1967-01-10

CAPE BRETON-TABLING OF POLICY STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER

Mr. John R. Malheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table in English and in French a press release dated December 29, 1966, containing the policy statement by the Prime Minister on Cape Breton coal.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the parliamentary secretary leave to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister whether the government has yet come to a decision regarding the person to succeed Mr. Ouimet as head of the C.B.C.? Are press references correct that the Secretary of State recommended Patrick Watson, former producer of "This Hour Has Seven Days", for this position but her recommendation was not acceptable?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been reached on the first part of the question; therefore the second part does not arise.


John George Diefenbaker: This matter cannot be dealt with as quickly as that. Whether or not a decision has been made-


Mr. Pickersgill:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: -did Patrick Watson receive the accolade of the Secretary of State?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman will be the first to appreciate that it is quite improper to deal with questions of cabinet consultation.


John George Diefenbaker: How did it get in the
press?



REQUEST FOR STUDY OF STATUS BY ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether the government has received a brief from the committee for equality for women asking that a royal commission be set up to look into the question of equal rights and opportunities for women, particularly with reference to employment, education, property rights, domicile, etc. I would also ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the United Nations has designated 1968 as the international year for human rights, it would not seem advisable to appoint such a royal commission this year in order that Canada in 1968 might bring the status of women into line with that which is prevalent in some other western countries.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government has received such a brief, and I may say I have received a good many communications arising out of the brief. The question was considered this morning by the government in cabinet in the absence of the Secretary of State, and it is to be considered again when the Secretary of State returns later this week.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I am pleased with the answer of the right hon. Prime Minister today because he refused to give me the same information yesterday. I am also pleased to see that members of the cabinet have not got their backs up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister when we might expect some decision on this question by the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Very shortly, Mr. Speaker.

January 10, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



HOUSE OF COMMONS HULL, QUE.-INQUIRY AS TO BY-ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelte (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the principle of no taxation without representation, is the right hon. Prime Minister considering whether to call a byelection in the constituency of Hull immediately or to exempt from any federal tax the citizens of that constituency who have now been far too long without a representative?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a pretty far reaching question, and one which needs to be looked into.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and ask him whether during this session of parliament he intends to apply the 15 per cent raise, which at present is given only to disability pensioners, as an over-all increase which would include the veterans wives and children or orphans.


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: It is very difficult to give a direct answer to that question. I have no idea how long the present session may last. I will not be able to give a specific answer until I receive the report on this matter which I indicated previously I was awaiting.


Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: have a supplementary question. The minister indicated that the 15 per cent basic increase would be granted by way of estimates. Is it to be understood that any increase to dependants would also be granted by way of estimates?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I am not sure that I understood the purport of that question. If the hon. member is inquiring as to the manner in which this increase will be presented to the house my answer would be that this will have to be determined by the circumstances at that time. Under certain circumstances it can be done by way of estimates; however, if legislation is involved perhaps a bill might have to be brought in. I am afraid I cannot be specific in giving an answer to this question.


Michael Starr: 1 have a further supplementary. Can the Minister of Veterans Affairs say whether a decision has been reached to make this 15 per cent increase apply over all, that is to wives and children or orphans?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: This was considered very seriously at the time the increase was decided upon. However since, as I have indicated, any decision at that time would have had to be arbitrary we decided that the 15 per cent would be a temporary adjustment until we could come up with something a little more specific and basic.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Norih):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister give us the date for the tax refunds to privately owned companies operating public utilities? Of course the moneys would be returned to the customers of those companies.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take notice of that question.



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speak-Speaker, yesterday a question was put to the right hon. Prime Minister as to whether the government would consider a joint judicial inquiry into the collapse of Prudential Finance, and he expressed the view that that was not desirable. Then I asked the Prime Minister whether the government would consider a federal judicial inquiry covering North American General Insurance which would, of course, involve Prudential Finance. The right hon. gentleman said he would be glad to discuss this matter with the Minister of Finance. May I now ask the Minister of Finance whether he is considering the setting up of such a judicial inquiry, and if so how soon?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government is not considering establishing any judicial inquiry for this purpose. So far as North American General Insurance Company is concerned, on a number of occasions I have given the facts and the
January 10, 1987

reasons for the failure of this insurance company. Discussions are now proceeding between the federal government and the governments of Ontario and Quebec as to what charges should be laid and under what jurisdictions.
I am proposing also to meet with the provincial governments to discuss the action that each of us should take in our own jurisdictions to provide greater protection for the investor in finance companies. I do not think any purpose would be served by a judicial inquiry into the failure of North American General Insurance. The facts are very well known. This is a case of what I would describe as theft; I think that is the best way of describing the situation.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the
Opposition): I should like to ask the minister why a judicial investigation into this matter should not be granted? Does the minister not feel such a judicial investigation would reassure those who believe in the integrity of Canadian insurance companies, who believe that inspection would protect them against being defrauded of their investments? Does he not think a royal commission would be helpful in protecting Canada's international face, from a financial standpoint, and enabling our reputation for integrity to be maintained in the future? In addition, is the minister still of the opinion that there should be no compensation to those poor people who have lost all because they depended upon the department to carry out an investigation?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer to the first question put by the right hon. gentleman is no, I do not think a judicial inquiry would be the best way of protecting the good name of our financial institutions. Second, I think the right hon. gentleman is creating quite a wrong impression about the effect of the failure of North American General Insurance Company. 1 should like to say here, because I think this misunderstanding is widespread, that this is not a life insurance company. It writes general insurance and the amount of loss involved, I hope, will be quite small.


John George Diefenbaker: I have one other question. What is the estimated amount of loss? If the minister is able to say it will be small he must have some idea of the amount.


Mitchell William Sharp: I would be able to answer this question after all the facts are fully known. I hesitate to make a guess.


John George Diefenbaker: So it is just guess work.
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Lewis: I was going to ask the minister a two part supplementary question. Does he not think there would be value in an inquiry
to find out the breakdown in communication between the federal and provincial governments since the beginning of last year? Second, does he not think the federal government has some responsibility to the policy-holders of North American General Insurance for the losses they have sustained as a result of that failure in communication?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I deny there was a failure in communication. When this question of information allegedly given by Mr. Gruber was mentioned in the house before, I indicated that I would have no objection to having Mr. Gruber brought before any committee to tell of the representations he made. This might be a useful thing to do. I certainly would have no objection to that course of action.
I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government should undertake to compensate the policyholders of North American General. Once again I want to make it quite clear that these are not life insurance policies. These are fire, theft and so on; general insurance policies. I intend on the 18th of this month to meet with the insurance companies to ascertain whether it would be possible to improve our laws to give greater protection to policyholders in such companies.
This is quite a separate question. This was a case of fraud, and it is extremely difficult to protect the general public against the consequences.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. While he is giving consideration to softening the loss of those who invested in these companies, would he also give consideration to the question I asked the Prime Minister yesterday in the absence of the Minister of Finance about making up the loss suffered by the holders of the 3 per cent perpetual bonds, which-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a supplementary question.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, this question does deserve an answer, and it is urgent because the bonds-

January 10, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rose under the guise of asking a supplementary question and this is not a supplementary question. He may have an opportunity later on to ask the question in the usual way.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister this question yesterday, and in reply he said he would discuss the matter with the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Kamloops.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Finance but it is not supplementary. My question is whether the minister's attention has been drawn to the fact that during the month of December the cost of living index rose again and is now at a record high. If so, has the minister any legislative or other measures to propose to the house to relieve all sections of society, the producer as well as the consumer, from this constant upward pressure of prices?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hope I shall have the support of the hon. gentleman and of members of his party in the measures we have been taking to try to reduce inflationary pressures in the economy. By way of answer to the first part of his question may I say that the increase in prices is just about what I had predicted at the time of my budget in March.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A supplementary question. I should like to ask the minister whether we are to take it from his answer that he thinks he has solved the problem, or has he any further effective measure to propose to relieve the economy from this constant daily upward pressure of prices? Does he really believe, as he is reported to have said yesterday, that he has in fact brought the economy into equilibrium when we now have the cost of living moving to an all-time high?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it is most important for an understanding of the situation we are in today to recognize that as a result of the increases in costs that have already taken place there is likely to be a continuation of some increase in prices. I hope it will be much more moderate than it has been in the past. I am very happy to say that we live in a country with a rate of increase in the

cost of living which is among the lowest of all civilized countries.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. I asked this question of the Prime Minister yesterday in the absence of the Minister of Finance, but now he is here may I put it to him. What events have transpired in the last four months to change his attitude with respect to the increase in the price of steel, which in September he asked be deferred but to which he has now acquiesced.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, before the Steel Company of Canada made their recent increase they consulted with me. I expressed appreciation of the action the company had taken in September when I asked them to defer any price increase. This made a very useful contribution to stability during this period. I did not feel that the government would be justified now in asking for any further deferment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Do I take it that the minister's policy will now be to ask companies which would increase their prices to defer any increase for four months, and then the minister will allow the increase to take place?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
We learned recently, through the newspapers, how concerned the Prime Minister was about the future of Canadians who accept, through dedication and generosity, the position of governor general.
Perhaps the right hon. Prime Minister might give us his impressions on the fate of all the other older Canadian citizens who have never earned more than $2,500 a year and who will have to manage on a monthly pension of $105?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not believe-


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I only have a few words to add. Since-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question of the hon. member is out of order.
January 10, 1967



NATIONAL ANTHEM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
In order to enable the hon. members to express their views more freely on the resolution concerning the national anthem, would the government consider dividing the resolution and allowing separate votes on the national anthem and on other distinct proposals contained in the resolution?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it would be quite improper for me to express an opinion on how a vote should be taken in respect of a resolution which has not yet been submitted to a committee and on which no report has yet been made.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: My
question is addressed to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister outline to the house the progress he is making, in conjunction with the provincial authorities concerned, in moving toward the setting up of a Canadian exchange and securities commission?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this question should be addressed to me. This is not in my ministerial responsibility. The question, I think, should be addressed to the Acting Registrar General.


Hon. John N. Turner (Member of the Administration):: At an official level there have been discussions between federal officials and officials of the ten provinces toward bringing in uniform legislation affecting the Corporations Act, and affecting the issuance of securities. In due course legislation will be announced. The establishment of a federal securities commission is still a long way off. To establish it we shall need unanimous consent under the constitution.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: I have a supplementary question to address to the Acting Registrar General. In the negotiations with the provinces for the unanimous acceptance of conditions under which the federal
Inquiries of the Ministry government can set up a national securities exchange commission, has the government in its thinking gone farther and accepted the recommendations of the royal commission to the effect that there should be relationships between our commission and the securities exchange commission of the United States?


John Napier Turner: We have accepted the position that the federal government will need the support and consent of the provinces, particularly of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, where the majority of securities are issued. At the moment we are proceeding toward uniformity in legislation, better co-ordination in securing information, and policing of potential security violations. That is the current stage of negotiations.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I ask a supplementary question. Do I understand that no thought has been given to following the recommendations of the Porter commission respecting the establishment of relationships on securities regulations, with the securities exchange commission of the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the question as asked is argumentative.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Roslhern):: My question is addressed to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister tell us the new location for the Canadian forces now at Marville, in France?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I hope to be able to make an announcement fairly shortly, Mr. Speaker. We have been negotiating for some time. I sincerely hope that it will not be many days before I can make an official announcement.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister tell the house whether the regulations under the Canada Assistance Plan have as yet been drawn up? If they have, have they been submitted to the provinces for discussion and approval?

January 10, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, a preliminary draft of the regulations has been drawn as the result of consultations with provinces. This draft has been submitted to provinces for comment which we are now receiving.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries which is of urgency, considering that the recommendations of the international Pacific salmon commission for the coming fishing season are due within a matter of days. May I ask the minister whether he has received an appeal from sports fishing and conservation groups on lower Vancouver island asking that a two mile wide net-free corridor be left along the Canadian Juan de Fuca shore line as is done along the United States shore line. If so, would the hon. gentleman care to comment on this very reasonable request?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: I did receive representations last week from the organizations referred to by my hon. friend, and their request is now under consideration.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: As a supplementary question may I ask the Minister of Fisheries, or possibly his colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs, whether they will move with as much speed with respect to the all-important geographic co-ordinates to the straight base lines, a matter which has been hanging fire for three years now. Make it a centennial project.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I wish to inform the hon. member that the government is moving as fast as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The hon. member seems to forget the commitment which was made to members of this house that the co-ordinates would be established after negotiation with the countries involved.


Frank Howard: A further supplementary
question. Would the minister mind getting his movement out of neutral and into some sort of gear so that progress can be made?



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry. Is it a fact that cars built in Canada for export to the United States will incorporate the built-in safety features which are prescribed by the United States government?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Upon their importation into the United States cars are required to conform with the safety requirements of the United States government. It is therefore reasonable to assume that cars built in Canada for the purpose of export to the United States would incorporate these features.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Will those same cars, or similar cars, be made available to the Canadian public?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: To the best of my knowledge they will be.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brefon South):: Are we to understand from the minister's answer that the cars built in Canada will meet the safety standards set by the United States government, although the United States manufacturers themselves are not doing so? How can we do it in Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do not accept the premise that United States car manufacturers are not meeting the requirements of the United States government.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Can the
minister deny that the United States car manufacturers have informed the United States government that they cannot meet these requirements which have been established?


An hon. Member:: What has this to do with Canada?


Michael Starr: Because many cars are being produced in the United States now, and we are getting them.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: The
minister used the words "reasonable to assume" in the course of his answer. I would ask him whether he has taken up this important question with his opposite number in the United States.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am not sure what the important question is.
January 10, 1967


David Vaughan Pugh: The question I asked was a supplementary question. The important question had to do with safety requirements incorporated into cars produced in Canada, or in the United States for use in Canada.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I said that cars manufactured in Canada for export to the United States will be required by United States regulations to conform with the standards set by law.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Poriage-Neepawa):: My
question is addressed to the Postmaster General whose department today released a pamphlet describing the commemorative postage stamp to be used during the centenary year. The significant date is January 11, and since this day coincides with the birthday of our first Canadian prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, many Canadians will deplore the lack of reference to Sir John on the commemorative stamp. Has the department any plan to issue a stamp during the centennial year in honour of this distinguished Canadian?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: I cannot say there is no reference to Sir John A. Macdonald on this stamp; there is a lot of blue on it. As to the second part of the question, I will take it as notice.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: address my question to the Minister of Finance, and I hope it is in order this time. Will the minister give consideration to making replacement bonds available for the 1936 $100 Dominion of Canada bonds which are today worth $54, and which were callable or replaceable on September 15, 1966?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is my understanding that those replacement bonds are already being issued; I have been checking with my department to find out exactly where the process stands. I know that I authorized the issue of replacements some time ago.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I assume the minister has already made plans for the insurance of replacement bonds. Would he notify the banks, because I think the banks do not have this information?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sure the banks are well aware of the announcement I made when these bonds became callable, that we did not intend to retire them and that they would be replaced by bonds with suitable coupons on them. They are well aware of that. I will have to inquire as to when the bonds will be in the hands of the banks.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. It relates to the written answer given yesterday to my hon. friend from Kings with regard to staff shortages affecting the Atlantic Development Board and the resulting curtailment of projects. Can the minister tell us which specific projects are being curtailed as a result of the staff shortages?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think I could be expected to give detailed information of this kind without referring to the Atlantic Development Board. I will be very glad to make such a reference.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: May I take this opportunity to reply to a question asked me before Christmas by the hon. member for Skeena, who was unkind enough to remind me of it yesterday when I did not have my answers ready. I have the answers today.
With respect to the vessel Ontario Power, the report of the investigation into this shipping accident should be ready for release in a few days and I will be glad to send the hon. gentleman a copy.
With respect to the very regrettable accident to the motor ship Cabot, Mr. Justice Chevalier of Hull, Quebec, a member of the Quebec Superior Court, will preside over a formal investigation at Montreal into the circumstances surrounding the capsizing of this
11594	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry vessel. I had intended to make this announcement in the ordinary course of today or tomorrow but I am happy to make it here in the house in response to the hon. gentleman.


Frank Howard: Would the minister be good enough to make available the terms of reference furnished to Mr. Justice Chevalier as the commissioner, and the questions to which answers are sought?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be glad to send the relevant documents to the hon. gentleman.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. In the light of the indication given by the minister on December 20 I wish to ask him whether he has been in touch with the C.P.R. with respect to its letter of intent concerning payment of municipal taxes by the C.P.R. commencing January 1. Is the company willing to forgive this house for carrying the transport bill over into the present year for a short period, and can we take it for granted that the C.P.R. is prepared to pay some municipal taxation this year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would be humiliating for me and somewhat contemptuous of parliament to make any request of a formal character to the C.P.R. until the legislation has been disposed of. As soon as parliament has seen fit to deal with the legislation I shall be very happy indeed to make an approach to the C.P.R.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: As a supplementary question on that very point, the minister stated on December 20 last that he would be in contact with the C.P.R. to see whether they would be in an agreeable mood to recognize the letter they had written him with regard to tax payments. I would like to ask, has he been in contact with the C.P.R. and are they in a forgiveable mood for carrying this bill three weeks past the deadline they set out in their letter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has phrased his question more elegantly than the hon. member for Calgary South,

DEBATES	January 10, 1967
but it is exactly the same question and the same answer applies.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Then can I assume the minister has not carried out what he told the house he would do on Tuesday, December 20? On that date he said he would be in contact with the C.P.R. This is a simple question. Has he been in touch with the C.P.R. in regard to this matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if I might give a simple answer to a simple question, I shall be in contact with the C.P.R. as soon as the legislation has been dealt with by the house.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But you have not been in contact with them since December 20?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not on this particular subject.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: As
a further supplementary question, in view of the fact that the minister made this in the nature of a threat before Christmas, does he not feel that in the interests of getting the bill through the house as soon as possible he should now, or later today, give some indication of the attitude of the railway on this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the impression that this type of discussion might best take place when the house is in committee discussing the bill to which reference has just been made.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as house leader. Will the house leader arrange for the motion referring the question of the pensions of retired civil servants to the joint committee on the public service, notice of which has been given by the President of the Treasury Board and which is most welcome, to be called at the earliest possible date?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I hope to have it on the list of business for the house to consider tomorrow.
January 10, 1967



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he now tell us whether the cabinet has received, considered, dealt with and, if so, in what manner, a preliminary report or a further report from the Canadian Youth Council on plans for a centennial youth seminar some time during 1967?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall having received another report on this matter. Perhaps the Secretary of State has, and I shall consult her on her return, but the matter has not yet come before the cabinet in any amended form.



SOCIAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Has the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare recently met with provincial health ministers, with a view to increasing old age assistance allowances, blind persons allowances and disabled persons allowances, so as to bring them to the same level as the minimum guaranteed income provided by the old age security pension.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, no consultations have been held since our consultations with respect to the Canada Assistance Plan, which will make it possible for provinces on a shared basis to make any increase they wish in allowances to the groups mentioned.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagol):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Following the recent announcement that 2.5 million pounds of butter will be imported from New Zealand, does the minister intend 23033-734
Inquiries of the Ministry to set up a program to encourage the Canadian farmers to produce enought butter to meet our domestic needs?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the government's dairy program will be announced in the normal course prior to the commencement of the next dairy year.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Is the minister implying that no policy has been established to date?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the grave troubles now occurring in continental China is it the intention of the government to withhold their support for communist China membership in the United Nations until the situation has improved within that country?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have answered yesterday a similar question put to me by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
I should like to know whether the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs intends to withdraw his official support or whether he will withdraw his support for the recognition of communist China in the United Nations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister give the house any information as to whether a Canadian citizen who entered the United States last year could be forcibly

January 10, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry drafted into the United States army, and what steps could be taken to get him back into Canada again?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the question is appropriate at this time.


Reynold Rapp: This is a very urgent question, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this question, which I am sure involves the terms and conditions under which Canadian citizens enter the United States, could be more properly dealt with by my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we await elucidation from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will he say whether representations have been made to the United States against the injustice of calling up Canadians who are in the United States for but a short period, putting them into the armed forces and denying them their rights as Canadian citizens?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secreiary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend has a great and enviable capacity of asking questions that are not necessarily based on facts-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: We get that from reading the statements of the hon. gentleman.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: The question he asks me now is just of that nature, and no reply that one could give to him would satisfy a question that is so falsely based. I can only say that if those are the facts then there might be occasion to make some kind of representations, but my examination of the law of the United States does not warrant the conclusion that my right hon. friend has made with regard to such hypothetical, non-existent situations.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised at the answer given by the hon. gentleman. There are none so blind as those who will not see, and the hon. gentleman has company in the Minister of Transport in that connection. I ask the minister this: Is it a fact that Canadians who are temporarily in the United States for a short period of time are being called up and placed in the United States armed forces? Has the minister received no such complaints, or was he away

while the complaints were directed to his notice?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe any Canadian who is temporarily in the United States on a visit, a short stay, would be covered by the military service act in the United States. There is no doubt that under the laws of the United States Canadians who are in that country for a specified period of time and who are engaged in gainful employment in certain categories are liable to call up. That is the law of the United States. If there is any situation such as would be embraced by my right hon. friend's question, I shall certainly examine it, but I can say I have had no such complaints whatsoever, and I must repeat that I do not think it is fair to put questions in the house unless one is reasonably certain that there is ground for putting them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a right to reply to that insinuation. Let me say that every suggestion in every question I have asked this government has turned out to be correct even though the government has brushed them aside. Let me give the minister an example of what I mean.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I am speaking to a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the right hon. leader of the opposition is speaking to a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: Some weeks ago I asked the minister a question regarding 1,500 gallons of gas allegedly delivered to Rhodesia. The minister said that was quite ridiculous and that no such thing had taken place. His department had notice of that fact three weeks before the minister denied it in this house. Finally, about three weeks ago, he had to admit that the suggestion was in fact correct.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend has placed before the house a good example of the kind of thing about which I registered a complaint a few moments ago. He has set up a straw man and has said the minister denied that the delivery took place. I never denied it. What I said was that I would make an examination, and I have made an examination.


John George Diefenbaker: You said it did not happen.
January 10, 1967


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: The gasoline did not come from Canada, as I think my right hon. friend knows; it came from South Africa.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should remind hon. members that we have gone three or four minutes beyond the time allotted for questions. Orders of the day.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 9, 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:: When the committee rose yesterday clause 3 was about to be discussed.
On clause 3-Definitions. "Commission "Commodity pipeline".


