1967-01-16

Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies in English and French of the proclamation extending to December 31 next the Maritime Transportation Unions Trustees Act under which a board of trustees was set up with respect to certain maritime unions. I ask the consent of the house that this be made an appendix to Hansard. I do so because the act provides that this proclamation shall be laid before parliament within a limited number of days.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of document referred to above, see appendix.]


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last I informed the house that at an early date I would make a statement, on motions, concerning this proclamation, and I think it appropriate to make such a statement at this time. When my predecessor, now the Minister of National Health and Welfare, introduced the legislation establishing the trusteeship, a serious situation had developed which affected not only the unions and their members, but the whole shipping industry of the vital international waterways of the St. Lawrence seaway and the great lakes.
In this connection hon. members will recall vividly the disruption that occurred in 1962 and 1963, the investigation by Mr. Justice Norris, and its aftermath. The legislation was passed in October, 1963. As I recall, only four members opposed the motion for second reading, and on third reading there was unanimous consent to passage. In its preamble the legislation draws attention to the emergency situation, to the consequent threat to the economy of Canada and to our international relations, and to the necessity for peace, order and good government on the seaway, in the ports, and on the seacoast of Canada.
It was further stated in the preamble that the democratic processes within a certain maritime transportation union had been undermined, and it was recommended that a trusteeship be established to enable the seamen to assume control of their organizations.
From the outset in October, 1963, the trustees have assiduously pursued this and other objectives in the interests of the seamen and the industry, and their annual reports tabled in parliament record the tasks and projects that they established and the progress made.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Their ultimate objective has been and will continue to be the settlement of the basic causes of the unrest which disrupted shipping, and not merely to deal with the symptoms of such unrest which occur from time to time.
In their reports to parliament the board of trustees characterized the fundamental causes of the disruption of shipping as (1) rivalry among the unions and their inability to cooperate or agree on a method of settlement of their problems; (2) an obvious lack of cohesion or co-operation among the employers; (3) the hiring hall arrangements in the maritime transportation industry.
Associated with this latter problem are questions arising out of the manning of ships, the education, training and certification of seamen, and labour turnover. Although limited in effect, these questions still pose serious difficulties for the industry and must be resolved, preferably during the current year 1967.
I am happy to say that progress has been made toward co-operation among the unions, unity among the employers and toward communication among the unions with each other and with the association of employers. The trustees have proved to be a unifying influence. They notified me, however, during the last week of the year just past that several of their objectives have not been fully realized. In my opinion it would be most unfortunate if, for want of time, the work now well advanced were not completed and was ultimately undone, with resulting further disturbances in the industry.
The question of whether the act should be extended was considered by the government on December 29, and the decision was then
11808	COMMONS
Maritime Transportation Unions Trustees Act reached that it was desirable that the trustees be given a further limited period-and I stress the word "limited"-in which to complete the objectives they have established as beneficial for the unions and for the maritime industry generally. The additional time will afford the trustees an opportunity to phase out their operations in an orderly way. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that hon. members and the public generally will be interested and gratified to know that from a high of 32 the staff of the trustees is now only nine, so it will be seen that during the past months the trustees have made real progress in their efforts to wind up their activities.
I am happy to say that the chairman of the board of trustees, Judge Rene Lippe, and the other two members, Messrs. Charles Millard and Joseph Mackenzie, have agreed to continue to serve during the extended term. As results indicate, so far they have done a good job in the national interest, and I would like to extend to them the thanks of the government and, I am sure, of parliament for their work. I might say in closing that this limited extension of time cannot, as has been feared by some, operate to interfere with the collective bargaining due to take place in the industry later this year.


Hon. Michael Slarr (Ontario):: The minister has today repeated an announcement which was made in the newspapers a few weeks ago, namely that the period of the maritime trusteeship is to be extended for a further term of one year.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there must have been misunderstanding, laxity and divergence of opinion among the trustees if, after three years, a further period of one year is required during which the unions are to be held under trusteeship. In my opinion, and in the opinion of those who have followed this situation closely, no reforms of any significance have been effected by the trustees with respect to the unions. If this had been the case there would have been no need to extend the trusteeship for a further year.
As a matter of fact there have been marked differences of opinion among the trustees themselves. Parliament has found it very difficult to obtain any information from them; the standing committee on industrial relations endeavoured to do so a year or two ago, but without success.
We were unable to elicit any information from the members of the trustee board as to the conduct of elections and other vital important matters which we felt we had a right to

