language training for children, whether immigrants or persons born in Canada, is not its responsibility.
There is no doubt that language schools for immigrant children are especially desirable. Consequently I think the chairman of the Toronto Board of Education ought to take this matter up with his provincial government. Recognizing that the government of Canada may have some special interest in immigrants, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration would be willing, once the board had raised the matter with the province and if the province decided to take the initiative, to discuss the matter with the appropriate provincial authorities.



AGRICULTURE-QUEBEC-REQUEST FOR PRICE DISCOUNT TO MILK CONSUMERS

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, on January 19 last I put the following question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene):
The minister is undoubtedly aware that the Quebec government has decided to increase the price of class I milk starting on February 1, 1967. Therefore, would he study the possibility of granting consumers a compensated discount of 10 cents per quart of milk to allow Canadian families to consume the milk they need for their health, especially that of their children?
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government has just issued orders increasing the price of fluid milk for consumption purposes to $6 per hundredweight and, in certain areas, to as much as $6.65 per hundredweight, which will put the retail price up to 35 cents a quart.

DEBATES	January 23, 1967
It is not that producers are overpaid, far from it, because farmers have to satisfy milk production requirements that are becoming more and more exacting. They had to invest large amounts of money in order to improve their herds, and we all know that the cost of equipment, machinery and services required by farmers is constantly increasing, and we want farming to become a profitable undertaking.
But can the consumers bear the burden of this new increase in food cost? Each increase in the cost of living means a decrease in purchasing power, which is even now at a very low level. It is my fear that, as a result of this increase in the price of milk, consumption of the product will decrease considerably and children may be deprived of this commodity, so essential to their development. The October 1966 issue of Canadian Farm Economics contains the following statement at the bottom of page 3:
In the first semester of 1966, fluid milk consumption increased by about 1 per cent. Sales vary considerably from one area to another. A steady increase is expected in British Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick and Ontario. In the other provinces, there has either been no change at all, or a very slight increase in sales. Consumption in Quebec has decreased, however.
The total sales of fluid milk in 1966 will probably not exceed the 5.2 billion pounds, I repeat, the 5.2 billion pounds sold last year.
Now, if the consumption of fluid milk decreases-no later than in 1962, 19.4 billion pounds of fluid milk were produced, whereas the expected production for 1967 will only be 18.2 billion pounds-producers will not be any better for it and everybody will lose by it.
Under a truly human and orderly economy, the purpose of production is consumption, and the latter must normally absorb the former. In order that milk production may reach the consumer and the latter may consume all he needs, the price must be within his means.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the spread between the price required by the milk producers-and the same could be said of many other products-and the price the consumer is in a position to pay is increasing more and more, and a reduction on fluid milk consumption will force the farmers either to reduce their production or to ship it to processing, which will reduce the returns. Let us avoid the grievous mistake of irritating the consumers and diverting them to less valuable products which will be accepted to the detriment of dairy farm sales and income.
January 23, 1967

To balance production and consumption prices and to enable the consumers to purchase milk at a reasonable price, the government should grant a compensated discount of 10 cents a quart on milk sold for fluid consumption, which would bring the price down to a reasonable level without reducing the producers' profits.
It will be remembered that, at the beginning of the 40's, a subsidy was granted on fluid milk. This had allowed an increase in the income of dairy farms and had promoted a greater consumption.
The minister will perhaps answer that this will cost many millions of dollars, but I would point out that consumers need milk, that it is produced that production could be increased. If the minister is short of credit, he needs only to turn to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and ask him to open the doors of the Bank of Canada. Thus, he will not have to levy new taxes. I will remind the minister that we give every year many millions of dollars to underdeveloped countries; while we are ourselves are becoming an underfed country. We can produce more and there is no reason why our people should be deprived of an essential commodity because of a lack of purchasing power.
When any area is prevented from producing according to the needs-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I am sure the hon. member for Chapleau, who put the question, was satisfied with the answer provided by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, but I think I have to inform members present of this rule.



INDIAN AFFAIRS-BRANTFORD, ONT.-DECIDING VOTE CAST BY RETURNING OFFICER

Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, on January 13 I addressed this question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as recorded at page 11759 of Hansard:
I should like to ask the minister whether he has been made aware of the unhappiness and concern that have arisen over the situation of an Indian agency superintendent acting as returning officer, having to cast a deciding ballot in the Brantford reserve elections. If so, can he inform the house what steps he has in mind to avoid a recurrence of this unfortunate incident?
On the assumption that I wanted some detailed information about the situation on the Brantford reserve Your Honour suggested that I put the question on the order paper. However, since what I really had in mind were the broader questions which arose from the occurrence of this incident, I asked that the matter be put down for discussion at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt
the hon. member, but the time put at his disposal by the standing order is now over.