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure this is the clause in respect of which I should talk about the commission, but this clause does define and set up the commission.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member but there is far too much noise in the chamber. It is difficult for the chair to hear what is being said by the hon. member for Acadia.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should like to say a word or two in respect of two specific subjects before we proceed further with this bill. Let me deal first with the subject of the question asked a short while ago by the hon. member for Calgary South, regarding the letter of intent sent to the minister some time last fall. This letter was tabled in the house and made an appendix to Hansard of September 8.
The C.P.R. stated in that letter of intent that it was prepared to pay municipal taxes to cities and municipalities in which it held property. It outlined the implementation of this intent in terms which stated that one third would be effective in the year commencing January 1 after the legislation was enacted modernizing and rationalizing existing legislation and taking into account certain other things. If the wording of that letter is 23033-7345
Transportation
strictly interpreted, then the first one third will be implemented January 1, 1968, providing this legislation is passed this year. In other words it does not matter whether we debate this legislation for the rest of this year so far as the tax commitments are concerned. I should like that point cleared up before we proceed.
In all fairness to members of this committee the minister should indicate whether he has been in touch with officials of the C.P.R. to determine whether they are prepared to ignore the exact wording of that letter of intent. This legislation was not passed before the end of last December through no fault of the members of this house or the municipalities concerned. If anyone is at fault it is perhaps the government. Before we proceed further the minister should consult with officials of the C.P.R. in an effort to determine whether they will ignore the exact wording of that letter and comply with the obvious original intent of the tax commitment.
Let me refer to what the minister said in this regard as recorded at page 11374 of Hansard for December 30. At the top of that page the minister is recorded as having said:
This is a voluntary undertaking and while I could ask the company to overlook the fact that we have not found it possible to act by the end of December-and I would naturally be glad to do this-we must remember that this offer was made in anticipation of the freedom which would be granted under this new legislation. This freedom would enable the railways to compete for revenue in a way in which they are not able to compete at present.
The minister left us with the impression before Christmas that he would be glad to ask the officials of the railway companies, particularly of the C.P.R., whether they would overlook the exact wording of the letter which states that the tax commitment would commence January 1 after this legislation was passed. The hon. member for Calgary South posed a very appropriate question this afternoon when he asked the minister whether he had contacted the officials of the C.P.R. to determine whether they were prepared to overlook the exact wording of that letter.
I have never regarded the Minister of Transport as one who could be accused of not being a hard-working minister. He has always impressed me as one who considered every piece of legislation he presented to the house, and one who would leave no stone unturned in honouring commitments he made to the house. He has shown another side of his character which has not been obvious, in that he

January 10, 1967
Transportation
has not been in touch with the C.P.R. regarding the wording of this letter.
The minister should make it clear that he in fact did make a commitment on December 20 to contact officials of the C.P.R. regarding this tax commitment. The C.P.R. is a big company, and this tax commitment while generous represents only a small item in relation to its vast expenses. I firmly believe the C.P.R. does wish to become recognized as a good corporate citizen, to use the minister's own words. I am not suggesting the C.P.R. has not in the past been a good corporate citizen, but this letter of intent would prove that to anyone who had any doubt regarding the C.P.R. management.
Surely the C.P.R. will forgive this parliament for taking some three weeks of this month to discuss and pass this legislation and will recognize the original intent and honour the tax commitment as of January 1, 1967, at least on a prorated basis. In other words, if we take one month of this year and 11 months are left, maybe they could pay to the various cities all across western Canada eleven twelfths of the tax they would have paid if parliament had been permitted to pass this legislation by January 1, 1967. I think the least the minister could do would be to ascertain from the C.P.R. whether they are prepared to honour the commitment made in this letter and pay their taxes as if this legislation had been passed by January 1. If not, are they prepared to pay their taxes on a prorated basis when the legislation is passed? That is the first point I want to make, Mr. Chairman. I sincerely hope the minister will deal with it before we proceed much further with this legislation.
Last night I stated to the minister that I was prepared to allow clause 1 to pass if he would clarify the position with regard to the integration and co-ordination of our modes of transportation. Because clause 1 has been stood I should be glad not to deal further with this question at the moment, if the minister is prepared to answer my first question, and I see that he is.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the second point first, if the hon. gentleman would raise his point about integration and co-ordination when we reach clause 6, dealing with the constitution of the commission, I think that would be the most appropriate place in the bill to raise it. With respect to the question the hon. gentleman has raised, which if of course not strictly related to the bill, I am very anxious to clear it up-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is not strictly related to the bill but we would like to know what the position is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -in a way that it is very difficult to do when answering questions on the orders of the day. I should like to read, if you will permit me to do so, sir, and comment briefly on exactly what I said on December 20. I was asked a question by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, which, together with my answer, will be found at page 11359 of Hansard for December 20.


Mr. Olson:: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister of Transport could not give some indication to these municipalities, because they will need it in their budgeting for 1967. We do not have the bill before us and if this information is not supplied the municipalities would still need some indication before the end of the year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it would be useful to answer this question, if you will permit me, and to say that, as hon. members are already aware, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has agreed voluntarily to give up an immunity which this parliament could not take away from it without introducing a constitutional amendment. The most that I could do would be to pass on the representations of the hon. gentleman, my own and anyone else's about this matter. However, apart from that, it seems to me that it would be better to discuss this matter when we can have some give and take across the floor of the house and I hope that this will not be delayed long.
Then at page 11374, as the hon. gentleman read, I said with respect to the letter of the C.P.R.:
This is a voluntary undertaking and while I could ask the company to overlook the fact that we have not found it possible to act by the end of December -and I would naturally be glad to do this-we must remember that this offer was made in anticipation of the freedom which would be granted under this new legislation. This freedom would enable the railways to compete for revenue in a way in which they are not able to compete at present.
Since the company is paying money out of its own treasury on the assumption that it will get this extra revenue, it would be rather humiliating for the government to have to say: notwithstanding the fact that we could not do what we had hoped and expected to do to enable you to earn these additional sums, we would nevertheless like you to pay these taxes. I hope that if we do not take too long in our consideration of this legislation in the new year the C.P.R. might, from the point of view of public relations, be disposed to listen to some such prayer. But there is no-
It says "now" here, but that is an obvious misprint.
-way of compelling the company to do so.
I think I probably misled hon. members by an utterly truthful answer that I gave. I did
January 10, 1967

not personally draw these things to the attention of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company but immediately afterwards I had them drawn to their attention by a member of my staff. I was quite well aware that they knew what had been said by other hon. members and by me about this matter. I also said, of course, that I would be glad to make a request to them, and I stand by that. But I do not see how I can make a very reasonable request to the company until we have some notion about the length cf time that is going to be taken to pass this legislation. I would hope that if this bill passes relatively quickly-I express this hope without any consultation with the company, and I prefer it to be that way-in the next week or so, the C.P.R. would overlook the delay altogether.
I would also hope that the C.P.R. would be disposed, if there is a rather prolonged delay, to accept the not unreasonable suggestion made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Acadia, namely, that there should be some prorating in this regard. I would hope they would do that. But we must remember that they have taken the initiative, which has been relatively rare on the part of taxpayers of this country, of voluntarily giving up an immunity from taxation, or of agreeing to do so if we do certain things in return.
I was not joking at all when I said I thought before the bill was passed it would be rather humiliating for me to make such a request and also contemptuous. Perhaps I should not say "contemptuous" but what I mean in using that word is that I should not take for granted and neither should any other hon. member, especially a member of the government, that parliament is going to act by a certain date. When parliament has acted I feel that, the action having been taken, I could go to the Canadian Pacific Railway and make urgent representations to them. But I would feel rather humiliated in doing so on a contingent basis.
However, Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. gentleman that everything that is being said here today will be conveyed, not by me personally but by members of my staff, to the company and the senior officers of the company will be well aware of the disposition of the house. I do not think there is anything more I can reasonably say about the matter.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the minister a question in this regard? This matter has been discussed and there may be other opportunities to discuss it, but what has been running through my mind ever since I first
Transportation
heard of this letter

and I strongly approve of what the railway is offering in this regard-is this point. So long as there remains, as the minister realizes there is, a constitutional barrier to taxation of the railway company, while they may voluntarily submit themselves to taxation they can equally remove themselves from their voluntary submission, if I can put it that way.
Will the minister, in the long-range view of this matter, give some thought to discussing with the railway company the position that they might be able to take in due course by removing the constitutional impediment? In other words, will this be a long-range proposal whereby the railway will be subject to taxation without the constitutional barrier or will it always be left on the basis that they can pay these taxes or otherwise as they see fit?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: The letter from the C.P.R.
went on to say that they would not regard this as a giving up of their immunity and if at the end of the three year period parliament, or parliament plus the provinces concerned, were to pray the Queen to ask the government of the United Kingdom to make the necessary amendments to our constitution they would not regard that as any breach of contract. That is the utmost they could possibly do. The rest is part of that unfortunate situation in which we find ourselves of having to go to the parliament of another country to make even simple amendments to our constitution when they affect the constitutions or the rights of provinces as well as the federal parliament. I am quite sure that the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta would not object to joining us in such a prayer, but X think there is a certain disposition in this house to feel that we should try to solve the problem of amending our constitution ourselves instead of going for these relatively minor amendments to the parliament of another country.
However, so far as the Canadian Pacific Railway is concerned I think they have given an undertaking, which is certainly morally irrevocable, to go on paying grants in lieu of these taxes until such time as we put our constitution and the constitutions of the three prairie provinces in such a state that the taxes can be levied on them like they are levied on the C.N.R. and other railways.


Gerald William Baldwin: The new government, which might be here three years from now, might be

January 10, 1967
Transportation
able to do this with the other constitutional changes.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I gather from what the minister has said that he accepts entirely the proposals of the Canadian Pacific Railway that they are to grant us, out of their great generosity and despite their tremendous poverty, the privilege of collecting, one third of the taxes due the first year, two thirds the second year and the full taxes only in the third year. I also gather that the minister accepts what to me is an odious proposition of the Canadian Pacific Railway that it will time the decision, which should be made by the government, as to when the constitutional and legislative amendments relating to their taxation are to be made. When I first read the letter of the C.P.R. to which the minister referred it struck me that it was written with characteristic C.P.R. arrogance. The following statement appeared in that letter:
At any time after the expiry of the period indicated above-
That is the three year period.
-the Canadian Pacific would have no objection to action being taken to amend the constitution and the legislation to terminate the perpetual exemption from local taxation referred to.
I think this is an arrogant statement by a huge corporation of which the minister seems to be in awe. What other citizen in Canada, either individual or corporate, can take it upon himself or itself to say to the government of Canada "I will have no objection if you take action to tax me"? I think this is an outrageous way of going about this matter.
The minister has said more than once during the debate on this bill that times have changed, that regulation of the type we had before is no longer necessary or desirable and that this is why he has produced a completely new bill. I do not entirely agree with him when he says that this is a completely new concept. I suggest that times have changed with regard to the taxation of the C.P.R. as well. If the exemption was ever justified-and my study of the matter has never persuaded me that it was even justified originally-it certainly has not been so for many years.
The Canadian Pacific Railway has been able out of its earnings from its rail operations over the years to build itself a huge commercial and industrial enterprise, indeed, a huge commercial and industrial empire. In my opinion the time is overdue to say to the Canadian Pacific that it can no longer be exempted from municipal taxation. I would like to hear from the minister what moral or

social justification there may be for accepting this crumb from the C.P.R., or accepting their proposition of taking three years before paying all the taxes which they should be paying to the municipalities concerned and also accepting from them a timetable for action by this parliament and, if necessary, by the legislatures of the three provinces concerned to amend our constitution and our legislation. Who is the C.P.R. to dictate to this parliament and to this country as to when that should be done? Why is it not perfectly correct in social and moral terms for this parliament and the legislatures concerned to say today that we will now amend the constitution and the existing legislation to make the C.P.R. taxable, in the same way that every other corporation in Canada is, by the municipalities concerned as of January 1, 1967?
I do not have to remind the minister of the fact that the C.P.R., which is a great institution, was built with a great deal of money provided to the original owners of that railway by the people of Canada. How much longer are they to enjoy this privilege which they have enjoyed since 1881, if I remember correctly? That is a long time. If my calculation is correct, for 85 years now the C.P.R. has enjoyed this exemption from municipal taxation.
As I said before, during this period it has built not only across this country but throughout the world a tremendous industrial and commercial empire of great power and economic wealth. I suggest to the minister that the time is long overdue for action to be taken to make the C.P.R. immediately taxable for 100 per cent of the relevant assessment as of January 1 of this year. I say to the minister that were it not for the constitutional difficulties he would have had from our party a proposal to amend the legislation which stands in the way. Obviously that would not be sufficient without the necessary constitutional amendments which the minister himself should initiate.
May I also suggest to the minister, without intending any offence, that the dragging in at this particular point of the locus of the amending authority, the question of whether the constitution should be amended in the United Kingdom or by the Canadian parliament, is really dragging a red herring across the trail. There was no difficulty in making other amendments to our constitution pending the resolution of the problem of repatriating the amending authority to Canada, and this matter is one of great importance to the
January 10, 1987

municipalities concerned. I am as convinced a nationalist as anyone in this house. My national sensitivities would not be violated if we had to go to Westminster to obtain an amendment to the constitution in order to do justice to the municipalities of the prairie provinces, and not three years hence but immediately.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think that it rather ill becomes the hon. gentleman to talk about dragging in red herrings when he must realize as well as anyone else that this whole discussion is totally irrelevant not merely to clause 3 but to the whole bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Oh, no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, it is because there is nothing in the bill dealing with this matter, but I have taken no exception to that. Since the hon. gentleman was allowed to make what I would describe as one of the most demagogic speeches I have ever heard in this house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: -I hope he will listen to my free expression of my views with the same politeness as I listened to his, instead of interrupting.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister a question? Did I accuse him of demagoguery or anything else of that sort when I spoke? I was no more demagogic than I have heard the minister being in this house, and it ill behooves him to use that word toward me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The other day I said there was one thing about the N.D.P. and that was that they handed it out but usually they would take it when you replied. I am afraid I will have to make an exception of the hon. member for York South. He accused me of truckling to the C.P.R. He accused me of being overawed by this great corporation. If that is not demagoguery, then I do not know what demagoguery is. I will explain to the hon. gentleman that I am old fashioned enough to believe that when a contract is made by the government of my country, even if it is with a big corporation it has the same sanctity as contracts made under the Canada Pension Plan with ordinary citizens and should be observed in exactly the same way.
With all the wisdom that I have now, if I had been Sir John Macdonald I do not believe I would have made this particular type of contract with the Canadian Pacific in 1880. The fact is, however, that it was made and it was ratified by a statute of this parliament.
Transportation
What is more, when the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were established in 1905 the contract was written into their constitutions. The hon. gentleman who is sitting beside the hon. member for York South is a former premier of Saskatchewan, but he took no steps of which I am aware during the long period he was premier of that province to do anything about this immunity. The difference between myself and the present government and everyone else is that we did discuss this problem with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. We did make representations to them that this kind of immunity, which had been given in perpetuity, was not really the kind of thing that was very desirable in the twentieth century. The company did say that if they were allowed the kind of scope the government had said they were going to propose to parliament to enable the company to increase railway revenues, then the company would be glad to give up this immunity. The company had a contractual right to this immunity, just as anyone else who makes a contract with a government of this country has a right to expect the contract to be honoured.
The Canadian Pacific said they would voluntarily give up this immunity over a three year period. It is easy to understand why they chose the three year period. It is going to take some time before the freedom permitted under this bill will, in fact, have any great effect upon the revenues of the railways of this country, and that is why we have the graduated reductions in the subsidies in this bill. The company said also that, notwithstanding the fact that they had a contract, if we could get the constitution amended or if we desired to do so, they would not offer any objection on the ground that they did have a contract ratified by a statute of parliament.
Even if it is the C.P.R., and even if it is possible to get votes by making attacks upon the C.P.R. because it is a large corporation, I do not think that is proper procedure. Nobody is more ready to attack the C.P.R. or anybody else when I think they are doing something wrong. However, when they are doing something that is right, reasonable and in the public interest, it is rather ungracious, rather unfair to suggest that instead of allowing the company to do this in a voluntary way so that there is no breach of contract we should get up in the house and say that if we only had

January 10, 1967
Transportation
the power to do it we would break the contract unilaterally, which is what the hon. member for York South said.
There is a certain amount of evidence that governments that break contracts with one person are apt to get the habit and break them with others. It certainly is not a good way to gain confidence. I suggest that perhaps it is utterances like that we have just heard from the hon. member for York South which explain why, in all the years since his party under whatever name it has been known has been seeking the suffrages of the people of this country, it has never succeeded in electing more than 28 members to this house. I suggest to the hon. gentleman that most Canadians believe that even if they make bad contracts they are bound by them. They believe that even if their government makes bad contracts it is bound by them also. This doctrine of unilateral repudiation of the pledged word of a country is the kind of doctrine against which I thought most of us objected in two world wars.
So far as I am concerned, if I thought the C.P.R. was doing something contrary to public interest I would be just as ready to say so as the hon. member for York South, and perhaps more ready. However, when the company is acting in a socially responsible manner I do not believe there is any reason why we should not be honest enough or generous enough to say so, even if by creating the impression that someone is serving as a lackey of the big interests we may be able to fool a few people in a few places into voting in a different way than they would otherwise.
That is my whole reply to the hon. gentleman. I do not expect it will satisfy him. However, I do believe it is apt to commend itself to the majority of the members of this house and to the majority of the people of this country.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I think I should interrupt the proceedings of the committee now and point out to hon. members that as a result of a misunderstanding as to the way clause 1 was stood last evening I allowed the hon. member for Acadia, the hon. member for York South and the minister to make statements. However, I should point out to the committee that we are considering clause 3. The discussion that we have been having for the last few minutes has very little relationship to clause 3.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On your point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say that the minister has

been arguing that the concession which the Canadian Pacific Railway is now prepared to make are part of a quid pro quo for the additional revenues they will get as a result of this legislation, and therefore the two questions are irretrievably bound together. It seems to me quite in order to discuss this matter. However, if Your Honour says we cannot pursue it further we will, of course, abide by your ruling.
If that is the case, I would raise a question of privilege and reply to one of several inaccurate statements made by the Minister of Transport. He said that during the time I was premier of Saskatchewan we made no move whatever to bring about any change in the legislation which exempted the Canadian Pacific Railway from municipal taxes on its main line. As a matter of fact, we did. First of all, we amended the Saskatchewan legislation to make the C.P.R. subject to municipal taxation on its branch lines, from which it had been exempted for years. The provincial government and the municipalities of the province petitioned the federal government, of which I believe the Minister of Transport was a member, for legislation which would either remove the exemption or require Canadian Pacific to pay sums of money in lieu of taxation.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
There can be no doubt about the fact that irrespective of any commitment which may have been made in 1881 the people who have borne the burden of that exemption have not been the federal government or the provincial government but the municipalities. The situation has changed to such an extent that in my opinion the railway has been morally bound and is morally bound now not to continue to impose this burden upon those municipalities which happen to be on the main line of the C.P.R. but should pay them this revenue which they require if they are to maintain their ordinary municipal services.
If the question is not be to be discussed further I have at least risen to say that the minister's statement is quite incorrect. The government of Saskatchewan between 1944 and 1964 made repeated representations for changes which would have made the Canadian Pacific Railway subject to taxation by the municipal authorities.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if I misstated the facts. I knew that the hon. gentleman's successor had made representations, because he made them to the Prime Minister in my presence. All I can say is that I was unaware of the earlier representations
January 10, 1967

and I regret very much any misstatement of fact I may have made.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a good deal of interest to the exchange which took place between the hon. member for York South and the Minister of Transport. I do not think I have to defend the hon. member for York South or the minister; they can both look after themselves. However, for the record I wonder whether the minister would take a few minutes to deal with this point.
In his remarks the minister said that he was not surprised at people attacking the C.P.R., that it was popular among certain people to attack big corporations. During the hearings of the transportation committee I was amazed at the large number of very responsible citizens and organizations which were very hostile to and critical of the C.P.R., organizations such as farmers' unions which called for the taking over of the C.P.R. and its operations by a public corporation. The minister said that if it was necessary and justified he would be prepared to criticize the C.P.R. and its actions. For the record, can the minister tell us when, if ever, he has criticized publicly the actions of the C.P.R.?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I find it very hard indeed to obey your ruling and relate this to clause 3.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must point out to the committee once more that the clause now before the committee is clause 3, which is an interpretation clause dealing with the definition of "commission", "commodity pipeline" and so on. Perhaps the members of the committee in their comments from now on would confine themselves to the clause before the committee.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I was one of those who thought that clause 1 would be continued today. I had an amendment to move later but I intended to present it today-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Clause 1 was stood.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Perhaps the hon. member for Halifax is not aware that clause 1 has not been passed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I have not yet reached my point of order, Mr. Chairman. This is quite a complicated bill and I am wondering whether we can agree on some procedure whereby at the end of the day members may present amendments they intend to move later, which could then be studied by the minister and his
Transportation
officials, instead of presenting them during the debate and having to make up our minds very quickly whether to accept them or reject them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I really do not think that is a point of order but if the hon. gentleman or any other member has an amendment he is proposing to move to any clause and would like to let me have a copy so that I can have the officials look at it in the meantime in a private way, that would be quite a convenience, I think. I would be very glad to do that and it would probably be easier to answer such amendments when the appropriate clause came up.


Thomas Miller Bell: So that we can have this in mind, Mr. Chairman, is it the minister's intention to stand clause 16 or does he plan to move forward in consecutive order?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think we should try to anticipate clauses until we reach them, Mr. Chairman. If there is good reason for standing some clause, either because an hon. member has an amendment he would like to have considered or because it is not possible to reach a decision on it quickly and therefore the work of the committee would be impeded, let me say right now that as far as I am concerned I would be glad to ask the committee to stand any clause. We want to get the bill into the best possible shape. I hope that this will not arise in the case of most of the clauses and that we can make fairly quick progress, but clause 16 may very well be one we would wish to stand if there are some proposals for its amendment.


Thomas Miller Bell: The minister indicated that he is going to move an amendment on the port parity matter which comes up in one of the later sections of the bill. I know that the hon. member for Halifax also has this in mind because he was one of the first to mention it in committee. Are we going to be confronted right off the bat with amendments when the clause comes up, or can they be made available so that we will have the chance to look at them? We have to consider the complexity of these amendments and the difficulty of ascertaining each of the little points they make.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am in the hands of the committee, Mr. Chairman. I will do anything it is possible to do to facilitate matters.

January 10, 1967
Transportation


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Before we hurriedly pass clause 3 would the minister explain for the benefit of the committee what is meant by the phrase "solely of oil and gas, or either" in subclause Cb) which deals with commodity pipe lines? For example, suppose an established oil line company is given permission by the National Energy Board to move oil through its line to the west coast, say from Alberta. If it then becomes feasible with some modification to move a commodity like sulphur through that same pipe line, would I be correct in assuming that that pipe line would no longer be under the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board but rather under the jurisdiction of this new transport commission?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would be a commodity pipe line within the terms of this bill, but it would not cease to be under the National Energy Board in so far as it carried oil and gas. In so far as it carried another commodity it would come under the jurisdiction of the transport commission. There is a provision in a subsequent clause to prevent duplicate hearings so that there would not have to be two sets of hearings held in that kind of case. What this clause says is that a pipe line that carries only oil or only gas, or only oil and gas, does not come under the bill at all.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The point I am trying to understand is this. What do the words "or either" mean at the end of (b)? According to the minister they mean very little.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the line carries gas alone it does not come under this bill. If it carries oil alone it does not come under this bill. If it carries both it does not come under this bill. It would only come under this bill if it carries something else.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Now I am more confused than ever.