DEBATES	January 16, 1967
know, and that the Canadian public had a right to know. If they had made any reforms during the three years they have been in existence they would have been glad to give this information to members of parliament in the standing committee on industrial relations.
One of the first things the maritime trustees allowed and gave sanction to was the violation of the constitution in respect to elections. The executive of the S.I.U. is exactly the same now as it was prior to the establishment of the board of trustees, except that Mr. Hal Banks is not there any longer and nothing is being done about him.
There has been no guarantee at all of a reformed union so far as the S.I.U. is concerned. This is borne out by the fact that even the Canadian Labour Congress has not made any move toward further affiliation of the S.I.U. within its membership. Now we shall have another year of trusteeship, and if that year is not any more productive than the past three years then I think it will have been a waste of money, because after that period we shall be back to where we were in 1963.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, it is some two and a half weeks since the proclamation was issued, and a week since parliament resumed its session. I think the time lapse between those two events and the statement today explains perfectly the background for the action being taken by the government, because it has obviously taken that length of time to draft this statement to attempt to explain the inexplicable.
I believe the minister said the main reason for the extension of the trusteeship was that it would be a unifying influence, and the trustees had notified him that several of their objectives had not been met. Therefore I think the responsibility rests on the shoulders of the minister to explain to the house in detail what these objectives are that have not been met. He did not take the opportunity to do that today; I hope he will at some future time.
In passing I might say that the extension of the trusteeship, which is certainly not acceptable to me, probably could have been prevented had the Canadian Labour Congress, instead of dragging its feet, acted favourably on the application which one of the unions under trusteeship made for reaffiliation with that central labour body. Also in passing, if I could make reference to a brief submitted to the Minister of Labour on November 22, 1966, by the Dominion Marine Association, a body of companies in the shipping industry, we might
January 16, 1967	COMMONS
get some insight into the real reason for the
imposition of another year of trusteeship. At page 3 of their brief the Dominion Marine Association said:
The member companies of D.M.A. consider it would be futile to enter into collective bargaining negotiations with the S.I.U. until the problems arising out of implementation of the code-
That is the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.
-are disposed of.
This was a declaration by the Dominion Marine Association that it was not too interested in entering into the collective bargaining processes, regardless of what the law says. I think this truly indicates the reason for the extension of the trusteeship, namely that the government desires that there be some sort of tranquilizing imposition upon the negotiations coming up later this year in the hope that the results of those negotiations will more nearly meet the desires of the D.M.A. and the government, and consequently will mean less to the employees working in the industry.
It is interesting to note that the minister said there were certain matters relating to safety, the manning of ships and the like which were also reasons for the extension of the trusteeship. So far as I am concerned this is a bit of an insult to the Minister of Transport from the Minister of Labour, because there rests within the hands of the Minister of Transport the responsibility by law of dealing with matters of manning and safety at sea, things which he has pushed to one side or dragged his feet on for some months. It is a sad state of affairs when one minister has to drag himself up with the help of another to justify the imposition of the trusteeship.
There is perhaps one good feature now that the damage has been done; that is the same gentlemen who were on the board of trustees will continue in that position. I say this because it would be absolutely chaotic if a new group of trustees had to come along in the midst of everything and start all over again. It is for this reason that there might be something good in the announcement made today.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I should like to ask the minister whether he would be willing to table the correspondence between himself and the members of the board of trustees relating to the extension. I should like him to table both his letter and their response. May I sum up by saying that in listening to the minister's statement I was reminded quite a bit of the material used in a kitchen called saran wrap; because certainly
Maritime Transportation Unions Trustees Act the statement was flimsy, obviously transparent and, like saran wrap, covers up that which is inside which has a malodorous air to it.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement of the continuation of the trusteeship for another year must be greeted with a certain disquiet considering the length of time which has gone by since the trusteeship first was set up. I am sure the Canadian public does not wish to see a return to the situation which originally produced the trusteeship. I feel they would hope that the extension is not something which is going to put the matter to sleep for another year, and that at the conclusion of that period the problem will rise again with all its difficulties. One would hope that this additional time will be used to finalize some of the problems which still exist regarding that group of unions and the transport industry on the great lakes and the seaway. We know the government has not yet made up its mind in respect of the extradition of Mr. Banks from the United States and the possible injection of that personality back into the whole issue in the coming year. This is a matter of considerable concern.
One would hope that without any legislation being passed, possibly the unions of this country would set terms which would limit the years in office of some of the persons who manage under the present set-up to gain control of the unions and remain in office too long, with neither the unions nor the government of Canada having any power over them. I trust that the year's extension will be used to the greatest possible benefit in settling this issue.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Barry Malher (New Westminster) moved: the first reading of Bill No. C-263, to amend the Criminal Code (fine print clauses).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill is to eliminate the trouble which so often is caused by fine print or small type in contracts. The bill would amend the Criminal Code to make illegal publication of clauses in policies, contracts or deeds in small typographical characters with intent to delude the purchaser concerning the limitations in the benefits. "Fine print" in this context means type smaller than the main body of the print