Mr.   Pairick-T. Asselin@Richmond-Wolfe: Mr. Speaker, the minister has asked me to answer this question in his absence and in the absence of his parliamentary secretary.
The matter raised by the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) comes exclusively under the jurisdiction of the provincial government.
This matter stems, of course, from the announcement made by the Quebec Control Board that the price of bottled milk will be $6 per hundredweight.
Naturally, the policy to be followed by the federal government in this regard will be announced before the dairy year begins, that is before April 1 next.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Now that the hon. member has completed his remarks, I must inform the house that, according to standing orders, only the minister, or a parliamentary secretary speaking on behalf of a minister, can answer a question put on the motion for adjournment.
The fact that this expression of interest and concern took place is symptomatic of two things, first the growing desire of the Indian people for a broader and more complete measure of self-government within their bands, and second a growing awareness on the part of non-Indian people that this broader measure of self-government is something that the Indians of Canada should have.
When I read the report of this incident it seemed to me it was one of those rather unusual events which my own returning officer once told me was a nightmare for all returning officers, namely having to cast a deciding ballot in an election. In this case it must have been particularly embarrassing for the Indian agency superintendent, because obviously there was balanced opinion between members of the band as to who should be their chief councillor and he, as a non-Indian and public servant of Canada, was placed in the position of declaring in which direction he himself felt the choice should be made.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.>
It does seem to me that the Indian agency superintendent was acting in this capacity in line with the symbolic and traditional status
12154	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of Indians; that is, wards of the Queen. In this regard I think the situation is not all it might be.
I will agree that during a transitional period, directed toward increased self-government within Indian bands, some help and assistance in the techniques of elections and the exercise of what is considered by non-Indians to be the process of democracy, should be made available. However, I do believe that some steps should be taken to avoid the possible recurrence of this kind of situation.
It is my hope that the minister will consider that in the matter of band elections it would be desirable to select someone not engaged in the Indian affairs branch of his department as a returning officer, preferably someone chosen by the members of the band, and preferably an Indian-either a member of that band or of some other band.
It does seem to me that such a step would be a step toward making it clear that those of us here in parliament, and particularly those of us who hope that the functions of the Indian affairs branch will in the present and foreseeable future undergo a rather rapid transformation in its basic functions, have a desire that Indians should become self-governing. I am interested now in hearing a reply from the minister as to what steps he has in mind regarding the situation which has developed on this particular reserve.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, this matter raised by the hon. member for Commox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) relates to a vote which took place for the position of band chief of the Six Nations Reserve on December 17 last. As a result of that election Mr. Richard Isaac and Mr. Keith Martin were tied with 123 votes each.
I am of the opinion, as the hon. member indicated, that in such cases the lot of a returning officer, like that of a policeman, is not a happy one. That is no doubt why successive governments have been extremely careful in appointing returning officers for our elections, so that if a situation like this arose they would know enough to do the right thing.
The situation here was unfortunate, in that we had foreseen this difficulty as a result of a similar tie vote and had circularized all Indian bands in Canada with the suggestion that
DEBATES	January 23, 1967
we did not want our people involved. We asked them to see to it that an Indian be appointed as the returning officer.
The band met on this point on December 1. The result was that they insisted that our agency superintendent, Mr. Cassie, act as returning officer, which he did. We are now trying to break the tie by having a recount of ballots, and we have asked for an identification of the difficulties experienced in respect of those ballots that were spoiled.
In the meantime we have suggested to our superintendents that wherever possible an Indian should be appointed as a returning officer and, if necessary, the superintendent should act as deputy returning officer in order to give the required assistance. We have also asked the National Indian Advisory Board for its views of the suggestion that we enact a regulation to make this procedure mandatory; in other words make it mandatory that a member of the band be appointed as the returning officer.
In the case now under review, Mr. Keith Martin, the unsuccessful candidate for chief, has submitted an official appeal. This is currently under consideration, and as one preliminary step we have asked that the ballots be re-examined by the electoral officer who will provide a physical description of the spoiled ballots. As an adjunct of the re-examination, all the ballots will again be tabulated and recorded before appropriate witnesses.
In conclusion, I might mention that a similar situation arose in the Six Nations election in December, 1963. At that time Mr. Keith Martin, who is appealing the latest by-election, ran as a councillor in district No. 4. On that previous occasion Mr. Martin tied with another candidate for councillor and it was necessary for the electoral officer to cast a deciding vote to break the tie. In that instance the then superintendent, in his capacity as electoral officer, voted in favour of Mr. Martin.
I think our people would very much like to be rid of this responsibility, and we think we can bring this about by amending the regulations. In this regard we want the approval of the National Indian Advisory Board. I thank the hon. member for raising this matter.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.38 p.m.

Tuesday, January 24, 1967