Thomas Miller Bell: Why did this legislation not redefine oil and gas? It looks rather sloppy with those terms not redefined.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it was thought that the ordinary dictionary definitions of oil and gas would be adequate to guide the judges and lawyers who would be dealing with any litigation in the matter. Perhaps the only reason that there is any need for any definition of a commodity pipe line is that we are not using the dictionary definition of those words; we are excluding certain things from the dictionary definition. The courts would say that if it 
was a pipe line just carrying oil or just carrying gas or just carrying gas and oil, the commission would have no jurisdiction at all over it.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


David Lewis: If the minister will look at paragraph (e) of clause 3 he will note that he is not relying, and I am not saying this critically, on the dictionary only.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman has scored off me. It would be a good idea if ministers would always read their bills.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Am I to assume from the minister's statement that anybody building a pipe line to carry commodities such as oil and sulphur to the west coast would have to get permission to cross provincial boundaries? Would they have to appear before the National Energy Board? Suppose one starts from scratch and wants to move sulphur and oil by way of a pipe line. Before whom would one appear? Would it be the National Energy Board or the Canadian Transport Commission?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman
would not mind waiting for an answer until we get to part II on page 13 dealing with commodity pipe lines-all this is doing is defining-we could have a duplication of discussion. I shall be able to answer then.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is fine. I shall be taking another look at page 13. Perhaps the minister would agree with me that we ought to go slowly with this legislation. This is an important matter and, to use his words, this bill will bring about a revolutionary change in the whole field of transportation. Bearing in mind that the oil and gas industry has become a prominent basic industry in the economy of the province of Alberta, one must pay close attention to excessive bureaucratic control that may develop with the establishment of two boards which would regulate and control an industry that has meant so much to the province of Alberta in the past number of years. I do not apologize for examining clause 3 closely. In view of the importance of the oil and gas industry to Canada and considering the balance of payments problem and like matters, certainly one should go slowly with this type of legislation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think we should deal with this question, if the hon. gentleman would agree, when we come to the appropriate clause.
January 10, 1967


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 3 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Application.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Before clause 4 carries could the minister comment on whether there have been preliminary conversations with the provinces about paragraph (e) of clause 4, "transport for hire"? Basically, what is meant? Have there been consultations with the provinces in view of the remarks made in the Alberta government brief to the committee. Has there been consultation with the provinces about this whole subject of transportation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, there has been. As a matter of fact, when the bill was introduced or just before-I do not have the dates at hand-the Prime Minister wrote to the premiers of all the provinces saying that we intended introducing legislation which would make it possible for a new federal commission to exercise the federal jurisdiction, that we had felt it advisable for some time for that to be done and assuring them all, because the provincial governments had been good enough to allow the provincial agencies to act as agencies of the federal government, that we would not take precipitate action under the legislation and that we should like to have full consultation with them. That has been done. Replies have been received from most of the provinces. A conference is being organized on this particular subject and will take place, I hope, not long after the legislation is passed. I might say again that there is no intention of taking any action under this provision until it becomes necessary in the public interest.


Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Chairman, in December last the Quebec minister of transport expressed reservations about the bill now under consideration, and the minister has just told us that there have been consultations with the authorities of all the provinces when that bill was being drafted.
Since the remarks made by the Quebec minister of transport, have there been other communications with the province of Quebec to give further information to the provincial authorities and have the province's objections been rejected or studied?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is correspondence going on between the Prime Minister and the premier of Quebec on this matter. We have made it clear in that correspondence that the
Transportation
government is grateful for what the government of Quebec has done over the years in allowing the provincial agency to act as a federal agency but that, of course, so far as exercising the legislative jurisdiction of parliament is concerned that is a matter for us here in parliament, and so far as co-operation under the legislation is concerned we desire co-operation with the provinces and are seeking it.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 4 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Commission established.
Thomas Miller Bell: Can the minister give us any information not contained in the legislation about the new commission? For example, will the present members of boards automatically become members of the commission? Is there some guarantee that on the 17-man board there will be some non-experts? The commission being set up is revolutionary and massive and the minister should take a minute to repeat some of the things he said in the committee on transport and communications. He should let us know his thoughts and reassure us in regard to the bureaucratic nature of this commission.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the first place, it will be one bureaucracy instead of three. In the second place-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It will be larger and more unwieldy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It will unquestionably be larger, but the hon. gentleman is not the smallest member of the house and I would never describe him as unwieldy. Size does not necessarily mean clumsiness or difficulty of movement, as anybody watching the hon. gentleman knows.
The commission would have been unwieldly if the whole commission had been expected to be present at all cases. It is intended that there shall be a number of committees of the commission, each with its own chairman, and that they shall proceed in their normal operations in much the same way as the Air Transport Board or the Board of Transport Commissioners proceeds at the present time so far as their formal proceedings are concerned. There will also be a committee dealing with matters that affect at once different modes of transport. That is why we think it is desirable to have one, over-all commission. Since all the

January 10, 1967
Transportation
members of the Air Transport Board, the Board of Transport Commissioners and probably the chairman of the Canadian Maritime Commission as well, because he is the only permanent member of that commission, have a tenure of office set by parliament, it is provided that they shall continue to be members of the commission for the period of tenure they now have. Certain additional members would also be appointed and as existing members retire they will be replaced.
The commission is to have a president and two vice presidents. A good deal of misgiving was expressed in committee about the possibility of conflict between what might be called the research, planning and developmental functions of the commission and its regulatory functions.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
In order to minimize any such possibilities there will be two vice presidents, one of [DOT]whom will have to be a barrister. He will have nothing to do with the research side of the activities of the commission. Any of these subcommittees will, of course, be able to call on the research functions of the commission and make use of their facilities in the same way as they can make use of any other facilities. But there will be another vice president who will have nothing whatever to do, in a formal sense, with the regulatory functions. He will be the head of the planning and research staff. That is the general structure.
I was brought up on a farm and I was taught when very young not to count chickens before they were hatched. I have offered no jobs on this commission to anybody, nor do I think it would be proper for me to do so until parliament has acted and until there is a commission to which people can be appointed.


Thomas Miller Bell: I hope the minister himself is not coveting a position in which he would engage in any new-found activity once this bill becomes law.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is, in fact, very smug about being Minister of Transport. Perhaps he should not be.


Thomas Miller Bell: In any case I want to thank the minister for his reply and ask him whether I understand his explanation correctly, that any persons with particular tenures now holding appointments on existing boards, would be given similar appointments on the new commission.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The appointments would just continue.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have no one in particular in mind. I was just anxious to know.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not only that, but the chairman of the Board of Transport Commissioners has the right when he retires to become a judge of the Exchequer Court, and that right is also safeguarded. All the rights which the members of the various boards now have are safeguarded in the bill.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I have very few words to say on this clause but I hope they will be acceptable bearing in mind the importance of the manner in which this commission is constituted and the regional responsibilities and problems which must be taken into consideration.
I am thinking in particular of the province of Ontario. Although the province of Ontario is certainly a prosperous one within our fair dominion, nevertheless it contains areas whose interests need to be guarded when we are considering the appointment of commissioners. I have in mind especially those areas which have been classified by the government as designated areas for whose assistance and development special measures are needed. It is important that when making appointments to the commission the minister should consider the needs of such areas within the framework of the country as a whole.
It has been said that the two provinces which will pay and pay heavily, in consequence of certain freedom which is to be granted to the railways, are Ontario and Quebec. The idea is that the development and progress of these two provinces now warrants consideration being given to increases in railway rates. This is what I understand, though I do not subscribe to that view, believing that it is important to support the development of outlying centres in these two provinces.
Consider, for example, the closing of stations in areas whose development is supposed to be the key to the government's program of designation. This becomes a matter of great importance, particularly at a time when the government is offering assistance to such areas and when even provincial governments have seen fit to grant special concessions to them. Surely the maintenance of connecting links with adjoining areas which may also require development must be borne in mind at all times. In circumstances such as these I believe the government might well be sympathetic and see to it that the railways do not simply impose their views, despite the protection afforded by the Board of Transport
January 10, 1967

Transportation
Commissioners, and endeavour to close facilities which are so important to the population and to the possibility of future progress in these smaller communities.
It is true, from the point of view of the railway companies, that merely by looking at the figures it might not seem reasonable to keep certain stations open. Nevertheless, in my opinion the interests of the people and of industry in such areas are well worth protecting, and the exercise of this protective function, the success with which it is carried out, will depend to a large extent on the kind of commissioners who are chosen.
That is all I have to say on this particular subject. I shall have more to say at a later stage in this discussion.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Does the minister visualize the members of this board sitting as members of dual committees? With all due respect to the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, my concern is that it will be the captive regions of Canada, particularly the northern areas, which will be required to pay increased rail rates.
I do not wish to get ahead of the committee by discussing clause 89, but I do hope some balance will be preserved between various parts of the country in the decisions which will have to be made. I say this bearing in mind the fact that there are to be only 17 members of the board and that several of the eastern members will be sitting in a dual capacity on different committees of the board.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not sure I understood the purport of the hon. gentleman's question. I thought he was about to argue that in making appointments to the board we should give due consideration to the main geographical divisions of Canada.


George Robson Muir: That is what I was trying to say.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no doubt about the importance of that factor. The hon. gentleman and I are old enough to remember that when Mr. Bracken formed his first government in Manitoba in 1922 it was discovered that every member of that government was a Presbyterian.


An hon. Member:: Very sensible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We shall try not to make that mistake.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not more than half of them, anyway. Speaking seriously, I do not think the geographical location from which a member comes should necessarily be the prime requisite. If all the members were appointed from Ontario, Quebec or British Columbia, this would not satisfy very well what we have in mind. On the regulatory side it will be possible for members of the commission to be moved from one committee to another, when there is greater pressure of work in one place rather than in another, at the direction of the president or, in some cases, of the vice president.
Normally when hearings are dealing purely with aviation matters the committee will be formed of those commissioners who are particularly competent in that field, and the same will apply with respect to railway matters. But when there is a question about the most appropriate mode of transport to meet a particular situation it might be useful to have a committee with commissioners who would have some detailed knowledge of more than one mode of transport. The main desire is to keep the commission as flexible as possible and not to have it unwieldy.


Gerald William Baldwin: Under this clause the establishment of salaries and remuneration is to be fixed by the Governor in Council which, of course, is a departure from the practice under the Railway Act as it applies to the Board of Transport Commissioners. I hope the minister will give us some general idea of what he may have in mind. I believe the whole heart of this bill lies in the personnel of the commission. I have no objection to people being appointed who will do the best possible job they can being paid an amount commensurate with the work they are doing, their value, their intelligence, and their expert knowledge.
In this connection I hope the government will give regard to the appointment of some people who are not experts. In fact I think one qualification should be that some members of the commission will be non-experts in transportation. The minister probably has had the unfortunate experience of trying to draft documents with six or seven lawyers helping him to do so. Undoubtedly there will be some experts on the commission, but I would hope there will be some appointments made of people whose only experience in transportation is driving a car, going up or down in an elevator, or coming downhill on a pair of skis, and who know absolutely nothing about railway

January 10, 1967
Transportation
transportation, aeronautics or maritime transportation. In his search for personnel to constitute the commission I suggest that the minister seek some people of that character who have certain qualities of energy, a general knowledge of economics and a desire to be of use to their country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Like the hon. gentleman I am a great believer in having a certain number of what old fashioned people would call amateurs. Lawyers, as the hon. member knows, are not hired, they are retained, but apart from lawyers other experts can be hired, if we have to have experts.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister said that under this clause I could deal with the question of integration and co-ordination of modes of transportation. I was disturbed by what the minister said earlier this afternoon in reply to the hon. member for Saint John-Albert that this 17 man commission will take it upon itself to co-ordinate the various means of transportation. From his remarks last night I fear that the new commission, in combining the various means of transportation, will bring about the long-range result of limiting competition rather than promoting it, because we are told competition is the answer to our transportation problems.
The minister tried to suggest to the committee that I was at odds with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle who spoke yesterday afternoon. I have no objection whatsoever to a rationalization program for some railway lines, but rationalization of railway lines is an altogether different question from integrating modes of transportation, which is the point I raised last evening. This is the problem which the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States encountered when it attempted to co-ordinate a complete transportation system, because it found that the shipper of goods was the eventual loser.
As recorded at page 1770 of volume 24 of the proceedings of the standing committee on transport and communications, the new president of the C.N.R., Mr. MacMillan, had this to say:
May I just add one thought which is inherent in everything that has been said and which has not been said. It is this; this looking over the shoulder at the competing form of transportation as the result of the public being denied rate reductions- it is all directed to rate reductions-everytime it has arisen in the Interstate Commerce Commission it is where truck, railway or barge has tried to reduce a rate to the public. The competing form of transportation has taken the position that it ought not to be permitted because the competitor could not live under this reduced rate. The result
(Mr. Baldwin.]
has been that the public has suffered and they have not received the rate. That is what we are warning against.
In effect the Interstate Commerce Commission in such a case says to a mode of transportation, "You cannot enter into that particular area because your competitor is already there and is carrying on a successful business. We feel that if you enter that area then two modes of transportation will be losing money and both may eventually have to be subsidized by the taxpayers." This is the warning given by the C.N.R.
As recorded at page 1769 of the committee proceedings Dr. Bandeen also said that this is the problem which the Interstate Commerce Commission is having, and he gave an example in the following words:
The case I have in mind is a grain movement in the southern United States where the railway put in effective rates; it was ruled compensatory; it was above variable cost; and they still were not allowed initially to put that rate into effect because a barge operator was going to suffer financially because of this. The Interstate Commerce Commission decided that the barge operator should not suffer.
It therefore ruled that the rates could not be put into effect, but in that particular case the commission was overruled by the Supreme Court of the United States and the lower rates went into effect. Dr. Bandeen added:
This is the kind of thing we would like to warn against on any new commission coming in.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I had thought that the new commission would not be the sole judge and adjudicator of where a certain mode of transportation could operate and what it could carry, but following the minister's remarks of last night and this afternoon my fears have been aroused. Certainly this commission will have jurisdiction over certain areas, but it should not be allowed to sit as sole judge to adjudicate on whether or not free enterprise should be allowed to operate as between different modes of transportation. If competition is to provide any answer at all one cannot expect that all modes of transportation will naturally be able to support themselves in all areas of the country. It is true in all phases of enterprise across this country, whether farming, ranching or the legal profession, that if one cannot cut the mustard one must get out. This should also be true in respect of all modes of transportation other than in those places where, because of necessity, the public must be served even though the transportation company involved operates at a loss. In these
January 10, 1967

cases the government should step in and provide a subsidy in the public interest. In any case there should be no limitation placed on competition or free enterprise in those areas which can support it.
With regard to integration and co-ordination, there should be no attempt made in this direction until a full opportunity has been given for free enterprise in a spirit of competition to operate in certain areas. We have all observed across this country the full impact of competition and generally speaking the larger and most economical survive to the benefit of the consumer or, as in this case, the shipper. I would hesitate to allow the passage of this bill if I thought this commission was going to make prejudgements and follow a course of integration before free enterprise had been given a complete opportunity. I hope the minister can straighten out any misunderstanding I may have in this regard. We should learn from legislation of the past and reap knowledge from others who have tried similar types of legislation. Certainly the efforts of the Interstate Commerce Commission in the United States in this regard have failed.
Mr. Pickers gill: I do not think the hon. gentleman could have explained the real object of this bill better than he has just done had he been the sponsor of it. There is one thing this commission cannot do which the Interstate Commerce Commission does all the time and that is to set rates. All this commission can do is set maximum rates and make sure they are compensatory so there is not unfair competition. The third thing it can do under clause 16 is disallow a rate if it is unfair, having regard to the conditions set out in the amendment to clause 1 and the conditions set out in clause 16. In other words, the kind of situation to which Mr. Bandeen referred cannot arise because it would be illegal. This commission is directed by clause 1 to permit competition wherever it is possible.
Integration will take place in precisely those areas referred to by the hon. gentleman, where there is not enough business for anyone to make a living through the operation of any mode of transportation but where transportation is essential. That is where the word "adequate" comes in. These are the areas where the taxpayers will be asked to step in to provide a subsidy in order to provide a necessary service in the national interest.
I am saying almost exactly what the hon. gentleman said. The commission should look at these areas on behalf of the public to determine whether X number of dollars should be
Transportation
provided to operate a good air service or a poor railway service. The commission must determine how the taxpayers' money should be used to provide a good service rather than a poor one and rather than two, both of which would be losers. That is the kind of integration and co-ordination that is meant.
In those areas where there is enough business and enough traffic for carriers to earn a living the government wants them to earn a living and does not want to interfere. We want to obtain the maximum amount of freedom where there is enough traffic to permit competition. We want also to provide for those areas of the country where there would be no transportation without help from the public or without protection for one carrier which could perhaps make a go of things if it could operate alone. These marginal situations exist all over Canada and this is where the commission will carry out integration and coordination. It will not interfere in those areas where there is plenty of traffic.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am prompted to ask the minister a question because of his use of the phrase "air service". My interpretation of that part of the bill in respect of integration and co-ordination of services is that it would only apply to railways and not air services. If an air line could prove that there was enough traffic to operate a second national air service' in competition, would this commission be in a position to grant a licence to that air line? Such an operation in competition might bring about a reduction in air passenger or freight rates. One gets into this kind of difficulty if one interprets the bill to mean that integration may apply to all modes of transportation. Will the minister comment in this regard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This bill does not purport to amend the Aeronautics Act. However,, within the scope of the Aeronautics Act and the policies enunciated by the government the Air Transport Board does permit competition now. The new commission to be set up will continue to do this to the extent that policy permits competition. This bill does not purport to amend the Aeronautics Act, and I wish to make that clear.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Chairman, during the committee consideration of this bill I was in agreement with the hon. member for Acadia in regard to many aspects of this legislation, but I must say that I disagree with him vehemently with regard to the remarks he just made. He seems to be saying to the minister

January 10, 1967
Transportation
that this legislation should be so construed that the commission would be prevented from carrying out its function in such a way as to co-ordinate, harmonize and integrate the various modes of transportation services in this country. Yet when one looks at clause 14-I realize we are on clause 6 but clause 14 refers to clause 6 in this respect-one sees that it is mentioned specifically that the prime object of the commission shall be to co-ordinate and harmonize the operations of all carriers engaged in transport, and so on.
I agree completely with the announced objective contained in clause 14 of the bill because I feel that only in this way can the objectives outlined in clause 1 be realized. If transportation costs are to be reducd to the lowest possible level, it will be by means of a policy that will seek to co-ordinate and harmonize the various modes of transportation. I do not want to revert to the discussion on clause 1 since it has been allowed to stand, but I believe clause 14 is one of the saving graces of the bill and can, if properly administered and implemented, go some way toward salvaging some of the intentions of this legislation.
With specific reference to clause 6 I would say to the minister that, as far as I can recall, during the committee stage when submissions were being made by various organizations this clause was generally favourably received. I do not recall any opposition to the concept embodied in clause 6. But I feel there is really nothing substantive in clause 6, that it is really a matter of administrative change. Rather than having three commissions operating in close liaison one with the other, we are apparently setting up one omnibus commission which will, in order to carry out its functions, then break down into two or three subcommittees. When it comes down to it, what is the big difference between three commissions in close liaison one with the other and one commission doing its work by way of subcommittees?
I have one specific question to direct to the minister in connection with clause 6. I see nowhere in this bill, though I may have overlooked it and it may be very obviously stated somewhere, any reference to the matter of the quorum required for the commission to operate. I assume that there should be some reference to the quorum but I fail to see it here. Can the minister offer some explanation in this connection?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I would not have thought that the reference to a quorum,

if one is necessary, would have been in Clause 6 anyway. It would more likely have been in clause 7 which sets out the powers and duties of the commission. I would imagine it would be within the powers of the commission itself to establish a quorum under its regulations, but perhaps before I give a final answer on that matter I should seek legal advice.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, before another hon. member rises to speak on clause 6 I would ask the minister or any other hon. member for some guidance in this respect. It seems to me it would be a more desirable course of action if the matter of the quorum were dealt with by means of statutory provision here in parliament rather than leaving it to the discretion of a creature of parliament. I would have thought it would also be desirable to include such a provision with respect to the sittings and hearings of the subcommittees of the commission.
From the minister's explanation, as I recall it, during the committee stage and again earlier this afternoon I gained the impression that the commission would resolve itself into two or three subcommittees for the purpose of dealing with matters coming under the Aeronautics Act, the Transport Act and the Railway Act. Should this matter of the quorum not be specified with regard to any work carried out by subcommittees of the commission?
Before I resume my seat I should like to support the request made by the hon. member for Peace River that care be taken by the Governor in Council when appointing the members of this commission to see that a number of the commissioners represent the non-legal, non-transportation industry aspects of our economy. In my opinion this is particularly necessary because of the fact, and I think it is a fact, that the minister did not accede to the request made by some organizations that an advisory body be established relative to this legislation. I believe this request was made. Obviously, the minister did not think it was particularly necessary or he would have made some provision in this regard. Since we are not to have an advisory body, this is all the more reason to have laymen, representatives of other economic sectors of our country, sitting on the commission.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman will recall that we had some discussion in committee about whether we should prescribe the occupation or calling of
January 10, 1967

even one member, and some objection was taken by the laymen in the committee to the provision that one of the vice-presidents should be a barrister. That is the only limitation there is upon the freedom of the Governor in Council to exercise his best discretion to obtain the best men from the generality of the citizens of this country. And I mean the citizens of both sexes, having regard to a question asked earlier in the day.
I certainly agree that when all is said and done, the people who have the greatest interest in transportation in this country are the shippers and the consumers of transport. It is not desired to set up a commission that will be the private preserve of carriers. I think we have to be very careful not to have on the commission too many people who have had previous association with carriers and have acquired habits of mind that make it difficult for them to look objectively at these problems.
With respect to the question of quorum, I am advised that it is dealt with in a very ingenious but very obscure manner in clause
5.	Although that clause has already been carried perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you would let me explain this matter. The quorum for the Board of Transport Commissioners is prescribed under section 12 of the Railway Act, and it is carried over by clause 5 (2) of this bill to apply to the Canadian Transport Commission, so there is provision for a quorum.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: And what is it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is just the kind of question the hon. gentleman would ask. Unfortunately I do not have the necessary information with me.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I know that clause 5 (2) to which the minister just referred states that section 12 and other listed sections of the Railway Act will apply mutatis mutandis, but is this a sufficient provision to cover this point? It seems to me that the Board of Transport Commissioners is composed of a different number of members than the proposed commission. This being the case, how will the quorum provision of the Board of Transport Commissioners apply in this case even if it does apply, as the clause reads, mutatis mutandis? Does this wording imply a proportionate application?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since clause 5 has been passed I might as well be out of order on this point as on another and perhaps the hon.
Transportation
gentleman would agree that when I get my information I could also get it with respect to exactly how this clause operates.


Gerald William Baldwin: When we come to clause 19, which is quite wide, we will have to consider the question of the quorum for committees. There is also the question of the power to be given to the commission to make rules and regulations. I believe that its powers concerning its own procedures are quite wide. I mention this because section 12 of the Railway Act, according to the copy I have which may have been amended since, refers to a quorum of two. Of course one might say that if the House of Commons, having 265 members, can sit with a quorum of 20, then the transport commission having a membership of 17, can sit with a quorum of 2. However, it is possible that when we get to clause 19, which is quite wide, we might be free not only to deal with the question of the quorum of the main committees but also the quorum of the commission.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman's suggestion is a very helpful one. By the time we reach clause 17 I should have all the information I need. It does occur to me that there might be some kinds of inquiries at which it would really be superfluous to have more than one person, but I had better see what the law is.


Thomas Miller Bell: I think the minister's reassurance about striking a balance between the different types of appointments is about all we can hope for. This matter has been mentioned in many of the briefs and no one expects us to legislate certain types of appointments. However, it is important that we take action in view of what has been said.
I would also hope that what the minister said about striking a balance between the different types of interests in transportation would include appointments from different regions of the country. Although I would not object to it, I do not think we would want to end up with 17 Newfoundlanders on the new commission.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I doubt that we could find 17 Newfoundlanders who would be willing to leave Newfoundland.