January 16, 1967
Questions
of the contracts. The entire aim of the bill is to protect the consumer.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Irvine: 1.	What was the amount of Individual income tax collected by the federal government from each province in Canada in each year from 1955 to 1965 inclusive?
2.	During that same period, what was the amount of corporation tax collected from each province in each year?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: 1. Individual income tax collected by the federal government from each province in Canada, based on amounts collected in the district offices located in each province, are shown in the following publications as noted: Fiscal years 1955 and 1956: Taxation statistics 1960, page 18. Fiscal years 1957 to 1962 inclusive: Taxation statistics 1962, page 18. Fiscal years 1963 to 1965: Not available because payments and refunds processed by the taxation data centre in Ottawa relate to all provinces and district office collection figures, therefore, do not indicate correctly the amount collected in each province.
2.	Corporation income tax collected by the federal government from each province, based on amounts collected in the district offices located in each province, are shown in taxation statistics for fiscal years 1955 to 1962. The references are the same as given above in answer to 1. Figures for fiscal years 1963 to 1965 are given below, including old age security tax and provincial income tax except as noted.
Fiscal Year Ended March 31 1963 1964 1965 $ million			
Newfoundland	12.5	14.2	22.5P.E.I.	2.4	2.3	2.6Nova Scotia	16.3	16.8	18.6New Brunswick	12.3	13.1	15.4Quebec	402.5	432.1	498.1'Ontario	654.4	700.6	867.3Manitoba	49.1	47.1	72.0Saskatchewan	13.2	15.0	18.1Alberta	71.5	81.1	100.5British Columbia	128.3	149.6	189.2* Does not include	taxes	levied and	collected by the province directly.


* QUINIDINE SULPHATE-INCREASE IN PRICE OF DRUG
Mr. Haidasz: Regarding the answer to part 6 of starred question No. 1,647, does the government intend to take any steps to investigate and remedy the high increase in the price, during the past year, of a cardiac drug, quinidine sulphate, from $4 to $19 per 100 tablets?


Hon. John N. Turner (Member of ihe Administration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is that the matter has been referred to the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act in order that he may consider whether formal inquiry under this act is warranted.


* POST OFFICE EMPLOYEES, LONDON, ONT.
Mr. Irvine: 1.	What is the total number of employees of the London post offices and London district office?
2.	How many come under the Civil Service Commission?
3.	How many are employed by the Post Office Department as opposed to the civil service?
4.	What job security do each of these groups enjoy, in detail?
5.	Are any grade clerks receiving pay at the rate of lesser grades than the one at which they are employed and, if so (a) how many (b) list in detail giving reasons?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is 514. An indeterminate number of persons working as casuals are in the London post office from time to time as needed. The answer to part 2 is 514. The answer to part 3 is that all are employed under the authority of the Civil Service Act. The answer to part 4 is, according to the terms and conditions of employment as provided under the Civil Service Act and the civil service regulations. The answer to part 5 is none.


INDIAN ARTICLES IN NATIONAL MUSEUM
Mr. Howard: 1.	What is the value of all articles, items, utensils, carvings, etc., of Canadian Indian origin in the possession of the National Museum of Canada?
2.	What has been the increase in value of these possessions over the past ten years?
3.	Is any assessment available of the deterioration of these possessions over the past ten years and, if so, what are the details of that assessment?
4.	What steps, by way of humidifying apparatus or otherwise, are being taken to preserve or protect these possessions?
January 16, 1967


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: 1.	It is not possible to set a monetary value on the varied items in the anthropological collections of the National Museum of Canada. Basically, value of any object is the price which it would fetch if it were sold in the market. For rare books, prints etc. booksellers and art dealers commonly accept as a standard price the money paid for an identical book or print at the last auction at which one changed hands. But the artifacts in the National Museum are mainly things that were individually made; as such, they have no identical twins by whose prices at auctions a value could be established; and so this method of valuing National Museum collections fails.
A number of the objects in our collections have, of course, been purchased at various dates. But the total of their purchase prices would not amount to the value of our collections, for various reasons, of which the chief is that a list of such prices would be very incomplete because it would contain no account of donations or objects collected in the field. A very large percentage of the museum's artifacts were either given by donors or collected in the field, so that no monetary price has ever been attached to them; and very many which were purchased were acquired at dates whose dollar values bear no relation to those of today.
2.	It is impossible to determine the increase in value of the museum's possessions over the last 10 years.
3.	No assessment is available of the deterioration of the specimens during the last 10 years.
4.	Humidifying equipment has been placed in the ethnology storage areas where there are artifacts and specimens which would otherwise dry out. The equipment which we have is the best that can be provided. This equipment which was installed in July of 1961 consists of 6-4,000 watt immersion heaters blower type humidifiers.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-USE OF MAPLE LEAF DESIGN
Mr. Webb: What are the "more important places" referred to by the Postmaster General, November 1. page 9368 of Hansard, to which the maple leaf with P.C. or C.P. on it would be "acceptable" in place of the Canadian coat of arms?
Questions


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Within the full context of the reference on page 9368 of Hansard November 1, the more important places would be mail boxes, mail trucks, mail bags and stationery.