Mr. Cowan:: I would like to ask the minister a question bearing on clause 6. In subclause (2) of clause 6 it is said that the commission is a court of record. Is this wording taken from the old act or has it been changed? The reason

January 10, 1967
Transportation
I ask my question is that I was provoked in discussion a year or two ago in connection with the Bell Telephone matter when statements were made in argument on behalf of the company that such and such a court decision had been made. I checked into the matter and found that the court decisions to which reference had been made were actually only rulings of the Board of Transport Commissioners.
Furthermore, about a week ago I had occasion to go over to the building in which the Board of Transport Commissioners is located and as I walked by the new hearing room, as I prefer to call it, I noticed an inscription in gold letters saying "court room". I knew I was not in the Supreme Court building nor was I in Osgoode Hall or a magistrate's court. On the other side of the door the French inscription read "salle d'audience". I think "hearing room" is a lot better, since in my opinion the Board of Transport Commissioners is not a court. Can the minister inform me whether "court of record" is the wording used in the old act?


John Whitney Pickersgill: To the best of my knowledge and belief the Board of Railway Commissioners, which was established by this parliament on the initiative of Sir Wilfrid Lauricr in 1903 and over which Mr. Justice Mabee from Port Rowan presided, was a court of record. It was succeeded by the Board of Transport Commissioners which continued to be a court of record and has been so to this day.
I think it is not necessarily essential to use the word "court" but the word "record" is pertinent in the sense that the decisions of that body are recorded and the records have a certain legal validity because they can be challenged in higher courts. At any rate, there is nothing new about it.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Transport remarked a moment ago that he did not think he could find 17 Newfoundlanders willing to leave Newfoundland. That was a happy reference to the latter years of his life. I noticed the way he emphasized that Mr. Justice Mabee came from Port Rowan. It was not really necessary for the minister to say that Mr. Justice Mabee came from the area in which the minister was born. We are willing to accept that Mr. Justice Mabee was the original chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
IMr. Cowan.]
On clause 7-President and vice presidents.
Gerald William Baldwin: There is one small point which I should like to draw to the attention of the minister. I may be borrowing trouble here but the minister seems to flourish on trouble, or at least he has done very well on it so far.
Subclause (3) is taken to some extent from the section in the Railway Act which deals with the situation that prevails in the case of the inability of the chief commissioner to act. There has been a change in that wording. Subclause 3 reads:
The vice president who qualifies under subsection (2) has all the powers of the president, but those powers shall not be exercised by him except in the absence or disability of the president-
We have heard of the well known case in the United States regarding the question of the disability of the president. Who determines this disability? I do not wish to borrow too much trouble or to be too technical but it would seem to me to be appropriate to insert after the words "in the absence or disability of the president" the words "as certified by the president or minister". We would hope that with 17 members on the commission there would not be any personal troubles or problems, but this could happen. What kind of disability is required for the vice president to take over the functions of the president? This may be a small point but I am looking ahead so as to try to meet difficulties which might arise.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Answering as a layman I would say that it is quite awkward in the case of ministers. The hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George, the Minister without Portfolio, is the Acting Minister of Transport when I am absent from Ottawa, but if I happen to have a bad headache and wish to stay at home he cannot act for me. I wish the law allowed him to do so. It is quite clear that when the president is absent from Ottawa the vice president can act in his place. However, in the case of ministers, if, for example there are too many submissions on my desk to be signed by me and I want to go away for the day and leave all the books to the Minister without Portfolio I can do so by being absent from Ottawa but I cannot stay home and rest for a day because I am too tired. I think this is all it means, that his absence or disability would be determined by the fact that he was not in the office.


Mr. McQuaid:: Would the minister give consideration to a requirement for more than one lawyer on the commission? At almost every
January 10, 1967

hearing there is bound to arise some question of law which according to the act must be decided by the vice president who must be a lawyer. What is the situation going to be if the only lawyer on the commission, one of the vice-presidents, happens to be sick or unable to attend the meeting? If the commission is going to be a court of record, I believe there should be a requirement that the president or at least two members of the commission should be lawyers. I believe we will find that if the vice president is not able to attend the meetings questions of law will not be decided because they cannot be decided by anybody else. The work of the commission is going to be held up.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
There is another point that is rather important. I presume this commission will act in a similar manner to the Board of Transport Commissioners which breaks up into sections for hearings in different parts of Canada. There may be a hearing in the eastern part of Canada and one in the western part of Canada at the same time. This 17-man commission could break up into two sections, and one section could operate in the west while the other was operating in the east. I presume the commission might operate in this way. If there is only one man qualified to decide questions of law, that man cannot be in two places at the same time. If a question of law arose when the lawyer was not available, the commission would have to adjourn. Since this is going to be a court of record, I think the president should be a lawyer so there would be at least two members of the commission who were lawyers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the Governor in Council will be duly impressed by the problem suggested by the hon. gentleman. This problem was discussed by hon. members in the committee. There were a number of the members of the committee who thought it was a mistake to even have one lawyer. I did not agree with that philosophy. I defended warmly the right of the legal profession to one-seventeenth of the membership of the commission, and if they could secure more throught merit, all the better.


Melvin James McQuaid: I am not making this suggestion on behalf of the legal profession. I am looking at the problem which arises as a result of what the bill says. The bill says that questions of law must be decided by the vice-pres;dent who is a lawyer. My point is, if that vice president is not there how are questions of law going to be decided?
Transportation


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman will realize that in any hearing where there are abstruse questions of law arising rather than mere questions of fact, it would not be necessary in every case for the judgment to be written on the spot. I believe it is likely there will be more than one lawyer member of this commission. However, it was our view in submitting the bill, and the committee did not disagree with us, that we should prescribe that there should be one lawyer. Of course, there is no prohibition on having more.


Melvin James McQuaid: What would be the objection to prescribing that there must be two?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it is undesirable to be unduly restrictive in these matters. You know the old story about the man who did not invite his father to his wedding. Someone said that was rather surprising and he said, "You have to draw the line somewhere".


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 8-Prohibited interests.
Gerald William Baldwin: In clause 8 there is a prohibition, a necessary one I think, against any member of the commission being engaged in or having any interest in any undertaking in which there may be a conflict of interest. Is there any penalty which flows from a breach of this prohibition? Does this entail dismissal of a member of the commission? I know the term of appointment is for ten years of good behaviour, but does a breach of this provision constitute a breach of good behaviour. While agreeing entirely with the principle, I think there should be some indication of a penalty.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not a lawyer, and the hon. gentleman is an eminent lawyer, but I had always understood that where there was a prohibition or offence created in any bill and no specific penalty provided, the ordinary common law penalties would apply, whatever they may be.


Gerald William Baldwin: There is a provision in the Criminal Code.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that would be very adequate. It is unlikely any government would appoint any person who would be in breach of this provision, but if he were he would obviously not be a suitable person to remain.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
January 10, 1967
Transportation
On clause 13-Paid monthly.
Melvin James McQuaid: There is a small point in clause 13. Apparently the members of the commission and the employees of the commission are to be paid monthly. I am wondering whether the word "monthly" is necessary. Presumably the secretarial staff and others will only get their cheques once a month. Could the word "monthly" not be left out so there may be some provision for payment bi-monthly?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it would matter very much. If the hon. gentleman would care to move that the word "monthly" be struck out, I would be quite willing to agree to the amendment.


Melvin James McQuaid: I would so move, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: While the amendment is being written out, perhaps we could carry the amendment and the clause as amended.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Maurice Rinfret: Shall the clause as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
On clause 15-Duties oj the commission.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. member for York-Humber would permit me to say a word first on clause 15? It is my intention to have my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, if he will be agreeable to doing so, move an amendment to this clause. If that were done now, we could have the amendment circulated so hon. members may look at it while it is being discussed.
The amendment would read as follows:
(6) Where a person who transports goods by a mode of transport other than rail charges a toll, expressed as a single sum for the carriage of traffic partly by one mode of transport and partly by a different mode of transport, the commission, for the purpose of determining whether a toll charged is contrary to any act of the parliament of Canada, may require such person to declare forthwith to the commission, or may determine, what portion of such single sum is charged in respect of the carriage of traffic by the mode of transport by which such person transports goods.

When there is a single charge for carrying goods partly by truck and partly by rail or partly by ship and partly by rail and the sum has to be divided so the shipper may know how much is for the carriage of goods by one form of transport and how much by another, this amendment enables that determination to be made. I have some French copies as well; I had better keep one or two for myself.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Based on the abiding trust I have in my colleague, Mr. Chairman, I so move.


Gerald William Baldwin: I hope the Minister of National Defence will be equally flexible when we are dealing with another piece of legislation later.


Thomas Miller Bell: Would the minister help us in our understanding here? Is this one of the amendments that were put forward by the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce? They felt there should be a requirement that the national transportation policy should make certain that the users of transportation services obtain the benefit of the advantages that are inherent in each mode of transport. Is this what prompted the amendment, or where did it come from? How did the minister happen to come upon this? This question is asked merely to help us understand why all of a sudden this amendment appears in view of the fact that we did quite extensive research in committee on most aspects of this clause.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think this was one of the
amendments suggested during the committee hearings in regard to which I was not able to have a suitable draft prepared in time. It is pretty obvious that if you are to determine whether tolls meet the conditions laid down in clause 16, and which have now been put into clause 1 by the amendment which is based on the one suggested by the hon. member for Peace River, you have to know what part of a toll relates to rail, what part relates to trucking, and so on, before you can determine, for example, what compensation is involved or make any of the other determinations which are required under the act. It is simply for that purpose.


Harold Raymond Ballard: Mr. Chairman, during the time this bill was under review by the committee a brief was submitted to the committee by the research council of Alberta which I thought was quite a reasonable presentation. It dealt specifically with clause 15 (1) (b) which gives
January 10, 1967

the commission power to undertake studies and research into the economic aspects of all modes of transport within, into or from Canada. Incidentally, this clause was amended only slightly in the revised version that was brought down; it was amended by the addition of the word "within".
I think the concept which was put forward by the research council of Alberta has been entirely missed by the minister. Perhaps one of the reasons it has been missed is the fact that the brief was submitted by mail and no one appeared on behalf of the research council. The argument put forward by the research council appears to be that the commission itself should not be given the full responsibility for initiating research and economic studies but that there are other government organizations and private enterprise organizations that are interested, well qualified and quite capable of doing research in this field. The brief submitted by the research council of Alberta suggested that there should be comprehensive research and development to promote new ideas in physical transport, and that this was particularly important in Canada because of the differing terrain in such as our mountainous regions, the prairies and the Arctic regions. I expect they envision moving goods by methods that have not yet been developed. For example, I know that the research council of Alberta is very actively engaged in experimental work in connection with commodity pipe lines. At the present time they are experimenting with the possibility of moving goods by pipe line where oil is the carrier, in other words, moving goods in capsules inside presently constructed oil pipe lines.
Experiments have been taking place in this regard for years. I think that what they are asking in this brief is that the act make provision so that the commission can make funds available to private and other government organizations to enable them to carry out such research. In fact, they suggested that instead of the wording as it now stands the following wording be used, and hon. members will see that it is not too much different yet different enough to make this possible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not catch the particular subclause to which the hon. gentleman is referring. Could he give me the reference again?


Harold Raymond Ballard: I am referring to clause 15 (1) (b) on page 7 of the bill. The wording that the
Transportation
research council of Alberta has suggested reads as follows:
-undertake, encourage, co-ordinate and support creative physical research projects and economic research studies into present and future modes of transport in Canada;
As I say, Mr. Chairman, this wording was suggested primarily to give the commission funds for the carrying out of such research. As a matter of fact, in one part of the council's brief they suggested that a base of approximately $10 million be set aside for research and economic studies.
This matter was brought to my attention in a letter I received from the head of the petroleum research branch of the research council of Alberta, Mr. Hodgson, and I should like to quote the concluding paragraph:
Our whole objective in suggesting this amendment was to draw attention to the vital need for creative physical research and development in transport in Canada. One of the major ways of doing so-called research in transport in Canada has been to use the economic projection approach. In the economic projection approach very little emphasis is placed on the vast opportunities that lie for revising, redesigning and reinventing physical transport plants. We feel that the future of transport in Canada seriously depends on doing just this.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there may be other organizations in Canada besides the Alberta research council which are doing and have been doing a tremendous amount of research in the field of transport, so I think it behooves the minister to consider giving financial support to these organizations. I wish the minister would consider or at least comment upon the possibility of amending this clause.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I feel that the objective that the Alberta research council has in mind is a very good one but it is one that we think is pretty fully covered by subclause (4) of clause 15. The hon. gentleman might object that the provision is not broad enough to enable the commission to pay moneys out for any other purpose. It will be noted that all activities of the commission will have to be financed out of appropriations voted by parliament. In such appropriations it is intended specifically, as I made clear in my speech on second reading and several times in committee, not that the commission should try to do all research itself but that the greater part of research should be research fostered, encouraged and to some degree financed by funds provided by parliament annually for

January 10, 1967
Transportation
the commission. With the power the commission would have under clause 15(4) and with the appropriations made by parliament, I think there would be no question that the objectives the Alberta research council has in mind would be fully covered. It is for that reason that no specific additional change was made in the bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: I wish to speak to the amendment the Minister of National Defence introduced. I think it is very sensible and essential if we are to extract the utmost value from clause 15 and clause 1. No other clause would seem to provide for this kind of study and for information to be produced where rail and other modes of transport are jointly involved, but I wonder if a close and detailed study of the amendment does not reveal that its effect is to exclude rail from one of the joint modes of transport involved. The wording of the amendment is:
Where a person who transports goods by a mode of transport other than rail-
I think this could be construed to mean that one of the joint modes being eliminated is rail. If that is so I think the minister ought to give serious thought to changing this part to read something like, "Where a person who transports goods by a mode or modes of transport other than or in addition to rail". If that change were made there would be no question that rail plus shipping or rail plus aircraft would be included. I may be too cautious, but the use of words "a mode of transport other than rail" suggests to me that in determining charges for respective modes of transportation rail will be completely excluded if the amendment carries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In view of the point the hon. gentleman has made, which I frankly confess I am unable to pass judgment on, if we have concluded the over-all discussion on clause 15 I wonder whether the clause could be stood merely for the purpose of settling this point and nothing else? We should then not start a new debate.


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not see
why the minister does not bring his officials down to deal with a point like this, because it could be that the point is dealt with in the existing Railway Act by a provision covering rail and other modes of transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that is not quite the point. What the hon. member for Peace River means is that this amendment would not provide for every kind of combination, and perhaps it excludes rail. I am told that clause 47

provides for combinations including rail, and that this part we are now discussing deals with all combinations except rail. Perhaps that underlines the point made by the hon. member. It did not take me long to get the information by Eskimo telegraph.


Thomas Miller Bell: This clause, Mr. Chairman, if I may deal with the legislation generally rather than with the amendment for a minute, authorizes research studies into various modes of transport in Canada. The clause gives me the opportunity to make a brief point that I have made before to the minister. He will recall that I have criticized various studies undertaken by his department into certain aspects of transportation. For example, there is the coastal commission study.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Do you mean pilotage?


Thomas Miller Bell: The pilotage commission yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, the hon. gentleman's friends appointed that commission.


Thomas Miller Bell: I know, and we have been over that. I say that there is a responsibility on the existing minister with regard to aspects of research having to do with air transport, and certainly there is a need to act there. There is also a responsibility-and I have some knowledge of and interest in this matter-with regard to a merchant fleet for Canada. I express the hope that this clause will mean greater co-ordination of research studies and some action by the government. This matter goes back for many years. Particularly with respect to the merchant marine I am one who feels that a nation like Canada with a coast line second only to Russia's must do forward thinking about how we are to deal with this matter as well as the question of our navy. The Minister of National Defence is sitting there studiously signing more papers that will finally wipe out our navy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Miller Bell: The Minister of Transport is from Newfoundland, which has a rocky coast line, and the province's chief means of transportation and communication with the outside world is still by water. I think it is a disgrace that we have not in this nation of landlubbers at least a few people like the Minister of Transport, to think more of the sea and where we are going on the sea. We shall end up with a few people going-


Michael Starr: On the rocks.
January 10, 1967


Thomas Miller Bell: -on the
rocks, as the house leader on this side has said. We shall end up with fellows in gold braid running ferries, and we shall count on other nations to perform our daily tasks, let alone defend us in time of war. Let us hope that this new clause in this new bill will move some people forward in the right direction so far as transportation by sea is concerned.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, do you wish us to discuss the subclauses in consecutive order or may I refer to subclause 2 of clause 15?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Go ahead.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: There are two matters I wish to bring up under clause 15. The first matter I wish to refer to concerns subclause 2 of clause 15 which reads:
The Commission may examine into, ascertain and keep records of, and make appropriate reports to the Minister on (b) the type, size, speed and other requirements of the vessels that are and in the opinion of the Commission should be employed in such services;
I happen to know, from talking to ships' captains and ships' owners from abroad arriving in Toronto harbour and frequently staying there for a few days loading and unloading, about the speed regulations imposed on ships in the St. Lawrence river coming upstream and going down. These people have discussed this matter, which I believe comes under the International Joint Commission, more than once with officials in Toronto.
Dropping to paragraph (d), the wording reads:
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The commission may examine into, ascertain and keep records of-
(d) the water transportation industry and undertakings and services related thereto;
This would include the St. Lawrence Seaway. Then we come to paragraph (f), the one to which I now invite the attention of the committee. The commission may examine into-
(f) the work of international and intergovernmental organizations and agencies which concern themselves with the transportation of goods and passengers by water;
Does this mean that the new Canadian Transport Commission is to be superior to the International Joint Commission? How can a commission appointed by this parliament be given authority ostensibly to examine into, ascertain and keep records of the work of
Transportation
international organizations? International organizations come under authority greater than that of boards of transport commissioners appointed by this parliament. I am raising this point because I have confidence in the International Joint Commission and I would not like to think that the wording in this bill could be interpreted as placing the I.J.C. under the authority of the Canadian Transport Commission. I mention the seaway only because it is specific to the argument.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure that the International Joint Commission is not envisaged at all. While it is beyond question that some of the work of the International Joint Commission is concerned indirectly with the transport of goods and passengers by water into and from Canada, this is certainly not its primary concern. I do not think there will be any conflict at all. There are a number of international agencies to which Canada belongs and to which we send delegates, agencies which concern themselves with water transport, and it is intended that the commission shall keep track of what they do, keep records and make appropriate reports to the minister on these matters. This is the kind of power which I imagine the Canadian Maritime Commission already has. It is certainly not intended that because the commission may examine into, ascertain and keep records it will have any control over anyone else. It is just a matter of the records which concern the commission in relation to activities in which the government of Canada would be interested as carried on by these international and intergovernmental bodies.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: That is an interesting explanation, but the words still state that the commission may "examine into" the work of international organizations. However, it is on record in Hansard if nowhere else, that the International Joint Commission is not envisaged by this wording. I still think it is not as clear as it might be.
The second point I wish to raise arises, again, from clause 16. I believe members of this house are fully aware of the fact that I think the contract which exists for the transportation of passengers arriving at air terminals in Canada and proceeding to downtown points, stinks, and I use that word "stinks" advisedly. The contract in the city of Toronto in connection with the Toronto-Hamilton airport was negotiated by that great Liberal, Hon. Leon Balcer, at one time minister of transport, who awarded a monopoly concession for ten years a few years ago

January 10, 1967
Transportation
without tender. When one examines the way in which these people got the contracts it is interesting to note that the Department of Transport maintains the contract was negotiable by the minister because its value was less than $5,000.
Well, I am from Toronto and we are very proud of that city; it is a boom-boom town and a go-go place, as hon. members can understand when I tell them that a controlling interest in the contract was sold a few years ago for $1 million. I understand that the contract itself, as entered into by Hon. Leon Balcer, that Liberal, was worth less than $5,000, and how a half interest in it could be worth a million dollars in cold cash is beyond my comprehension unless Toronto has boomed so much under this Liberal administration that what was worth less than $5,000 under Balcer in the days of the other government is worth more than a million dollars under the present one.
But the point I wish to raise on clause 15 is this. Subclause (1) reads:
In addition to its powers, duties and functions under the Railway Act, the Aeronautics Act and the Transport Act, the Commission shall-
(c) inquire into and report to the Minister on the relationship between the various modes of transport in Canada and upon the measures that should be adopted in order to achieve co-ordination in development, regulation and control of the various modes of transport;
I take the phrase "various modes of transport" as meaning motor vehicle service between airports and the major cities.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I may raise a point with the hon. gentleman. I am afraid this parliament would not have the power to exercise any jurisdiction over that particular mode of transport, because it is motor transport and it is exclusively within one province. It is therefore entirely under the jurisdiction of the legislature.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I accept the explanation. But if one goes further into clause 18 of this bill one finds these words:
(1) An applicant, or an intervener on an application to the Commission, for-
(b) a licence under this Act to operate a motor vehicle undertaking-


John Whitney Pickersgill: A motor vehicle undertaking in that instance is defined in the definition clause; it is a motor vehicle undertaking which crosses a provincial boundary from one province to another.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: And in subclause (2) of the same clause it is stated:
Where pursuant to any power vested in the Commission by this or any other Act of the Parliament of Canada the Commission suspends, cancels or amends any licence to operate any transportation service or any certificate of public convenience and necessity in respect of a transportation service-
If this matter of motor vehicle service inside a province concerns only the province, how is it that the hon. Leon Balcer, that Liberal, that former minister of transport, was able to give the contract?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is possible for the Department of Transport or any other federal agency to hire a motor car. The motor car still remains entirely within provincial jurisdiction as long as it stays within a province and bears a provincial licence. Yet the contract to hire it is a contract entered into by an agency of the federal government. The hiring does not bring the operation under the jurisdiction of this parliament.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Hon. Vincent Massey wrote a book recently in which he said, "All that has gone before is prologue." I have been preparing all along to ask this question of the minister. In future when these monopoly contracts are being let without tender, will they be allocated by the minister himself, as in the case of Balcer, or will they be under the control of the Canadian Transport Commission? That is what I have been leading up to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This commission will have nothing whatever to do with contracts of that sort. They will remain the responsibility of the Minister of Transport and of the Governor in Council.


Robert Jardine McCleave: May I preface my question by saying I am glad that the hon. member for York-Humber is carrying on his centennial project of being himself. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether it is proposed that the commission should have vast research facilities to engage in all the inquiries and studies which it is empowered to undertake under this particular clause.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That would have to depend upon the extent to which each government which was in office was willing, in the first place, to recommend the expenditure to parliament and, second, whether parliament would then authorize that expenditure. This is one good reason why this commission should be under fairly close scrutiny by a parliamentary committee from time to time. We cannot
January 10, 1967

determine in this bill the exact extent to which it would engage in research.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I believe we need a lot more research in transport than we have at present. I hope most of it will not be done directly by this commission but by other agencies which will be retained by the commission, along the lines suggested a few moments ago by the hon. member for Calgary South. We need a lot more research and more co-ordination of research, and I hope there will be lot of co-ordination of research in the work of the commission.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I gather there are two areas in which fact finding could be carried out. One is where complaints are made to the commission that under other clauses of the bill freight rates are not being properly applied to the customers. The customers can then bring their complaints to the commission and in this way effect an inquiry.
Mr. Pickers gill: If I might interpose for a moment, that is not what I mean by research. That would come under the regulatory side of the committee, the side that is determining whether the law is being carried out or not. In order to find the facts they might ask somebody to do a bit of research, but that is not at all the kind of research I envisage as the main function of this commission.


Robert Jardine McCleave: If the minister had allowed me to finish my remarks he would not have needed to make that interjection. There are two areas for searching into problems and facts. One arises from a complaint from the outside. I take it that in such instances witnesses can be compelled to give evidence so that the facts can be established. The second area is the one the minister has mentioned, the question of research into long-range transportation problems not brought about at the behest of injured individuals or those who think they are injured but rather by government itself or a department of government. I wanted an assurance from the minister that the commission's powers would be broad enough so that it could ask the railway companies and other carriers for information that would be relevant to the inquiries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think there is no doubt that this would be so.


Mr. Howe (Wellington-Huron):: Subclause (l)(g) says that the commission shall:
-establish general economic standards and criteria to be used in the determination of federal investment in equipment and facilities-
Transportation
Could the minister define what type of equipment and facilities are covered in this paragraph?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I presume this would be an inquiry into what the relative cost would be, for example, if a new mining development was being started, whether it would be cheaper to provide a railway than to provide air service in order to meet the needs of the community. This would enable establishment of certain criteria for determining that kind of thing. I may say that that is just one random example.


William Marvin Howe: It indicates that there will be federal investment in equipment and facilities. Would the federal government enter into this program or would it have a crown corporation do so, or is the government going to set up another department?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. All this does is enable the commission to establish certain standards which could be applied to measure the relevant costs of one means and another.


William Marvin Howe: But it says
"the determination of federal investment in equipment and facilities-"


John Whitney Pickersgill: But it is standards for determination. It does not empower any kind of investment at all. It is just an inquiry.


William Marvin Howe: It indicates that there might be federal investment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There might be by
Canadian National by Air Canada, by a subsidy to some private air line, or by a grant to assist in the development of a road or something of that sort, but none of these things could be done by the commission. All the commission would be doing would be to determine standards to measure the possible investment.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I have already directed the committee's attention to subclause (2) (d) which provides that the commission may examine into, ascertain and keep records of, and make appropriate reports to the minister on the water transportation industry and undertakings and services directly related thereto. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is reported as having said during the last few days that if there had been any change in government economic policy the government had not bothered to notify him. I have nothing to say on that score. I am only a member of the Liberal party in the House of Commons, but nobody bothered to notify me

January 10, 1967
Transportation
that some time during the last few months responsibility for the Navigable Waters Protection Act had been transferred from the Department of Public Works to the Department of Transport. I accidentally, which is probably the way it was intended, learned this from a letter that was shown to me by a resident of Etobicoke who had received it from Ottawa.
I have received no official notice of this transfer outside of the letter which I saw, and other hon. members whom I told about it were also surprised, but that is par for the course. The north shore of Lake Ontario between the Humber River and Etobicoke Creek, a distance of about four miles, is still being filled in, something to which I intend to make further reference in the near future. But since the supervision of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which I am happy to say has been taken from the Department of Public Works, is now with the minister's department, will the supervision be directly under the Board of Transport Commissioners, or under the minister himself? If it will be under the Board of Transport Commissioners, then I want to speak at length.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was going to say that I regret it is under the minister himself, but I really do not regret it. If the hon. gentleman would reserve the matter for some other time, he could then have a good crack at the minister. In the meantime I will try to do something.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I have heard that promise made by other ministers previously. I only hope more reliance can be placed on this last statement, in the hope of speedy action, than we were ever able to place on the previous ones.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Do I understand that the clause is to stand?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I think we have resolved our differences.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 16-Definition of "carrier".
John Whitney Pickersgill: If hon. gentlemen will permit me I wish to offer an amendment which is consequent upon the amendment made to

clause 1 and upon a suggestion made by the hon. member for Peace River. It reads:
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 paragraph (a) of subclause (3) of clause 16 on pages 9 and 10 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"(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 of the development of primary or secondary industries or of export trade in or from any region of Canada; or"
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
I think that does encompass the points made by the hon. gentleman, and I hope the Minister of National Defence is willing to move the amendment.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I so move, Mr. Chairman.


Gerald William Baldwin: I may say that the progress being made by the minister in respect of this bill has inspired him to provide what I think is a very reasonable amendment which meets very substantially some of the points I raised during the discussion on clause 1 and at the resolution stage. This is a very important part of this bill, as indicated by the minister. It is through this provision that the commission will have an opportunity of examining and deciding to what extent there are inequities or disadvantages as a result of the rate setting function established by this legislation.
One problem has occurred to me which is not dealt with by the amendment. I did not have it in mind when we were discussing the bill earlier but we had not reached the clause by clause discussion then I could not have raised the point at that time.
Clause 16 states in part:
(1) In this section, "carrier" means any person engaged for hire or reward in transport-
Subclause (2) states:
Where a person has reason to believe
(a)	that any act or omission of a carrier or of any two or more carriers, or
(b)	that the effect of any rate established by a carrier or carriers persuant to this Act or the Railway Act after the commencement of this Act,
I should like to ask the minister to direct his attention to what will become subclause
January 10, 1967

(3) of clause 16, which is the clause by which a captive shipper shall be determined and the clause by which the maximum rate shall be fixed. This is probably one of the most important clauses so far as regulatory control and rate-fixing provisions are concerned.
Is it not a fact that under new section 336 the rate referred to is not one fixed by a carrier but by the commission?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.
Transportation
his argument, many bulk shippers will never be protected by this kind of a maximum rate. What they need is an assurance that there will be no unfairness in respect of the rate established under similar conditions. We have sought to give this assurance by accepting the spirit of the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Peace River and supported by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. That is what is fundamentally provided here.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: That being the case, how would it be possible for the commission under clause 16 to review a rate so established? The only two bases on which this can be done are covered in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subclause (2), where there is an act or omission on the part of a carrier or two or more carriers. I do not think an act or omission under clause 16 can be related to what a carrier does pursuant to an agreement made under new section 336. If the rate is one to be established by the carrier that is all right, but if it is established by the commission am I not correct in assuming that clause 16 could not be applied to what will be new section 336? Would the minister comment in that regard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should think that would be correct. If the commission itself established a maximum rate under section 336, that being an act of the commission perhaps it could not very well be reviewed by the commission and could be subject to an appeal to the Governor in Council. If it was felt the commission had erred in law in fixing the rate an appeal to the courts would be involved. That would be the recourse once the commission itself had acted. Here we are talking about rates that are not maximum in the technical sense but rates that might be considered to be prejudicial to the public interest as defined in the general terms of clause 1 and as redefined here in almost identical language. The commission can interfere with what the carrier has done but I do not see how it could interfere with what it had done itself.


Thomas Miller Bell: To follow that up, I think the minister has said at various times that clause 16 would be a balance in respect of many evils that might occur as a result of new section 336.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not quite the way I would put it. The position I take is that new section 336 provides that there will be a maximum rate which can be established in respect of captive shippers. As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle pointed out very well last night in


Gerald William Baldwin: January 10, 1967
Transportation
opportunity to go to the cabinet or the supreme court on questions of law, I think there is a very substantial limitation in this legislation. I know that other hon. members wish to speak on this matter and I shall not say any more at the moment except to ask the minister for his views in this regard. Before the matter is concluded I may have more to say. It seems to me that under those conditions we are placing beyond the power of people who will be affected by new section 336 much of the benefit which I thought would have flowed to them under clause 16 dealing with appeals.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would direct his attention, as mine has just been directed, to subclause (4) of clause 16. It is to be found on page 10 of the bill and reads as follows:
If the Commission, after a hearing, finds that the act, omission or rate in respect of which the appeal is made is prejudicial to the public interest, the Commission may, notwithstanding the fixing of any rate pursuant to section 336 of the Railway Act but having regard to section 334 of that act, make an order requiring the carrier to remove the prejudicial feature in the relevant tolls or conditions specified for the carriage of traffic or such other order as in the circumstances it may consider proper, or it may report thereon to the Governor in Council for any action that is considered appropriate.
So it would appear, notwithstanding my rather quick answer, that the hon. gentleman's first impression is the correct one.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is what I thought. That is why I wondered whether this does not mean that there is a conflict between subclause (2) which says, "that the effect of any rate established by a carrier or carriers pursuant to this act", and so on, and subclause (4). Perhaps we could leave this matter for the time being and the minister could arrive at some wording that would reconcile the difference. I was quite satisfied with subclause (4) but when I read subclause (2) I wondered how a person could get before the commission when the rate was not established by the carrier but by the commission. This has been puzzling me and that is why I raised the matter. I shall not pursue it any further, Mr. Chairman. The minister has reassured me in what he said, because it now appears that there is some means by which it could be done. This conflict, which might lead to difficulty later, might be easily resolved now by some explanation. I will leave the matter, but I hope the minister will be able to resolve my quandary at a later stage of this discussion before the clause is passed.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make further reference to clause 16 along the lines on which the hon. member for Peace River has spoken. As I recall it, the inclusion of clause 16 in the bill was welcomed by most members of the committee and interested parties who appeared before the committee. It seems to me to have the effect of giving to the shipper a greater degree of protection from unfair or prejudicial rate-setting by the different modes of transportation. The amendment put before us a few minutes ago by the minister does not really, I take it, change the substance of clause 16. It does not detract from it but if anything adds to the benefits of clause 16. There is, however, one amendment which I should like to suggest to the minister. It relates to sub clause (4) of clause 16. I would explain my amendment in this way. Clause 16 (2) reads as follows:
Where a person has reason to believe (a) that any act or omission of a carrier ... may prejudicially affect the public interest in respect of tolls for or conditions of the carriage of traffic within, into or from Canada, such person may apply to the Commission for leave to appeal-
Then the commission may make an investigation into the allegation of rate-setting that prejudicially affects the public interest. This is fine. Then we come to subclause (3) which reads as follows:
In conducting an investigation under this section, the commission shall have regard to all considerations that appear to it to be relevant, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, (a) whether the tolls or conditions specified for the carriage of traffic under the rate so established are such as to create an unfair disadvantage-
I emphasize the words "whether the tolls or conditions specified.. .are such as to create an unfair disadvantage", presumably to one shipper as opposed to another shipper of a like commodity or goods. I think this is a good provision, and because it is a good provision the very same wording should have been inserted in subclause (4). In my submission subclause (4) should read as follows:
If the commission, after a hearing, finds that the act, omission or rate in respect of which the appeal is made is prejudicial to the public interest or unduly preferential of one shipper as against another-
There is another alternative:
__or such as to cause unfair disadvantage, the
commission may-
Then the clause should continue with the present wording. I do not want to make it awkward for the committee and the minister to deal with my suggestion, but I think it is a
January 10, 1967

very important one. It could be crucial. I move:
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
That clause 16 (4) be amended by adding after the words "public interest" in line 12 thereof the following words "or unduly preferential of one shipper as against another".
I move this amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt. If the minister does not quite understand the gist of the amendment-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Perhaps I should point out to the hon. member for Springfield that there is already before the committee an amendment to clause 16. After that amendment has been dealt with it win be possible to receive the amendment moved by the hon. member for Springfield.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I thought that the amendment moved by the minister had been accepted unanimously. However, if his amendment is still before us I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to hold my amendment in abeyance until the minister's amendment is dealt with conclusively.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be quite happy to have my amendment accepted if it is agreeable to the committee. Then we could have the hon. member's amendment properly before us.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak on the minister's amendment. However, if the hon. member for Springfield has more to add I will defer to him at the present time.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I have no more to say at the present time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In saying a word or two on clause 16 and dealing with the minister's amendment I would like to point out first of all that clause 16 is one of the most important clauses in the bill and I hope that the house will give it proper consideration because in a sense it is a clause which cancels out or circumvents section 317 of the old Railway Act which states that there shall be no discriminatory increases or reductions in tolls in favour of or against any user. That same clause, which is circumvented in a sense by this clause, says that tolls should not be unjustifiably discriminatory as between different localities and that tolls shall always be charged equally to all persons in circumstances and conditions which are substantially similar. In other words, this clause does not
Transportation
spell out in so many words what is contained in the old Railway Act, namely, that there shall be no discrimination.
Under clause 16 as it now stands-I have not really considered fully the amendment moved by the minister-there is nothing to prohibit discrimination by the railways. Clause 16 does not prohibit the railways from discriminatory action if they desire to take it. In other words, there may be two industries not necessarily in the same location producing a similar commodity. The railway could set preferred rates for one industry because that industry might be a subsidiary of a parent company which did much business with a railway. What would happen then? The subsidiary company might receive a preferred rate while the other company would be left out in the cold because, whether we like it or not, it is a fact of life that transportation contributes up to 50 per cent of the ultimate cost of goods in the case of some commodities. The association of mines appeared before the committee which dealt with the bill and one of its representatives said that in some cases transportation represented up to 70 per cent of the ultimate cost of the product moved by railroads. I say that it represents up to 50 per cent of the cost of many goods.
Clause 16 attempts to set out whether or not there shall be discriminatory rates. It says "may prejudicially affect the public interest" but the words "public interest" are not defined. I have an amendment to move with regard to this clause and I will suggest it to the minister. I know that the minister heard this point made several times in the committee. Since I consider that "public interest" is not defined in the clause I am prepared to move an amendment before the clause is passed. The amendment is 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"
It could also read "may prejudicially affect his business or the public interest", or one could say "the shipper affected". There are many words one could use to convey the same message with regard to this particular clause. As it now stands the shipper who feels an unjust rate has been applied to him may appeal to the board but he must prove that the public interest is affected.
This is not good enough because how can a shipper who feels that an unjustifiable rate has been set prove that it also affects the public interest unless the community in which he is living is solely dependent on his business? I know there are many places in

and say that this is a discriminatory rate which the railroads are forcing me to use. I should be able to ask the commission to consider whether or not it is discriminatory and to rule on what the rate should be. I do not believe this is asking too much. I do not believe it is asking too much to have such words added to this clause as, "his business or the public interest." The minister may word the amendment any way he likes. I find that my suggestions are more readily accepted if I allow the minister to work out the details.
Surely a shipper should have the right of appeal if he feels rates are discriminatory. A shipper did have this right under the old act and that is all we are asking for under this bill. I mentioned a small vegetable oil plant in Lethbridge which is now in the grip of what the people concerned feel to be a discriminatory rate. In other words, unless they receive some relief from the transportation problem connected with their commodity they will practically be forced out of business. This is the sort of thing with which industries have been faced in this country from time immemorial. If you are starting up a plant, you must first of all consider the location and the transportation rate on the finished product.
The mining association said that in some cases something like 70 per cent of the cost of their finished product is transportation. They said that on the average 50 per cent of the cost of putting their goods on the market was transportation. I do not believe the percentage is quite that high for manufactured goods. However, I do feel this is a major consideration for any manufacturer who is starting in business. He has to locate that business at a point where he can obtain raw materials at a low transportation rate and also send his finished product into the market at a low transportation rate which will enable him to compete. This clause does not give him enough protection.
This is where I come to the crux of my problem. I say this clause does not give him enough protection from discriminatory action by the railroads. Many people feel that the railroads are in a position, through their regulations, to rule out unjustly a plant, a manufacturer or an industry. This gives the railroads a power to which I do not feel they are entitled. I do not think this house feels they are entitled to it and I do not think the people of Canada feel the railroads are entitled to that power.
We must bear in mind the fact that the railroads have to some extent been built with
Transportation
funds from the public treasury. The minister well knows this is true, and this aspect of my remarks has been discussed by many members. One must bear in mind that basically the whole transportation industry in this country has been subsidized and maintained by the taxpayers. It is for this reason the taxpayer says, "I want protection; you have spent my tax dollars." He says, "you have spent my tax dollars on the St. Lawrence Seaway, which is a means of transportation, you have spent my tax dollars on the Canadian National, which is a means of transportation, and I want protection. You have subsidized many aspects of the Canadian Pacific, and I want protection."
The citizen says he wants protection from discriminatory action by each one of these modes of transportation. As I say, clause 16 really does not give that protection. The minister's amendment does not go quite far enough although it goes farther than clause 16 and I commend the minister for suggesting it. The minister's amendment may be acceptable to the committee, and I have no objection to it. However, I wanted to speak on it before it was passed. I wanted to point out that it did not go far enough. There should be some words added either before or after "public interest or there should be a definition of public interest in this bill. What does public interest mean?
I am sure I have gone into that sufficiently to enlighten the minister as to my views in that regard. I invite the minister to comment on the meaning of public interest if he has not done so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman did not miss anything by being out making his telephone calls because I did not deal with this particular problem. I am very glad to deal with it now. When the Fathers of Confederation put the peace, order and good government phrase into section 91 and then said "notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing", they found out that "the foregoing" did not mean very much. I would be loath to restrict the capacity of the commission-after all its judgments can be be appealed to the courts if it makes a mistake-and circumscribe its ability to define what is the public interest.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
This is a real problem and was the main reason I proposed the amendment last night to clause 1, which really was suggested by hon. gentlemen opposite, that the conditions set out in clause 1 were by clear definition part of the public interest. Therefore, because of the fact

January 10, 1967
Transportation
that clause 1 makes reference to unfair disadvantage beyond any disadvantage that may be deemed to be inherent in the location or volume of the traffic, which expression we are including again in clause 16, it seems to me that any commission would have to reach the conclusion that there was unfair discrimination between shippers in anything like like circumstances; in fact it would be contrary to the public interest because the bill so provides in clause 1, where it states the purposes.
I am not a lawyer, of course, but I have been toying with the idea of meeting the point made by the hon. gentleman and at the same time probably meeting the point made by the hon. member for Springfield as well by putting after the words "public interest" the words "as defined in clause 1, or otherwise", so that this does not limit it.
For example, there might be other aspects of the public interest involved. The hon. gentleman put the case of one industry in a town and a rate being applied which would put it and the whole community out of business. This might be something that the commission would consider not in the public interest to do. I would not want to place any limitation upon it if I could avoid it, but that would ensure that if there was any unfair disadvantage it might come within the term "public interest" in the amended clause 1. That might meet a little more neatly the point the hon. member for Acadia has in mind.
I think there is an objection to saying that a rate might prejudice or affect someone's business. Every freight rate, even if it is a fair one, affects one's business. I think that might open the way to too many frivolous appeals and would congest the commission with all sorts of cases which should not require to be heard at all because there would be nothing in them. That is one thing we want to get away from. The hon. gentleman indicated that he did not want too much bureaucracy, and neither do I. I do not think that even the hon. member for Springfield wants wasteful bureaucracy; he just wants bureaucracy.
I should not like just off the cuff to say that the words I have suggested would be satisfactory without first speaking to the draftsman, but I think they would really nail down the point raised earlier by the hon. member for Peace River. They make it quite clear that any rate which was established and which created an unfair disadvantage between one shipper and another under the conditions set out in this amendment would create a prima facie case which you would not have to prove.

That is what the hearing woud be about; all you would have to do would be to allege unfair disadvantage and give enough evidence to justify the hearing being held. I think that might meet the whole problem pretty well.
There is one point that perhaps hon. members have not fully appreciated and it is this. There is no such thing as a secret rate. Several references have been made to the possibility of a railway giving better rates to its subsidiaries or its favoured customers than to others. Under the law every railway rate has to be published, so that any other shipper can ascertain the rate that his competitor is paying. Therefore, once we have inserted these words into the bill there should not be much difficulty in one shipper getting prima facie evidence that his rate is manifestly unfair as compared to another, that is, enough evidence to make the charge and to demand a hearing.
Provided the draftsman does not find some hidden disadvantage in these words which I cannot find, and which I do not think the hon. member for Peace River found, this might really do the trick and do it in a way that would relate it directly to one of the matters that might later on have to be proven. Therefore I put forward this suggestion. I understand that we are not sitting between seven and eight so I will have a little opportunity between then to discuss this point. At the same time I will discuss the suggestion made by the hon. member for Springfield, even though his amendment cannot be moved until this amendment is accepted.
No one seems to object to the amendment that my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence moved a little while ago, and perhaps it would simplify the procedure a bit if we could accept that amendment anyway, if it is agreeable.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have no objection, Mr. Chairman, but with regard to the matter the minister raised I am inclined to go along with him only to this extent. I think it is most difficult to define with precision, as I said before, the words "public interest". For the protection of the shippers of Canada and of the people of Canada who use transportation facilities I hope that when the commission gets its teeth into this question and starts work on it it will develop a jurisprudence with regard to the words "public interest which will become wider and wider and wider.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what I hope too.


Gerald William Baldwin: But I should like to see a minimum safeguard. Having in mind what the
January 10, 1967

hon. member for Acadia said and what the
minister suggested with regard to it, if there can be some linkage between clause 1 and clause 16 so that we know that the words "public interest" will not mean anything less than certain specified conditions and can, we hope, come to be interpreted by a broad, small "1" liberal commission in a very wide and free sense, then I think we will probably get the best advantage we can from it. But in view of the way it was left the hon. member for Acadia and other hon. members on this side as well as myself felt we were leaving too much to chance. Perhaps between now and eight o'clock the minister may come to some determination on this question and see whether it can be done.


Mr. Danforlh:: Mr. Chairman, when the minister is considering the words "public interest" may I also ask him whether he will consider under subclause (2) of clause 16 the definition of the word "person". Does the definition mean that a shipper or a corporation or an individual may, if he has a grievance, and perhaps being neither a shipper nor a carrier, bring a problem to the attention of the commission? Perhaps we could have a reasonable definition for the word "person" as well as "public interest".
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Never having practised in the courts I should like to get legal advice on this point. I know that a person includes a corporation. A person need not be an individual. It means any legal person and the courts, I think, under our system of jurisprudence have always taken the view that you cannot start an action unless you have some interest-and that does not mean curiosity. That means that you must be affected in some way.
Perhaps the hon. member for Peace River will correct me if I am wrong, but think someone coming in off Sparks street could not say, "I have reason to believe that mine X in Quebec is being charged more than mine Y in northern Ontario for shipment of the same goods", when he was not a shareholder in either company. I think this would be regarded as frivolous and vexatious.


Gerald William Baldwin: There is the matter of remoteness, too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. A person would have to have some legitimate or reasonable interest in the matter, or you would make a mockery of any tribunal. "Person" certainly means a corporation. It can also mean a municipality, 23033-736
Transportation
which is a corporation too, if the interests of that corporation were affected.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Hearing the minister's suggested change in wording, I thought at first it had merit. I wonder whether it has enough merit to allay the misgivings expressed by the hon. member for Acadia, the hon. member for Peace River and myself. Until we have a sufficient body of case law to elaborate clearly the definition or concept of public interest we ought to take pains to spell out more explicitly in this legislation what the words "public interest" may involve. That way we might give a greater measure of protection to individual shippers from being charged unfair rates and being put at an unfair disadvantage. I hope that between now and eight o'clock the minister will be able to accept the wording I have put forward. I hope I shall not have to move the amendment, because much time would be lost. I should like to see an extension of the wording of subclause 3. I should like to see it extended to subclause 4 in such a way that the commission shall be empowered under subclause 4 to take into account not just whether a matter is prejudicial to the public interest but to say that any rate may give an unfair disadvantage to one party or an undue preference to it.
After all, why is it that in subclause 3 the commission is authorized to make an investigation to see whether a rate charged may create an unfair disadvantage? If the commission is authorized to make such an investigation why can it not be authorized to make an order under the provisions of subclause 4 such as I have indicated? You would have to carry forward similar wording from one subclause to another of clause 16. If that were done I think it would rectify what I conceive to be a problem, and it would also satisfy other hon. members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest to the hon. gentleman, since the words in the amended subclause 1 are precisely the same as those in subclause 4, that if we put after the words "public interest" in both places, in subclause 4 and subclause 1, the words "as defined in clause 1 or otherwise", which would be section 1 when this becomes an act, it would be perfectly clear that the whole definition in clause 1 of the bill is part of the definition of "public interest" but that it is not the whole definition of "public interest". That is the problem I have in my mind. I do not want to seem to restrict the public interest merely to this unfair disadvantage. I certainly think that, without change, the commission would

January 10, 1967
Transportation
have no choice but to regard that as meaning "contrary to the public interest". I think this is one of the clauses that, defines interest. But if we have it, as defined in clause 1, we are nailing it down, it seems to me, beyond perad-venture.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, my fear is somewhat different. I will only take a minute. So far as the definition of "public interest" is concerned I agree that there should be as much qualification as possible. Surely there is considerable definition and interpretation of "public interest" already in the decisions of the transport boards and in the common law relating to railway matters and the like. What bothers me are words in the new subclause 2 that the minister proposes such as "unreasonable". This is an honest effort to deal with some of the regional geographic problems about which we talked on clause 1. While this does not go as far as bringing in a real equalization formula, this part does have a regional aspect. I worry about words such as I have mentioned, which have been untested. What do the words "unreasonable discouragement of the development of primary or secondary industries" mean? I mention to the minister that my fears extend also to the new part. I know that the minister will come in with a revised amendment at eight o'clock. It might be better if we accepted this amendment and then stood the clause as we have stood clause 1, because of the full implication of what I have said. In fact, the minister has stated that this is the heart of the bill. I have certain reservations. I think it might be better not to pass clause 16 tonight.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We should perhaps wait until eight o'clock to decide whether to accept the hon. gentleman's suggestion, which has a certain amount of appeal for me. I should like to see the amendment carried. This amendment is in exactly the same wording that satisfied the committee last night on clause 1.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
I hope we shall not have to open the language of the amendment again. I would like to see whether this other suggestion of mine is acceptable-I can put it forward formally at eight o'clock. I would also like to have a chance at eight o'clock to say a word or two about the proposal made by the hon. member for Springfield. After that is done, if hon. members think greater progress might be made by standing clause 16 as amended, I should like to move on to some of the less contentious clauses of the bill.
[Mr. Pickersgill,!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Seven o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I understand there was some agreement that the sitting should be suspended between the hours of seven and eight. Shall I rise and report progress?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would it not be possible to abbreviate matters by simply suspending the sitting of the committee?


Herman Maxwell Batten: The time saved would probably be not more than half a minute and it is the opinion of the Chair that to do as the hon. gentleman suggests would be highly irregular.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39(A) to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), historic monuments-restoration of the manor of Sir Etienne Pascal Tache in Montmagny, Quebec; the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie), Sir John A. Macdonald-inquiry as to plans for honouring birthday; the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Edmonton, Alberta-compassionate payment to widow on death of constable.
Does the house agree to suspend the sitting until eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: And to resume the work of the committee?


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

[Stage Direction]
January 10, 1967

[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Maurice Rinfret: When the committee rose at seven o'clock it was considering clause 16 and a proposed amendment by the Minister of National Defence. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before we adjourned at seven o'clock I promised that together with my advisers I would give consideration to the possibility of defining the term "public interest" in clause 16 without circumscribing it, so as to meet the points raised by the hon. member for Acadia and the hon. member for Springfield. I have an amendment here which I think will accomplish what both of them have in mind, and in a fashion which I hope will not limit the commission from taking a broad, or as the hon. member for Peace River said, a liberal view of the term "public interest." It is not quite as simple as it appeared to my simple lay mind, but it is still pretty simple. The amendment reads as follows:
"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 lines 20 to 24 inclusive, at page 9 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
Definition of "carrier", "public interest".
"(1) In this section,
(a)	the expression "carrier" means any person engaged for hire or reward in transport, to which the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends, by railway, water, aircraft, motor vehicle undertaking or commodity pipe line; and
(b)	the expression "public interest" includes, without limiting the generality thereof, the public interest as described in section 1."
I think that meets the situation. It means that the same words would be applied to the term "public interest" as the commission has to take account after a prima facie case is made. I think it is very desirable that instead of having one set of words to establish a prima facie case and another set of words to prove it, we should have the same set of words to meet both circumstances.
I believe this amendment meets the situation neatly, a situation which I confess troubled me since before Christmas when the hon. member for Peace River first mentioned it. There could be no doubt, with this language in the bill, that anyone who could provide
Transportation
prima facie evidence that there was an unfair disadvantage as described in clause 1, and as described again in clause 16 as we have just amended it, would have established his right to have a hearing. I gather from the expression on hon. gentlemen's faces that this would meet with general approval and so I ask my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, to move the amendment.


George James McIlraith: I so move, Mr. Chairman.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Maurice Rinfret: Shall the clause as amended carry?


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister has been so flexible that I think I should try to find out how flexible he really is, and where the iron hand shows beneath the velvet glove.
I remind the minister of what I said about subclause (2) and my fear, which apparently is not shared by his legal advisers, that in order for a person, as defined under the subclause, to get to the commission he must first show that he has reason to believe the effective rate established by a carrier does such and such things.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
When one relates this to new section 336 the rate established would not be a rate established by a carrier but a rate established by the commission and subsequently incorporated by statutory agreement. The minister has indicated that is the advice given him by his legal advisers. We could very easily have made this clear by adding after the word "act" as it appears in line 30 the words "fixed under section 336". However, if the minister and his advisers are satisfied that the words "any rate established by a carrier or carriers pursuant to this act" in fact include a rate established under new section 336 I will go along with it, but I do so dubitant. I would not be doing my duty if I did not express some doubt and ask the minister for his views.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is my advice and I must say, although I am not as learned as my hon. friend, I agree with it. The rates determined by the commission must still be established by publication. Therefore the law is sufficient, and by following the hon. members suggestion we would just be adding unnecessary verbiage. The bill is becoming quite

January 10, 1967
Transportation
lengthy and I would prefer not to complicate it further.


Gerald William Baldwin: We shall test the determination of the minister on some other aspect of the bill.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I left this committee about ten minutes after six and returned at twenty minutes to seven. I should like to ask the minister whether I heard him correctly when he said in respect of clause 16 that decisions of the Board of Transport Commissioners could be appealed to the courts. I ask this question because I do not like the use of the phrase "court of record". I checked into the legal and judicial use of that phrase. The hon. member for Elgin informed me tonight, when I asked him about appeals, that the only appeal from a decision of the Board of Transport Commissioners is to the minister.
At page 11 of this bill under clause 18 it is stated that an applicant or an intervener on an application may appeal to the minister from a final decision. At page 12 there is a further reference to an appeal to the minister I am told, and verily believe, that one cannot appeal to the courts from a decision of the Board of Transport Commissioners. I should not like Hansard to contain a statement which is not legally correct.


John Whitney Pickersgill: An appeal to the courts is already provided under the law as it stands. This is not being disturbed by the new legislation. There is provision for an appeal on questions of law from every decision of the Board of Transport Commissioners, and there is also provision for an appeal on questions of fact to the governor in council. There are certain provisions for other kinds of additional, but rather more limited, appeals to the minister under the Aeronautics Act. By this bill we are providing for certain appeals on matters of fact to the minister, but these are in addition to the existing appeals being retained in the bill.


Thomas Miller Bell: There seems to be a fairly good compromise here, but I feel the request I made before supper should be accepted. I do not like to fall back on the excuse that a couple of members who wish to speak on this clause are absent, but if the minister is in a good mood, in view of the fact it is an important part of this legislation and, as someone has said, is a palliative to new section 336, it might be a good idea to allow it

to stand. I have had the opportunity of glancing at the transcript of what Mr. Frawley had to say about this new section. It is true that he did not have full knowledge of the import of the new clause 16, but he attacked the section very strongly and pointed out that we are losing certain things by way of unjust discrimination in common law, without much being substituted. If the minister is agreeable I think this clause should be stood in order that hon. members may consider it further.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The amendments have carried but if the committee feels it would be desirable to let clause 16 as amended twice stand, while we consider the remaining clauses of the bill, I am agreeable. I agree with hon. gentlemen that this is perhaps the most important clause of the bill. Therefore I do not wish to deprive any hon. member of the opportunity of saying something about it. I do hope we will not have another general debate.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall clause 16 as amended stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 17-Committees.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I believe under clause 17 we can revert to a discussion of the quorum of the commission. The minister did say that whatever reference there may be to the quorum of the commission in this legislation may be found in clause 5 of the bill. After reading clause 5 and clause 17 it is very difficult, or perhaps impossible, to come to any clear understanding as to what a quorum shall be. Section 12 of the Railway Act presumably will apply, mutatis mutandis.
Let me point out to the committee that section 12 of the Railway Act, which states that the quorum shall be two, applies to the 17 man transport commission. Is that an accurate interpretation or does it mean that the same proportion of members shall apply to the new commission. The Board of Transport Commissioners is a seven man body and its quorum is two. Will the minister clarify this?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not expected that the new commission will ever sit as a whole. In fact we are quite certain that all the members will never sit together, because the vice president in charge of research and one or two other commissioners will mainly be associated with research and will at no time sit on hearings. We expect that normally there will not be sittings of even a majority of the members during any one hearing, though there may be
January 10, 1967

some very important questions being decided at which time it may be desirable to have a very large bench.
One of the reasons I asked for an amendment to the Aeronautics Act to increase the size of the Air Transport Board was that the number of hearings was so great that cases had to be heard by committees. It is our hope there will be relatively fewer applications to be heard by the new commission, but for the same reason we felt that a quorum of two would apply to the new commission as a whole. Since in the normal course the hearings of the committees will in fact be the final hearings, unless there is some reason for review, if there is to be real flexibility and there are not to be delays this seems to be a reasonable provision.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I wish to dispute the minister's contention that it is a reasonable provision that the committees of the commission shall function with the stipulation that two members are necessary for a quorum, and then to have that quorum as the quorum for the entire 17-man commission. After all, there is provision in clause 17 for the entire commission to act as a board of review to review cases and orders that have been made by the various committees of the commission. It does not seem very logical that a case or order be reviewed by the commission when conceivably at least the actual review hearing is conducted before as few as two people. If it is a 17-man commission, it seems to me that a quorum should be set which would be at least twice the number of the quorum of the various committees of the commission. I am saying, in effect, that if the quorum for the subcommittees is to be two, it would seem reasonable to have the quorum for the commission, when sitting as a board of review of committee decisions, of at least four or five people. I am wondering whether the minister would not agree that this is a reasonable proposition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would say at once that I feel quite sure that would be the practice, and probably in a review the number of commissioners who would sit would in most cases be greater than that. We know something about quorums in this house. A quorum is a minimum. This provision means that one commissioner cannot act for the commission. It means that in no circumstances can a decision be taken by one commissioner alone in the name of the commission. After all, we trust that no matter what government may be in office it
i ransportation
will see that responsible adults are appointed to this commission. We would expect the commissioners to act in a responsible way. I do not feel it is necessary to prescribe a higher quorum for these other occasions, because I believe that the ordinary good sense and judgment of the people who will constitute the officers of this commission will be such that the public will never be scandalized by the kind of situation that the hon. gentleman suggests might be theoretically possible.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: January 10, 1967
Transportation
up into committees, I think we will get away from any advantage that may be acquired by 'bringing these people together. I believe the commission could serve a much more useful purpose if it were not broken up. I agree that in a sense what will eventually evolve as the practice will be the hearing of a problem by a group of commissioners, or a quorum of the transportation commission as was suggested by the hon. member for Springfield, but I do not think it is necessary to lay down definitely that there shall be a committee on railway transport problems and that committee shall hear nothing but railway transport problems.
If we really want the commission to become fluent and knowledgeable in regard to all modes of transportation, I believe it could better serve that purpose if we did not divide it up as this clause suggests. The members of the commission serving on the commodity pipe line transport committee or the motor vehicle transport committee may well have nothing to do for a couple of years because, as I said earlier, there is at the present time no such animal as a commodity pipe line. There is no commodity pipe line established in Canada. There is no real work for a motor vehicle transport committee.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Therefore why lay down that certain members of the commission shall serve on these committees? Why is it necessary to give a breakdown into committees as this clause of the bill purports to do? I would rather see the bill without subclause 1 of clause 17. I do not see what this subclause accomplishes other than the establishment of a quorum, and I think this could be done better in some other clause of the bill. The minister referred to the quorun when we were discussing clause 5, which says that the following provisions of the Railway Act-and a number of sections are listed-will be included in this bill. However, section 12 of the Railway Act says that only two members shall constitute a quorum. I do not think that two or three members is a sufficient number.
In summary, may I ask the minister to comment on the necessity for giving a breakdown of the commission into committees, other than the setting up of a quorum. Surely a quorum could be established in some way which would allow for greater flexibility and versatility so that members could fluctuate from one committee to another. This would ensure some continuity with regard to regulation of the various modes of transportation. Surely the only real advantage of setting up an all encompassing transport commission is to

ensure continuity in the regulations concerning the various competitors in the transport field. I fail to see what the breaking down into committees may accomplish.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure that each one of us would have devised a bill which would be different and no matter how it had been done it would have been quite possible to suggest a different method to be followed. The legislation does not require that all these committees be set up before they are needed. I would not expect the motor vehicles committee to be set up in the immediate future, and the commodity pipe lines committee would certainly not be set up until it had something to deal with. Also there is nothing in the bill which says that the members, having been assigned to one of these committees cannot be reassigned from time to time to other committees, and in fact I think that this would be a very desirable thing. It is quite obvious that, in the case of the reviews that are provided, commissioners who have not sat on the original hearing will have to sit on the review, otherwise the review would mean nothing. I do think there is plenty of flexibility here. At the same time we have to remember that it is quite important, if we are to deal with these matters expeditiously, to ensure that a certain number of commissioners who are accustomed to dealing with these matters are appointed. I believe that on balance we will get a fairly good mixture.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Basically my question was whether this was necessary. The minister said that there must be some members who are acquainted with the subject matter with which they are dealing. I believe that this will come of itself without having to be spelled out in the bill. What will happen is that the railways committee will deal with railways and will become knowledgeable on this subject. However, if there is a review of railway rates it will be given to some other group which has not previously dealt with the matter and which is inexperienced on this particular subject. For example if I were a shipper or a manufacturer in a given industry, and were to ask for a review of a ruling on a certain discriminatory freight rate, a group which might not be fully acquainted with that subject might have to deal with it and to overrule the decision of another group which possessed full knowledge of that subject. This is the danger that I see in the setting up of committees.
In such case what chance would a shipper, a manufacturer or the consumer of transported
January 10, 1967

goods have in receiving a fair hearing from the committee members.
His chances would be very dim because, as I said, an inexperienced group would be overruling the decision of a more experienced and knowledgeable group. It might very well be that over a number of years two or three members of the commission might be particularly knowledgeable about problems involving air or railway transportation, and may naturally prefer to serve on the committees dealing with the matters in which they are interested. However, I do not think we have to nail it down in the bill and enumerate the specific committees. I think that if the commission were to operate in a flexible manner this would allow members to choose among the committees on which they would prefer to serve so that the shipper, manufacturer or consumer of the shipped goods may be able to have his case reviewed in a more knowledgeable manner and thereby receive a far more just hearing than if the case were put before a group set up in a mandatory fashion in the bill. I ask the minister what harm he sees in deleting the establishment of committees. Does he not feel that the review section would get a fairer and more just hearing if the committees were not so outlined?


David Vaughan Pugh: Before the minister answers the hon. member for Acadia, may I say that we might run into a good deal of difficulty because of the way in which this clause is drafted simply because it states specifically that the committees will be composed of three members, not counting the president, who ex officio is a member of each and every committee. I can see further danger in the points which have been brought up by the hon. member for Acadia because I take it that a decision of the committee is reached by all its members, which includes the president who is ex officio a member of that committee and who, in the case of an appeal might be named to sit on the appeal committee. Who will constitute the appeal committee which will rule on the previous decision? The minister says that a president or vice president will be a member of that committee; but it seems to me that it is asking for trouble to say that the president of a committee might have to sit on the appeal committee. In all fairness, I cannot see how you could have a just decision. We must remember this is the final appeal on a decision against another carrier. So many words have been used in this clause that it would seem almost impossible to put the
president, as an ex officio member, in a position where he will not be sitting in judgment on a case which he has previously decided.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Suppose, for some reason such as ill health, the president was not a member of any committee. According to this provision, he would still be a member of the committee, and this is the danger I see. I believe it is something which should be corrected before the clause is finally passed. I agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Acadia to the effect that the reason the government has put forward this provision, for setting up committees is the tremendous number of things covered by this clause, the number of modes of transport which the commission will have to handle. This means there must be specialization. If the appeal is from specialists to non-specialists, then to whom are the non-specialists to turn? They must go by the record and by the decisions handed down previously. They may decide it would be difficult to upset these specialists.
I believe, therefore, that the point raised by the hon. member for Acadia is a good one, and that the government should consider, not only eliminating the setting up of these committees of specialists, but should also consider the appeal procedure under which the president and vice president must be members of the appeal committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The point raised by the hon. gentleman is taken care of completely by subclause (6) which is to the effect that the president and vice president may never both sit on the committee. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that neither one of them sits on a review, if a review is requested, on a matter on which either one originally sat.


David Vaughan Pugh: If I may interrupt the minister, it is quite obvious that the president is named ex officio to each and every committee set up. If this is a committee on appeal, then obviously he is a member of that. The main point is that, since he is ex officio a member of every committee, then it is just so much verbiage to say that he or the vice president shall sit on appeal. He is a member of every committee, so how can he sit on an appeal from a ruling of a committee? If a committee hands down a decision on an original rate hearing, there is no doubt they hand that decision down with the concurrence of the president, whether or not he is there, because the bill states he is a member of each committee. This provision therefore, should be removed. You may say

January 10, 1967
Transportation
the vice president is a member of the committee, but it is impossible to have the president as a member if the vice president is not available.


David Lewis: Before the minister answers, may I make two very brief points? I do not personally share the view some hon. members have expressed about the set-up of the committee. I imagine it would be rather difficult for the commission to function without some specialists as envisaged in the clause. I want to make one point which is not very important, and I want to ask the minister to reconsider an answer he gave.
I believe some of the fears have arisen as a result of what I am about to refer to in subclause 4. Provision is made for the committee to sit in review, but then follow these words, "otherwise than by that committee of the commission". I wonder whether that language is necessary? I wonder if it would not be sufficient if the subclause provided that the commission may sit in review and that those persons making the review shall be other than those who sat on the original hearing? The bill provides for a committee of three, but of course it may be a committee of three, or of five persons, all of whom will have had some experience in the particular field with which the particular case is concerned.
I cannot see any reason why the members of that committee who did not, in fact, sit on the original hearing should not be able to sit in review in the same way as other members of the commission may. I believe if that provision were made you would possibly answer the fears of hon. members who have referred to the fact that the president is now an ex officio member of each committee. If he does not sit on the original hearing, I do not see any reason why he should not be able to sit in review.
The other point I want to make is to ask the minister to reconsider his rejection of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Springfield concerning a larger quorum. I urge a larger quorum for a slightly different reason than the hon. member for Springfield gave, and not merely because the commission is a large body. I do not imagine that the number of members of the commission who will sit in review will be the entire commission. Obviously certain members of the commission not concerned with regulatory work will not sit. Then the members of the committee or the committee as a whole, as the clause is presently worded, who were concerned with

the original hearing will not sit on the committee.
I suggest a larger quorum is required for a different reason. My suggestion derives from ordinary experience in ordinary courts and other forums in which there are appeals. A single judge may sit on the original hearing, but if the case goes to the court of appeal there are usually at least three judges sitting. The reason is an obvious one and I almost apologize for putting it forward since it is so obvious. If we are going to consider changing or perhaps rejecting the decision of a tribunal, then we provide for more minds to grapple with the problem than the number of minds that grappled with it in the first place. I believe that is a quite simple and very logical principle for appeal tribunals. There should be on an appeal tribunal more people, more minds, concerned with the problem than the number of minds that studied the problem and made the decision in the first instance. Therefore, since we have a quorum of two for the first hearing, it seems to me that the member for Springfield is very much in the right in suggesting to the minister a quorum of three or four, when the commission sits in review of a decision made originally. It does not have to be an unwieldy quorum. I wonder whether the minister could not give a second look at that suggestion of my colleague?


George Robson Muir: Before the minister answers, I should like to widen the scope of this discussion a little bit. I am concerned about the powers we are giving this superboard. In subclause (3) of clause 17, reference is made to the fact that a committee of the commission may, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the commission, exercise all the powers and duties of the commission.
Subclause (6) of the same clause refers to the fact that the president and vice president shall not both sit on any hearing before a committee of the commission. The explanatory note for subclause (6) reads as follows:
The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that the president or the vice president shall not be placed in the position of having to sit upon a review of his own decision.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I am concerned because I think it boils down to the fact that the commission will be sitting in judgment on its own decisions. I think that this is too much power to give to any commission without some check or balance being provided. The commission should be made subject to review by some body other than the commission itself. I do not like the
January 10, 1967

idea of setting up a commission which is going to make the rules, see that they are carried out, and rule on whether or not its own rules have been broken. This should be subject to review by the elected representatives of the people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I should deal first of all with the point made by the hon. member for Lisgar which arises from the fact that we are attempting to create here something which does not exist as far as any of the other boards are concerned. This is a capacity for review within the organization itself before there can be anything that is properly an appeal.
The Board of Transport Commissioners can with a quorum of two make a decision now, the only recourse following that decision being to the courts or to the governor in council. We thought it would be desirable to have an intermediate stage and to have this review, and I think that is desirable. The fact that we have sought to make this provision has created certain technical problems; there is no doubt about that. I think that if the hon. member for York South-I say this with my usual hesitation before an eminent counsel -construed that part of subclause (4) that he read to mean that no member of that committee could sit in review, whether or not he sat on the original case, then that is not what is intended. It is quite clear that one or other of the ex-officio members, either the president or vice president, should always sit in review.


David Lewis: Would the minister inquire about this from his advisers? I cannot see any other possible interpretation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member is probably right. All I am saying is that that was not the intention. It is perfectly clear from the explanatory note to subclause (6) that that could not be the correct interpretation of the draftsman's intention. For that reason, once I have listened to the various views I will ask to have the clause stand, so that the lawyers can look at it overnight and satisfy themselves on these points.
With respect to the president or vice president sitting in review, my view would be that only in quite unusual circumstances would the president preside over one of the committees, and then the vice president preside over the review, because this would tend to create certain problems concerning personalities and good relations that might be undesirable.
Transportation
What I think will happen in most cases is that neither the president nor the vice president will sit on the original hearing, but where there are really quite important hearings and it is felt that there is need for a larger bench to start with, then the vice president will probably sit. In that case the president would be available to preside over the review. So that if it is not clear that only those who have sat on the original hearing are excluded from sitting on the review and the bill does not mean this, then I will see it is redrafted to mean that, because that is what is intended.
This goes a long way, of course, to meeting the problem mentioned by the hon. member for Acadia. However, I would also point out that we were warned by certain eminent members of the bar, here, that we should have some laymen on this board. I think that particularly in the case of reviews it would be very desirable not to have too much expertise and perhaps have a little more common sense. But I do not think that this will create any very great difficulty.
I agree with the hon. member for Acadia that it is not necessary to prescribe specially designated committees. I happen to be the sponsor of this bill, and I happen to think that this is advisable. I know the hon. gentleman does not think it is advisable. Though we are agreed on a lot of things and we cannot agree on everything. I happen to think it preferable to do it in this way.
I would not think it was preferable, Mr. Chairman, if there were not power in the commission to alter the composition of these committees from time to time, because I think that is very desirable. For example, you will get someone who is stale on one of these committees and wants to move to another, and as far as I can see there is nothing in the legislation to stop that happening at any time. If there is, then we will make sure by looking at the language carefully that this is changed, because that is not what is intended. Just because the commission is large I do not want it to be unwieldy; I want it to be wieldy- whatever that means.
I am quite prepared to take another look at this matter of the quorum. I must say that I have already revealed today that in many respects I am old-fashioned. I like to think that people are going to act responsibly and that it is not necessary to make a lot of detailed rules to make sure that they will.
I cannot conceive of a situation arising where, on one of these reviews, only two

January 10, 1967
Transportation
members would be sitting, and I say that for this reason. I think the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary was wrong in thinking that this commission would be bound by the rules of solidarity that so obviously bind cabinets. The commissioners do not have to agree or do not have to pretend to agree. Therefore I think that in a review it would be very inexpedient and silly to have an even number of members sitting; surely it is desirable to have an odd number so you can get a majority decision.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, I will look at this point about whether a special quorum should be prescribed, but I really do not think this is necessary. I do not think it would do any harm to make the quorum three in number, though I would not want to make it any larger because there might be circumstances where it could cause undue delays if it were larger than three. But for review purposes I do not see any objection to that; and if we have to make some other amendments in order to make the position technically exact I would be prepared to consider this too.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, dealing with section 17 of Bill No. C-231, I really feel that consideration of the membership of these committees could go on for days and days because there are probably many different opinions on the matter. I believe we can nevertheless say that the membership suggested in the bill is satisfactory and deserves a trial.
On the other hand, something else is of concern to me. In the previous speakers' remarks, I detected a tendency to avoid giving authority to the president and the vice president lest they abuse it. As far as I am concerned, I feel this bill seeks to put some order in a confused situation, namely, that of transport. We should give this commission and its leaders, the president and vice president who will be the kingpins of the commission, sufficient authority to enable them to operate efficiently. But if all powers are delegated in such a way as to neutralize their influence and give control to each and everyone, we will find ourselves in the position described in the old saying: Too many cooks spoil the broth. It is to be expected that those who will be appointed to those functions will have sufficient experience of men and things to be able to judge objectively.
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
Should it happen that in the course of ordinary or extraordinary affairs, applicants are not satisfied with the rulings even after having appealed and having been heard by the colleagues of the commission members, they can always go before the courts or even call on the government in council.
Mr. Chairman, I have three questions to put to the minister. In fact, what I have to ask is related to matters of much greater concern to me than the membership of this commission, which I find acceptable and satisfactory although it may not be perfect. But, who will find this a perfect formula? And, perhaps, the three questions I intend to ask should have been asked during consideration of clause 16, or perhaps I should wait till later on during consideration of clause 17, but, with your permission, I shall raise them now, because I feel they are important.
I am of the opinion, Mr. Chairman, that this commission will constantly face conflicts of jurisdiction between the provinces and the federal government. For my own satisfaction, and probably for the satisfaction of my colleagues, I should like to direct the following question to the minister; it is divided into three parts.
First, were the provinces consulted before this bill was drafted, in order to avoid, encroachment and conflicts of jurisdiction as much as possible? When this bill is passed and, in the normal course of events, in the exercise of its functions, when this transport commission comes into conflict with the provincial departments of transport, what provision has been made for regular consultations, so that these conflicts, these differences of opinion or this duplication of authority may not get too serious and take regrettable proportions? And if after these consultations, this dialogue between the Canadian Transport Commission and the provincial bodies, no agreement is reached, the matter can then be taken to the courts of law. But has the hon. minister considered a superior court of arbitration to solve conflicts of jurisdiction between the provinces and the commission?
Mr. Chairman, let us not delude ourselves; there will be conflicts. Indeed, the bill has yet to be passed and echoes of conflicting opinions reach us from certain provinces. Considering the sweet disposition of the hon. minister,
I know he is not looking for difficulties, for conflicts; on the contrary, he wishes to lessen them.
January 10, 1967

I shall repeat my question, then. Has there been any consultation with the provinces before the bill was drafted? Have regular meetings been provided for, in the discharge of this commission's duties, in order precisely to remove and prevent difficulties? If agreement is impossible, has provision been made for a higher arbitration board which would settle the disputes between the federal government and the provinces?
I should like to have the minister's opinion on these three points.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, first of all, there has been misunderstanding about one aspect of this bill, and that is that aspect relating to motor transport. I do not think anyone has questioned the over-all jurisdiction of this parliament over railways that have been incorporated by parliament. Certainly over steamships and all forms of navigation parliament's jurisdiction is supreme. A canoe, even, cannot be regulated by a provincial government. Parliament's jurisdiction over aviation has been clearly settled by the highest courts. The only area it seems to me in which any conflict can arise is in the question of the limits of jurisdiction of this parliament over motor transport. We thought until 1954, when the Privy Council made its decision-one of the last decisions applying to Canada-that the jurisdiction over road traffic was exclusively provincial. The courts decided-and this does not apply to those driving private motorcars of course-that when a commercial carrier operating a bus or a truck crosses the provincial boundary and serves more than one province, or when he leaves Canada to go to a foreign country, he is under the jurisdiction, and the exclusive jurisdiction, of this parliament.
At that time we had no machinery for carrying out that jurisdiction. The provinces had been accustomed to carrying it out. This parliament passed the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, as I think it was called, which enabled the government of Canada to confer upon provincial agencies-not upon the provinces, because we cannot do that, and the courts have decided that we cannot delegate anything to a province-certain authority. We made these provincial agencies into federal agencies for purposes over which parliament has jurisdiction. On the whole this has worked pretty well. A year or two ago decisions were made in the courts of Manitoba and of another province-at the moment I do not have that at my fingertips-which called
Transportation
into question the capacity of these agencies effectively to carry out this jurisdiction. These cases have not yet gone to the final court. I do not think any one of them has got to the Supreme Court. It may that the Supreme Court in its wisdom may take a different view from that of the courts below, and that the problem will not arise.
We felt when we were legislating for all forms of transport coming under the exclusive jurisdiction of this parliament, that we should have a provision so that we would not be caught a second time with no way of dealing with a problem. It could be chaotic if there were no legal way of dealing with it. We informed the provincial governments that we proposed introducing such a provision. We did not feel we should consult them about this because this is within the exclusive jurisdiction of parliament.
If I were the premier of Manitoba or Quebec-and I am not likely to be either-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is the wisest thing you have said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -but if I were, and if someone in the legislature said to me, "Did you first consult Ottawa before introducing this legislation that is exclusively within provincial legislation?" I would say, "Of course not. It is our business; it is not theirs". I feel the same way about legislation exclusively within the jurisdiction of parliament, as this is.
Though we are grateful to the provinces for allowing these agencies over the years to act as agencies of the federal government, for its purposes, we also expressed satisfaction, and said we did not want to disturb this arrangement if it did not need to be disturbed. We pointed out that all we are seeking to do in this bill is to have reserve power in case it became necessary to use it, so that there would be law and not anarchy in this field, in certain circumstances. This is all we are asking parliament to do.
We also intend to have a conference with the provinces. All of them I think have now shown their willingness to come to such a conference to discuss not only this matter but a number of other matters affecting motor transport, primarily of provincial concern, in which we seek to be helpful. This is on the administrative side. We want the maximum co-operation in that field, and I think most provincial governments want that also.
So far as our strictly legislative function is concerned, the courts have decided that that is exclusively federal. I think, therefore, that we

January 10, 1967
Transportation
discharged every obligation properly ours in informing the provinces in advance of what we were doing, and that we were doing this, not because of dissatisfaction with the provinces but only as a precaution in case of need.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have two questions I should like to ask the minister for the purpose of clarification. The first concerns clause 17 (5). If the minister has the bill in front of him he will see that it says:
At any hearing of the commission for the purpose of making an order or giving any direction, leave, sanction or approval in respect of any matter under the jurisdiction of the commission, the commission may...permit the representative or agent of any provincial or municipal government or any association or other body representing the interests of shippers or consignees in Canada to appear and be heard-
On the other hand, when we go back to subclause (4) we find it reads as follows:
Where an order, rule or direction made by a committee of the commission in respect of a matter related to a particular mode of transport, not being a matter of a specific rate, licence or certificate, is objected to by an operator.. .the commission shall, otherwise than by that committee of the commission, review the order, rule or direction-
It is obvious here on a layman's reading that when an operator objects to a ruling of the commission a review shall be made, but when a provincial government or a municipal government or any group of shippers feels aggrieved, all they are allowed to do is to make representations. Is there any reason why this latter group of people should not have the same rights of review, if a decision goes against them?


John Whitney Pickersgill: All that is intended in this review in subsclause 4 is a review in cases where one kind of carrier considers he has been unfairly treated as compared with another kind of carrier. It is not intended that the full commission shall review the decision of a committee when the dispute is between, say, a shipper and a carrier. In such cases the ordinary rules will apply and the parties will have access to the courts, to the minister or to the governor in council as the case may be, depending upon the existing legislation, which is not disturbed.
Because we are bringing all the modes of transport under one commission and because these committees are being set up it was thought that the railway committee, for example, might make a decision which some carrier who had not even been present at the hearing believed was unfair to his interests. In such cases he would be able to ask for a

full review by the commission. That is the purpose of this provision.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am satisfied with that answer. I think it clarifies what was in the minds of those who drafted the bill.
My second question arises from clause 17(3) which states:
Notwithstanding anything in the Railway Act or the National Energy Board Act governing matters before the commission, a committee of the commission may, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the commission, exercise all the powers and duties of the commission-
My question has to do with the National Energy Board Act about whose background and purpose I happen to know something. Can the minister give an example of a provision in that act which could be ignored by the commission in the exercise of this power under 17(3)?


John Whitney Pickersgill: When we come to a later clause dealing with commodity pipe lines the hon. member will find there is special provision in respect of combined pipe lines carrying oil and or gas, and some other commodities. Those carrying only oil and or gas would remain exclusively within the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board. There is a special provision to avoid duplicate hearings. The intention is that, notwithstanding anything contained in the National Energy Board Act, combined hearings would be legal. I think that when we come to the particular clause I have mentioned the hon. gentleman will understand what is involved.


Mr. Nugent:: I could not altogether understand what the minister was saying with regard to the commission reviewing decisions of committees. I believe he said that members of the committee which had made the decision would be present on the commission. If that is not correct, I should like the hon. gentleman to say so. If that was his meaning, can he explain why he thinks it would be desirable for members of the committee who had heard an application to be present as members of the commission reviewing the decision?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must have made my point badly, because it is the exact opposite which was meant. In the case of a review it is intended that the people who were at the original hearing should not take part; the review would be made by other members of the commission.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Another point arises. Does not the minister consider that a member who is normally, say, a member of the transport
January 10, 1967

committee but who had not been a member of the committee hearing the application might sit on the commission as a member in order to give the specialized viewpoints of the committee to the commission? I would point out that the wording of this clause does not make it clear that this would be permitted. The wording contains the expression "otherwise than of that committee". Has the minister given consideration to the desirability of having a member of a particular committee, one who had not taken part in a hearing, making his services available as a member of the commission reviewing a case?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is exactly what should happen, in my opinion. I have now been given a little advice on the point raised by the hon. member for York South. I am told that in the opinion of the draftsmen, what is barred is a review by the same committee. But a member of a committee can be on the review board in his capacity as a commissioner, provided he is not prohibited by the procedures described in clause 19.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
However, a member of a committee could be on the review in his capacity as a commissioner, if not prohibited by the procedures prescribed under clause 19. The commission would have the flexibility regarding a quorum under clause 19 which would enable them to set minima higher than the Railway Act, where needed, but which would not be tied down in law. It was intended to provide a review that would be representative of the modes of transport under the jurisdiction of the board.
The hon. member for York South shakes his head, and possibly the hon. member for Peace River did so also. I would not like to ask the committee to pass this clause tonight, but if we have covered all the points that hon. members wish to raise I would like the committee to stand the clause so that I can examine these points and see if further clarification of the language is necessary.


David Vaughan Pugh: It is a good idea that the minister review this clause. A review will take place where another mode of transport feels that it has not got a square deal, in licensing or some other matter, and it would seem that the point put forward by the hon. member for York South and the hon. member for Springfield is a good one, namely that all the members of the commission serve on the review board because the more brains on it the better would be the review.
Transportation
In each case there would probably be two competing modes of transportation, if not more, and having all the brains of the commission acting on the review board would be the best approach. The larger the quorum the more in line would the review board be with our courts of appeal, and with our final court of appeal in Canada, which is served by quite a number of judges.


Thomas Miller Bell: What happens the order when it is under review? For example the commission will make a ruling or an order. When that order comes under review in accordance with the circumstances outlined in clause 17, is the order allowed to stand or is it frozen while under review?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman does not mind I would like him to let that question stand with the clause, so that I may answer it after further advice.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Under subclause (4) a review of an order, rule or direction may be asked for by certain specific people, whereas under subclause (5) those who may be heard at a hearing are a much broader class, including municipalities, provincial governments, etc.; but the provision for review does not give this latter group the right to ask for a review. I notice that under clause 18 an intervener can ask for an appeal, but I wish to ask the minister is there any specific purpose why this review procedure is available only to certain people who may ask for it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The purpose is not to review decisions between shippers and carriers. It is only to review decisions made with respect to one carrier that another carrier thinks are unfair. It is a very limited kind of thing. The important cases are not going to be disputes between carriers. They are going to be the disputes between shippers and carriers, and it is in that kind of dispute that municipalities and provincial governments, as is historically the case, would be most interested. In the case of that kind of dispute the ordinary rules of appeal that now exist will continue to prevail.
It was thought desirable that instead of having disputes between carriers brought in the first instance to the governor in council, and to the courts, it would be better for the commission itself to review them in order to save a certain amount of unnecessary difficulty.

January 10, 1967
Transportation


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I can understand the purpose of the review procedure as explained by the minister, but I feel that this procedure could be put to better purpose if used more broadly. I have in mind certain problems that have arisen from time to time. I am thinking particularly of the Air Transport Board and its dealing with northern transportation areas. Its duty to provide good air transport service for Canada was sometimes lost sight of because of the vehicle that it chose as the best insurance that good transport service should be available, and in certain cases that board decided to restrict competition in order to make sure that there should be a good economic return for the operator chosen, from which he could provide good equipment and service.
On occasions when I was struggling with the Air Transport Board, trying to get an improvement in service, or especially an innovation in the service, I found that the board had taken the interests of the operator so much to heart, and was so intent on making sure that competition should be restricted, that sometimes it forgot that providing air service was really its number 1 purpose, and that restricting competition, thus making the existing service profitable for the operator, was only secondary to that first aim.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
It seems to me that if the decisions are going to be made by a committee of the commission which operates in the same manner as committees of the Air Transport Board have operated, the committee will become air oriented and may put the public interest and imaginative air expansion in a position secondary to the well-being of the country. The government has missed an opportunity by not giving municipalities, provinces and interested groups of citizens in certain areas being served the opportunity of asking for a review by the commission, in the hope that the whole commission, not being air or railway orientated, would think in terms of providing a little more imaginative service to the country. In this way the commission could look at the situation from a point of view concerned less with the financial well-being or health of an air carrier operating in an area. The commission would therefore realize the needs of a community or a district to be served, and make things a little more tough in respect of the type of services that should be provided if a carrier is to continue to operate.
If my proposal was accepted I think the public interest would be put first and the well-being of thfe carrier would be considered

second. This might give an impetus to the provision or innovation of better service. It is my submission that a committee which deals exclusively with a specific type of carrier, as committees of the Air Transport Board have done, would become over-solicitous about the welfare of a carrier, to the extent that it would be slow to allow any new ideas or any new competition which might provide the service needed to meet new demands. We must have imaginative services which will help open up new areas and create new business. This would not only permit competition but would help the country become financially healthy.
When the government is reconsidering the drafting of this clause, I hope it will seriously consider what happened in the past and make provision for a general review procedure under clause 5 on the application of those who are permitted to intervene. The public point of view could then be considered as a last step before an order became official, without the necessity of an appeal to the minister.
If that suggestion has been considered and rejected, I hope the minister will explain why it has been rejected. Perhaps it is cumbersome but I believe that bodies such as the Air Transport Board tend to look after their own affairs rather than take into consideration the changing needs of this country for a more viable transportation system.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If we can agree to stand the clause I should like to give the suggestion some consideration before making a reply. Perhaps hon. members would agree to stand clause 17 and go on to a consideration of clause 18.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree to stand clause 17.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 17 stands.
On clause 18-Appeal.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, my remarks in respect of this particular clause are directed to the minister. In reading subclauses 1 and 2 it is apparent that any applicant who is refused a licence by the board under the Aeronautics Act, a motor vehicle undertaking or a certificate of public convenience and necessity can appeal to the minister.
This clause states that after an appeal to the minister he shall thereupon certify his opinion to the commission, and the commission shall comply therewith. In this regard
January 10, 1967

I place emphasis on the word "shall". When one looks at sub-clause 2 he will see that if a licence or certificate of public convenience and necessity is revoked the matter can be appealed to the minister and the minister shall certify his opinion to the commission. The commission is compelled to obey explicitly the minister's direction.
For the sake of efficiency we are turning great sections of our economy, represented by the spectrum of transportation, over to a board. For the sake of efficiency in handling matters in respect of granting or revoking licences, we are removing the provisions which allow a review by the governor in council, and placing that in the hands of the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is precisely what is now contained in the Aeronautics Act.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That fact does not destroy my argument. In fact, it supports the general argument I want to make in respect of the amendment which will be moved by the hon. member for Peace River to clause 20 of the bill. We must have some form of parliamentary control. There must be some machinery to provide control over the board and over the ministers.
It was my intention to give the minister a preview of the argument I intend to make when we consider clause 20. I have pointed out the word "shall". If that compulsion is contained in the Aeronautics Act, that supports my argument that parliament should not be put into a limbo in this regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am one of those old-fashioned individuals who believes in responsible government. A minister is responsible to parliament and is answerable to parliament for everything he does. The reason the appeal was made applicable to the minister rather than the governor in council, in these matters was that advisers to Her Majesty and the governor have many things to do, as the hon. gentleman knows, having been one of Her Majesty's advisers-although his advice is temporarily not being sought.
If one provides for too many appeals to the governor in council one of two things will happen; they will either be dealt with in a very cursory manner or will be delayed inordinately. In respect of matters of licences and things of that sort people want promptitude, even though the answer is sometimes no. The worst thing that can happen is to keep an application in suspense for an indefinite period.
Transportation
Perhaps this will place a burden on the minister, but I think it would be a much greater burden if it were placed on the governor in council. As hon. members know, there is always an opportunity during the consideration of the minister's estimates and motions to go into supply, to call the minister to account and answer questions. Certainly if we set up a committee with a better and more expert staff to deal with these transport problems there would be more careful scrutiny of these matters. I am all for it, as the hon. gentleman knows. I do not mean to prejudge what will happen when we reach clause 20, but I am all for the principle of having a committee of this house with expert assistance to keep these matters under scrutiny.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to delay the committee too long, but in reading the explanation of this clause I notice that it says:
To provide for appeals to the minister in lieu of appeals to the governor in council-
So even if this can be done under the Aeronautics Act, that explanation led me astray. I say unequivocally that even if this is a change, I support what the minister just said. It takes so long to get a technical matter through cabinet, with 18 or 20 members, that it is not worth the time it takes in trying to improve the efficiency of a complicated operation such as the transportation business. I support the principle that we should have this type of efficiency, but at the same time I warn the minister in respect of the general principle contained in clause 20. I have been trying to persuade the minister to look favourably on our suggestions when we reach clause 20.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, what the hon. gentleman is saying is that it is much easier to behead one man than 20.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I thought there was a difference of opinion between the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and the minister, but apparently there is not. As far as I see it, it is much easier to get the head of one minister on a platter than it is to get the heads of 20. However, I rose on another point which concerns me with respect to clause 18. I refer to the distinction drawn between the rights of an intervener under subclause 1 and subclause 2. As I read this clause, under subclause 1 an applicant or an intervener on an application to the commission for a licence may make an appeal to the minister for a final decision; but under subclause 2, which has to do with the

January 10, 1967
Transportation
power oi the commission to act in the matter of suspending, cancelling or amending licences, as I read the subclause there is no provision for an appeal by an intervener.
I appreciate that it may be unlikely that in the case of a licence being suspended or cancelled there will be a desire by an intervener to appeal; but when it comes to the matter of amending a licence-and I make this remark because of some observations that I had occasion earlier to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport with respect to the operation of the Air Transport Board-in some cases this almost amounts to the granting of a new licence. There may be occasions in such cases when an intervener may be desirous of making an appeal to the minister on a decision of the commission. As I recall it, not too long ago the Aeronautics Act provided for an appeal to the minister by an applicant but not by an intervener.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was a change parliament already made in this session, I think.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That matter was in my view rectified. I raise this question now because I have some concern that we may be faced in the future with a situation similar to that which has prevailed in the past, where an intervener who may have a perfectly legitimate reason for wanting to object to the action of the commission in respect to amending a licence may not, as I read this subclause, be able to do so.
I am wondering whether the minister has any particular reason to offer why this distinction is drawn between the power of appeal of an intervener in subclause 1 and the right of appeal to the minister in subclause 2. Could the minister enlighten the committee on this point?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, it was a departure to permit an intervener to appeal in the case of an original applicant. In most cases where there is an application for some kind of service, it is by somebody who has never been giving the service. The interveners are nearly always people who are already in the business and who, generally speaking, are contending that the existing operators are giving all the service that is required and the result of having another person in the operation would be, instead of making it possible for somebody to make a living, to make two or three losers out of the situation rather than having someone able to conduct a viable operation.
There have been a number of cases where the board has granted licences and interven-

ers have felt they were really being done out of their livelihood. For that reason I recommended to parliament, and parliament saw fit to accept the suggestion, that in those circumstances an intervener should be allowed to appeal. The other case, of course, could only happen with respect to somebody who was already in the operation. It was thought that the intervener would almost invariably be an operator already in the business and that in these circumstances the only person who would be seriously aggrieved would be likely to be the applicant. We took this view for that reason. The alternative might have been provided. However, within reason I think we want to provide for appeals, but no one in his senses wants to turn any minister of the crown into a court of appeal.
It is not at all desirable to set up independent agencies to deal with these matters and then encourage appeals from them to politicians. It seems to me that for the time being we should wait a little while and see how this provision operates. If a number of cases arise wherein there seems to be a need for this other kind of intervention, a change might be made. But in my experience and the experience of the deputy minister, who was one of those who advised me with regard to the suggestion that parliament accepted recently, it was only in the case of original applications that there seemed to be any real need for an appeal.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I certainly agree with the minister that it is not desirable that it should be common practice to launch frequent appeals to the minister, and in effect this should be the court of last resort only to be used in extreme cases.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
In recognition of the right of parliament to whom the minister, as he has been saying, is responsible, to review matters and ensure that in the long run at least, and in general practice, the action of a commission of this kind is in accordance with the public interest, consideration should be given to the suggestion made. I could cite an example of the kind of situation that I foresee. I know that in the coastal area where more than one air line has been allowed to operate, an application was made by an air line for an amendment to an existing licence which, as I recall it, was described as an area licence. This would in effect have given that particular air line-at least in the view of its competitors-a position of a virtual monopoly, which would put the competitors out of business. In this particular
January 10, 1967

case the Air Transport Board did not see tit to agree to the entire application for an amended licence but, in my view, if they had, then the interveners in the case would have very legitimate grounds for making an appeal. In the light of a possibility of that kind, I fail to understand the minister's logic in suggesting that in his view appeals would be more frequent if an intervener had in effect the same rights under subclause 2 as it is proposed that they should have under subclause 1. This seemed to be the only argument that he advanced as to why this distinction was made, namely that he did not want to see appeals become too frequent.
However, I fail to see that that argument really holds in respect of the distinction between the original and the amended application which, certainly in my experience, is the same as the application for a new licence. I wonder whether the minister could take another look at this particular aspect of the bill because it seems to me that we should seek to avoid the situation to which he referred earlier, which eventually resulted in an amendment to the Aeronautics Act. In my view at least, certain parties had a very legitimate reason to feel aggrieved over the fact that under the law they did not have the same right of appeal as another party.
In view of past experience with respect to the Aeronautics Act it does not seem a good thing that, in effect, we will be allowing inequity to be perpetuated under the bill which is now before us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I really do not think that the problem is sufficiently grave, and one has to draw the line in these matters somewhere. If such a situation does arise at some time in the future, then parliament of course will be able to remedy it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: What the minister said is perfectly true, that parliament will be able to remedy it; but sometimes these grievances and injustices exist for quite a long time before parliament is able to persuade His Excellency's advisers to take the necessary initiative so as to make it possible for parliament to act on some of these matters. I cannot do any more than urge the minister to take this initiative at this time. He may well be correct in saying that the situation may not arise during his tenure of office and that it may not turn out to be his individual headache. However it seems to me that he is leaving the way open for some sort of headache to arise for his successor, or possibly for the
Transportation
future member for Comox-Alberni, who may have to wrestle with it. In view of the fact that he has agreed to reconsider the preceding clause, it seems to me that a very minor drafting amendment could cover this point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I have been quite flexible and reasonable. I feel that in this particular case I am not disposed at the present time to go beyond what is in the bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I accept the views of the minister regarding the desirability of this appeal being made to the minister. As a matter of fact I think that the provisions in the Railway Act under which appeals are made to the governor in council are not worth the paper on which they are written. When you go back over the past 20 years, I wonder how many appeals were made under that section? I suppose that in some instances they did result in the establishment of royal commissions from which some reasonably good results flowed, but I think that while the minister has a certain judicial function he is also acting administratively and it is nice to know that the fact that he is in front of us makes it possible for us to take pot shots at him if we disagree with the way in which he is exercising his administrative functions.
With this in mind, may I ask the minister whether there is not a possibility that he has only gone far enough to make this an alternative remedy? Under the previous subclauses and subsequent clauses of the bill the transport commission is given the same powers as the Board of Transport Commissioners, which include the right of appeal to the governor in council. The wording in subclause 1 of clause 18 is "may appeal to the minister". Unless there is something of which I am not aware it seems to me that this means that an appellant might exercise the right-which he would have in view of the fact that there is an appeal from the Board of Transport Commissioners which is automatically given to the transport commission-to appeal to the governor in council in most matters, and this is just an additional means of appeal. The drafting may have covered this.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think there is any possibility of the duplication of appeals. The appeals to the minister are in respect of licensing, and there is no appeal to the governor in council left in these particular clauses. The appeals to the governor in council are under the Railway Act, and in so far as the railways are concerned they have to come to parliament because they do not require a licence

January 10, 1967
Transportation
but an act of parliament. So this kind of situation does not arise with railways. The appeals are in respect of disputes between shippers and carriers and they are still made to the governor in council.


Gerald William Baldwin: What I meant was that under the bill the transport commission is put in the same position as the Board of Transport Commissioners. There are appeals on questions of law to the Supreme Court and appeals on other questions to the governor in council. If clause 18 was not here there would be no question but that any appeal could be taken from the transport commission. However, in view of the fact that the people concerned who appeared before the transport commission are given the right to appeal to either body, this is an additional remedy and I wonder whether it is cumulative.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think so. I think the hon. gentleman will find that the appeals are under the Railway Act and that the only appeals to the governor in council are those provided for under the Railway Act. They are not being disturbed, but they would not apply to other aspects of the work of the transport commission.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say something about this, especially in connection with clause 16 which has been allowed to stand, and my remarks are made on the alternative rather than the appeals. Perhaps we should call it ten o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether we have not exhausted the discussion on clause 18. If so perhaps we could pass it. If the hon. gentleman wishes to make a speech on clause 17 he will not be stopped from doing that by our passage of clause 18.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The point I am making is that if we broaden clause 17 so as to make better use of the review procedure it could entail a curtailment of the appeal procedure, or some necessary change in it. Therefore I think that so long as clause 17 is undecided in its final form, clause 18 should stand with it. Since it is ten o'clock and I would like to make some remarks on the appeal procedure in clause 18,
I think we should stop now. Perhaps tomorrow the minister would have some better ideas concerning clause 17.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, I was just going to make an appeal to the committee to continue a little longer this evening and try

to get a little more done. There are still many clauses in this bill. As hon. members know, this is not the only piece of legislation we are going to have before us before this session can be concluded.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I know the minister has found me very co-operative with regard to this legislation. I would be the first to say the minister, himself, has been very co-operative in accepting suggestions for changes in the bill. However, I believe we have made real progress today. Perhaps we should agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona with regard to broadening the review provisions, so that less use would have to be made of the appeal procedure.
In the light of these remarks, and in the light of the fact that clause 17 is being allowed to stand, perhaps it is a good suggestion to at least hear more argument with regard to clause 18. If the minister is not agreeable to allowing clause 18 to stand with clause 17, then I think we should call it ten o'clock in the hope that we can make equally good progress tomorrow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We cannot make any
progress tomorrow because the house is going to take other business. I would be quite prepared to stand clause 18 if we could deal with clause 19 and reach clause 20 by ten o'clock. I am not suggesting we should pass clause 20.
If I might add one word, I may say that I know one hon. member wishes to move an amendment to clause 20. I think it would be desirable to have that amendment before the committee for consideration over the two-day period. If there were any disposition to deal with clause 19 and call clause 20, I would not ask to have clause 20 passed. We could just have it called so this amendment could be before the committee. It would be quite a convenience to me and, I believe, to the committee.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Ten o'clock has been called.


Thomas Miller Bell: I think what the minister has proposed meets with some approval here. We would like to see this amendment to clause 20 so that we can consider it tomorrow. This proposal looks all right so far as I am concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could we agree to stand clause 18, pass clause 19 and call clause 20?
January 10, 1967


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed to stand clause 18?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 18 stands.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Clause 19?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Ten o'clock has been called. I can see the clock and it appears to be six or seven minutes after ten. I think, in order to proceed, you have to have unanimous consent. Other members have called ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will be submitting to the house for its consideration item No. 121, the resolution preceding the bill to establish the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. We will then submit, if time permits, item 117, the bill to amend the Judges Act, and depending on the time available item 86, the bill respecting the pension plans for the benefit of persons employed in connection with certain federal works. Then we will deal with the resolution preceding the bill to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act. We would also like to consider item 104, the reference to a committee, which I believe will not likely require any debate, as well as the motion on today's notice paper under government notices of motion to refer to a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons the authority to inquire into the matter of pensions paid to retired civil servants or their dependants.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps we could pass that right now.


George James McIlraith: I would be very glad to. We would also wish to take the motion referring the subject matter of the national anthem to the special standing committee; and if there is further time the motion creating the committee to deal with the temporary rules.
It will be noticed, Mr. Speaker, that I have indicated quite a list of items, but I did so bearing in mind that certain of the motions are rather simple and might be called out of the order I indicated, depending on the time available.
In view of the interjection just made I am quite happy to-


Mr. Churchill:: Oh no.
Business of the House RESEARCH



PROVISION FOR GRANTS TO CORPORATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government orders.
December 20-House in committee of the whole on Bill C-252, an act to provide general incentives to industry for the expansion of scientific research and development in Canada and to effect certain related amendments to the Income Tax Act.-The Minister of Industry.
George James McIlraith: I should indicate one other item of business which I believe does have the concurrence of the house, and that is the motion to withdraw from the committee of the whole house the bill providing for general incentives to industry for the expansion of scientific research and referring it to the standing committee on industry, research and energy development. That request was made some days ago when the measure was last before the house, both by members of the official opposition and members of the N.D.P. group, and I should like to make that reference at some time. In view of the way the request was made to do that tonight, it might be agreeable, in order to get the committee organized to deal with the matter, to move the motion now.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: Then if I have unanimous consent I move, seconded by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill):
That Order No. 100 being the house in committee of the whole on Bill C-252, an act to provide general incentives to industry for the expansion of scientific research and development in Canada and to effect certain related amendments to the Income Tax Act, be discharged and that the said bill be referred to the standing committee on industry, research and energy development.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Orders.
December 16-House in committee of the whole on the following proposed resolution:-
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the continuation of air traffic control services; to provide also for an increase in the remuneration of air traffic controllers.-The President of the Treasury Board.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, fortunately this item,
11646	COMMONS DEBATES	January 10, 1967
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion No. 118 on today's order paper, concerns legislation that is no longer required. Therefore I would ask the permission of the house to drop it from the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could we not do another one, Mr. Speaker?


George James McIlraith: That would be agreeable. Mr. Speaker: Is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PUBLIC SERVICE


George James McIlraith: That the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Public Service of Canada be empowered to inquire into and report upon the matter of the pensions paid to retired civil servants or their dependants under the provisions of the Public Service Superannuation Act: and
That a message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours of this resolution and requesting that house, if it concurs, to authorize the committee to inquire into and report upon this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has a very definite pet subject and has of late become the sponsor of Sir John A. Macdonald.

For my part, I should like to be the sponsor of a man quite as valorous, who served his country with quite as much enthusiasm, ability and intelligence, who was, at a certain time in our history, the partner of Sir John Macdonald and under whom the latter himself served, and I mean Sir Etienne Pascal Tache, a fine man.
I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that if I take up the cudgels for Sir iStienne Pascal Tache, I do it most objectively, because I must recognize that between him, who happens to be my ancestor and me, the descendant, there is very little in common.
First, Sir Etienne Pascal Tache was a Conservative which is clearly not in line with the views I hold. Then, he was a Royalist, to which I bear no resemblance. Finally, it has been said of him that he was a conciliator. My impression is that his descendant is more a provocateur.


Some hon. Members:: Ah, ah.


Auguste Choquette: That is why, Mr. Speaker, having nothing in common with him whose cause I wish to plead tonight, I feel quite free to speak on his behalf and I ask the support of the government to pay a very special homage, in this centennial year, to the memory of this former prime minister of Canada, of this Father of Confederation who, in October 1864, presided over one of the first Quebec conferences which led, as we all know, to the pact of confederation the value of which it is the intention to underline in 1967.
Sir Etienne Pascal Tache was member for l'lslet in the House of Commons. He was later appointed to the legislative council. Queen Victoria knighted him-a title which I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, I will ever be given by Queen Elizabeth.
Sir Etienne Pascal Tache was also a great servant of the state and practiced his profession with great magnanimity, for he was a highly respected physician in his locality. He was a Canadian in the true sense. He took part in the war of 1812. He was obviously anti-annexionist. He wanted Canada to be truly Canadian. I am convinced that if he were living to-day, he would certainly be one of those great Canadians who endeavour to fight those who want to tear the country apart.
That is why we are proud to pay tribute to those who want to keep Canada in its integrity and we of the government are ardent
January 10, 1967
supporters of that theory. That is why I should like the government to make a special effort to pay tribute to the memory of Sir Etienne Pascal Tache by granting the request of the Montmagny Junior Chamber of Commerce and restoring the Tache manor. If it is impossible to reach an agreement with the interested parties, let a monument be erected to his memory, or in any event, let the government do something to honour him.
Mr. Speaker, before bringing my remarks to a close, I should like to say that to celebrate the Centennial, the federal government should not hesitate to take initiatives on its own if, in certain cases, it cannot obtain the co-operation of other authorities. It was disgraceful to note absences, in 1967, which absences must be deplored. Provided the government ceases to rely on other authorities and assumes its responsibilities in the Centennial festivities, we will celebrate it in unison without banking on others to do it.
I feel this is a wonderful opportunity for the government to take the lead, without asking the co-operation of others who might be reticent about granting it, to pay tribute to the memory of Sir Etienne Pascal Tache.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, tonight I have the honour to represent the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing). I listened with great interest to the historical account concerning Sir Etienne Pascal Tache, a patriot who took part in the war of 1812 and a physician by profession. He was the member for 1'Islet in 1841 and minister of public works in 1848, under the Lafontaine-Baldwin government; prime minister, in 1856, in the so-called Tache-Mac-donald administration; after that, he became legislative councillor and once again prime minister in 1864, under the Tache-Macdonald administration.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
He presided over the Quebec conference in 1864, but this is not the only thing I am interested in, Mr. Speaker. I am also interested in the genealogy of this famous man.
Sir Etienne-Pascal Tache had several children, among which a daughter, Marie-Sophie-Malthilde Tache, who married Frangois-Jacques-Albert Bender, a Montmagny lawyer, on September 10, 1844.
Several children were born of the Bender-Tache marriage, among which we note Marie-Eleonore-Eulalie-Henriette Bender, who became the wife of Mr. Phillippe-Auguste
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Choquette, lawyer, on August 29, 1883. Mr. Choquette sat in the House of Commons as a member for Montmagny in 1887, 1891 and 1896; a friend of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, he was appointed senator and then made a judge.
And of the Choquette-Bender marriage, Mr. Speaker, were issued several children, including Hon. Fernand Choquette, now a judge of the Quebec court of appeal and father of the august Choquette, the member for Lotbiniere.
Now, not only because of the renown of his ancestor Etienne Pascal Tache, but also because of the drive, the energy, the intellectual powers of his descendant, the present member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), I shall personally recommend to the minister that this request be accepted.



SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD-INQUIRY AS TO PLANS FOR HONOURING BIRTHDAY

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, it is a happy coincidence that I should be discussing one of the Fathers of Confederation after such an eloquent appeal by the lineal descendant of another Father of Confederation. I am not, of course, a lineal descendant of Sir Etienne Tache but I am a political and spiritual descendant of that great man, great Conservative and great Canadian, and I would like to say a word about his friend, Sir John A. Macdonald.
I was very pleased over the recess to read press releases to the effect that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) was considering taking steps that would bring about a national holiday in recognition of the birthday of our first prime minister. But I was sorry to discover when I came back to Ottawa that my expectations, and the expectations of a great number of Canadian people, were not being borne out in the actuality.
I am disappointed that the Prime Minister did not take the opportunity of giving a lead in this matter. It would have been very fitting indeed had the leader of a Liberal party taken the step which would have brought about in Canada a Sir John A. Macdonald day. I think the information contained in the press release is an inadequate recognition of a man so great as was Sir John A. I think we have reached a stage where we should have a full-fledged national holiday to honour this great Father of Confederation. It should be a full holiday and should not be for this year only, but imbedded permanently, so that we can set aside one day from the work-a-day routine

11648	COMMONS DEBATES	January 10, 1967
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and foster, if we can, greater pride in the achievements of so great a man.
I believe that it should have been done long ago, but Canadians are very remiss in honouring the men who have made our country great. In this field we have failed to follow the advice of one of our greatest, Joseph Howe, who said:
A wise nation preserves its records, gathers up its muniments, decorates the tombs of its illustrious dead, repairs its great public structures and fosters national pride and love of country by perpetual reference to the sacrifices and glories of the past.
This is not a small and trifling matter. A nation, to be great, must emphasize those values which transcend the material and the mundane; and our centennial celebrations, Mr. Speaker, no matter how colourful or how jubilant, will be a wasted effort if they do not stimulate a deeper appreciation in all of us and a wider knowledge of the greatness of our past and of the men whose labour and wisdom have made us great.
We need not be reluctant to honour Sir John A. Macdonald. His work and worth entitle him to a high place among the nation builders of history. At the time of his death another great man, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, said of him:
I think it can be asserted that for the supreme art of governing men, Sir John Macdonald was gifted as few men in any land or in any age were gifted; gifted with the most high of all qualities, qualities which would have made him famous wherever exercised and which would have shone all the more conspicuously the larger the theatre.
Magnificent words from a great man about a great man.
I am not satisfied, and I hope we in this parliament will not be satisfied with the small step that has been taken, although we must be gracious enough to recognize that at least a step has been taken. We find far too little recognition of the worth of the man who may be properly called, with all due respect to the great man referred to a moment ago, our greatest founding father.
Let us not be satisfied to leave it to the provinces and to the school children. May I here congratulate the education ministers in Nova Scotia, Ontario and Prince Edward Island who have given a holiday in this connection. Tomorrow the children in those provinces will get a half holiday or whole holiday, but will also get a little direction and some appreciation of the men who have made this country what it is. I think we can say that

without the wisdom, the patience, the tolerance and the common sense of men like Sir John A. Macdonald, Etienne Tache and others, there might have been no Canadian nation.
Let those of us in this parliament of this nation, to which he gave so much, honour the name of Macdonald, acclaim his fame and contribute to the healthy and vigorous spirit of Canadianism which, heaven knows, we must all nurture and nourish as we prepare for our second century.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, anything I might say tonight after the oratory which has gone before must be by way of anticlimax. Suffice it to say that we have been raising noble ghosts tonight. Tomorrow we will celebrate that day in the manner indicated with some enthusiasm.
As to the question of adding to the list of national holidays, this has been studied, and the government intends to keep this matter under careful review. Meanwhile, with reference to this centennial year, the government has passed an order in council which establishes January 11, 1967, the anniversary of the birth of Canada's first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, as a day of commemoration.
Many other steps have been and will be taken to honour Sir John. Festivities are to take place in Kingston on January 11, and I cannot think of any more appropriate place. On that occasion the Prime Minister will be present with other dignitaries. Bellevue House in Kingston, where Sir John lived, for a short period of time, is currently being restored as a national historic site. I am happy that I was among the first to be interested in this project and to recommend it to the government.
Another matter which I feel deserves national attention is the official resting place of Sir John A. at Cataraqui cemetery. It is a delicate matter as to how we should improve a cemetery memorial, but I think in due course this should be given careful and reverent consideration.
Bellevue House is being restored by this government as a national historic site at considerable expense. Two rooms are being furnished as they were during Sir John's residence, with other mementoes being added. The centennial commission has commissioned a special commemorative play relating to the centennial. This play will have its premiere in Ottawa on January 11. It is hoped that the play will be performed by amateur theatrical
January 10, 1967	COMMONS
groups across the country. In addition, various other projects for the centennial, such as the confederation train and the caravans, will include appropriate tributes to our first prime minister.
As my hon. friend knows, the establishment of a national holiday is a much more complicated matter than may appear on the surface. This is not something that can be effected by order in council. It does in fact require a statute. When one realizes that education comes under the provisions of section 93 of the B.N.A. Act, and property and civil rights come under section 92 subsection 13, it is clear that in order to do what my friend now suggests would call for concurrent legislation by the federal as well as all the provincial governments. There are many important matters which must be taken into account in the establishment of a national holiday. It is not something that can be done lightly or easily.
The contribution of Sir John A. to our history is well known and it is not disputed by anyone in this house. Indeed, I think we all feel in a sense that we are his heirs and aspire to be worthy of what he and the other fathers of confederation have commenced.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE- EDMONTON, ALTA.-COMPASSIONATE PAYMENT TO WIDOW ON DEATH OF CONSTABLE

Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, December 16, I rose and asked a question of the hon. Solicitor General as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to address to the Solicitor General in connection with the death of the 23 year old R.C.M.P. constable in Edmonton who was shot, and who had been married less than 90 days. Is the cabinet going to make any compassionate payment to his young widow in view of the very short service of this officer, the fact that he had only been married about 90 days, and because he died as a result of a criminal act?
The Solicitor General replied:
Mr. Speaker, we shall follow the policy laid down within the department in a matter of this kind.
I appreciate the opportunity of speaking for a few moments on this matter because it is one close to my heart. I have the greatest sympathy for the young widow, but primarily I am interested in this case because it is a perfect example of why the state should make payments to the innocent victims of criminal acts. This is a case where a young widow is left as a result of the death of an R.C.M.P. officer who we might say gave his life in the performance of his duties.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
On June 8 in this house we discussed at some length a resolution which I had put on the order paper on January 20, 1966, almost a year ago now. No action, of course, has been taken; there was just some discussion on one day, June 8. The resolution was:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the expediency of introducing legislation for the creation of a criminal injuries compensation board to hear the pleas of persons who have suffered permanent injury or disability as the victims of crime and award compensation to such persons or their dependants as would seem fair in the circumstances, and wherever possible to do so, to impose payment of compensation by criminals to those they have injured.
In the course of the discussion of that resolution on June 8 I referred specifically to the case of the two widows with children of the two policemen who were shot down in cold blood by the Santa Claus murderer, Marcotte, in Montreal. I pointed out that they, being the widows of policemen, were eligible for some compensation from the policemen's benefit fund of the district in which their husbands performed their duties. I even made some reference to an event of 20 years ago in west Toronto where a Toronto policeman by the name of McQuillan was shot dead and his family, of course, benefited from the policemen's compensation fund of the city of Toronto. On June 8 I asked the question, what about those people who are not policemen and are killed? What about their families?
In the case of the young widow in Edmonton, I understand she will be eligible for some kind of a pension setup, might I say rather automatically, in the pension department of the R.C.M.P. But I would ask the cabinet, when they are establishing a pension or payment of some kind for this fine young woman, to bear in mind that there are many other families throughout Canada whose breadwinners were not policemen and to whom no compensation is now payable by the state. If we make a payment to this widow because her husband was a policeman, why cannot we make payment to other families injured or wronged because their breadwinners, or other members of their families were killed or injured as a result of criminal violence?
Compensation for the victims of criminal violence has been introduced in New Zealand; it became effective January 1, 1964. In March, 1964, Great Britain enacted compensatory legislation for the victims of crimes of violence. In July, 1965, California added a new section to its welfare and institution code to compensate the innocent victims of violent
11650	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion crimes. In July last the state of New York brought in a compensation fund for the innocent victims of violent crimes. In the case of New Zealand, payment is made in stated amounts over a period of time to those people who are being compensated by the state. In Great Britain they are paid one lump sum. In New York state it was ordered that they be paid one lump sum not exceeding $15,000, as it was felt that some people might commit crimes in order to benefit their family if the payments are going to be spread over a long number of years.
Here in Canada if a man is killed by a motor vehicle and the car owner does not have insurance or any estate the victim's family gets paid from the unsatisfied judgment fund. If he is killed by a motorcar the victim's family can collect money, but if he is killed by murder they get nothing unless he happens to be a policeman, in which case the R.C.M.P. or local police funds will compensate his family or his widow.
I sincerely hope that the cabinet will bear in mind the fact that this policeman gave his life for his country. The cabinet established a pension of $6,624 for chief superintendent Rene John Belec who was compulsorily retired by the cabinet some time ago, and a pension of $1,562.80 per year for sub-inspector Joseph Hosanna Maurice Poitras of Montreal who was compulsorily retired. I would ask the cabinet to bear those figures in mind when they are establishing the pension for this young widow in Edmonton.
I hope it will be in the nature of $6,000 which we are now paying to former chief superintendent Belec because such a pension
DEBATES	January 10, 1967
would establish a precedent for the families of all the innocent victims of criminal acts in this country. We must in short order have legislation of that type on the nation's books.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will acquit me of disrespect but I must point out that the matter of compensation to victims of crime does not come within the ministerial responsibility of the Solicitor General. However, I will be pleased to bring this question to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin).
So far as the widow of the member of the R.C.M.P. who was killed in Edmonton is concerned, I should like to advise the house that a claim is being made on her behalf to the Canadian Pension Commission under section 27(1) of the R.C.M.P. Superannuation Act. Under that act a pension is payable to the widow of a member whose death arose out of or was connected directly with his service in the force.
Before a pension becomes payable it must be ruled by the Canadian Pension Commission that death arose out of or was directly connected with the services of the R.C.M.P. constable while in the force. The matter is now before the Canadian Pension Commission and we expect a favourable ruling very shortly. The amount of the pension that will be paid will be determined by a schedule which is attached to the Pension Act, and I am not in a position to give that figure at this moment.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.40 p.m.

Wednesday, January 11, 1967