COST OF REPAIRS TO C.N.R. BRIDGE, QUEBEC
Mr. Godin: 1.	What was the cost of the major repairs carried out in 1947-48 to the C.N.R. bridge at mile 93.5, Latuque subdivision, province of Quebec?
2.	What is the name of the firm that carried out these repairs?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. Approximately $120,000.
2.	Intrusion-Prepakt Ltd.


H. J. O'CONNELL LTD.-INCOME TAX APPEAL
Mr. Brewin: 1.	Was counsel for the Minister of National Revenue instructed in the appeal before the tax appeal board entitled between appellant, H. J. O'Connell Limited and Minister of National Revenue, respondent, to submit that the expenses in the amount of $300,824.90 which were deducted from the appellant's statement of surplus under the heading of "promotion" and described as having been incurred for solicited contributions made to both political parties either provincial or federal in order to obtain contracts were not deductible expenses?
2.	Did the tax appeal board allow or disallow the said expenditures from the appellant's taxable income?
3.	If the answer to the above question is that the deduction was allowed, does the Minister of National Revenue intend to appeal from the said decision?
4.	What are the details of the "solicited contributions" referred to in the reasons for judgment of the tax appeal board and what are the details of the contracts granted to the appellant company by the government of Canada or any agency thereof, giving services provided and the amounts involved?


Edgar John Benson: 1. No.
2.	No. The right of the appellant to deduct expenses of the nature described in question 1 in computing income for tax purposes was not in issue before the tax appeal board. Such expenses were not, in fact, deducted for income tax purposes.
3.	See answer to question 2.
4.	The Minister of National Revenue does not have the details requested. Upon being satisfied that the expenses were not deducted

January 16, 1967
Questions
in computing taxable income and were not paid to a person liable to pay tax, the details of the expenditures are of no concern to the Department of National Revenue (taxation).


TAX APPEAL BOARD
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	Do the persons appointed to hear appeals to the tax appeal hoard hold the office of a judge and (a) if so, what are the qualifications necessary for appointment to hear such appeals (b) if not,
what official status do they hold?
2.	How many members are on the tax appeal board?
3.	For every member of the board (a) what official function does he hold as member of the board (b) before his appointment to the board, to what profession did he belong?
4.	How many other employees or officers work for the board in each employment classification?


Edgar John Benson: 1. No. (a) not applicable, (b) chairman, assistant chairman and members.
2.	Six.
3.	(a) chairman, assistant chairman and four members, (b) All six belonged to the legal profession.
4.	Three registrars, 12 administrative support, one operational.


DISPOSITION OF APPEALS, TAX APPEAL BOARD
Mr. Gregoire: With reference to subsection (1) of section 92 of the Income Tax Act, how many times over the last five years has the tax appeal board disposed of an appeal (a) by dismissing it (b) by allowing it, and, if an appeal has been allowed (i) by disallowing the assessment (ii) by varying the assessment (iii) by referring the assessment back to the minister for reconsideration and reassessment?


Edgar John Benson: (a) 1,291, (b) 1,301 (i) 632 (ii) 9 (iii) 660.


INCOME TAX APPEAL BOARD
Mr. Gregoire: In connection with the internal operations of the Income Tax Appeal Board, in the last five years (a) how many times has the board met (b) who is required to attend these meetings (c) is the minister responsible supposed to receive a copy of the minutes of these meetings (d) what are the principal matters dealt with at these meetings?


Edgar John Benson: (a) Four; (b) members and registrars;
(c)	no; (d) administrative policies and legal problems pertaining to sittings, hearings and judgments.


HEARING OFFICER, INCOME TAX APPEALS
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	Under section 86, subsection 10 of the Income Tax Act, what is the particular role of the hearing officer?
2.	In what way does his role differ from that of the other members of the Income Tax Appeal Board?
3.	In each of the last five years, how many hearing officers were appointed by the governor in council?
4.	How long does a hearing officer remain in office?
5.	Before being named hearing officer, must a person have been a member or officer of the board?


Edgar John Benson: 1. There has never been a hearing officer appointed under this section.
2,	3, 4, and 5. Not applicable.


INCOME TAX APPEAL BOARD HEARINGS
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	In the last five years, in which cities has the Income Tax Appeal Board heard appeals?
2.	Are the board's movements governed by a set schedule and (a) if so, what is it (b) if not, what are the factors which determine the various cities in which the board will sit?


Edgar John Benson: 1. Belleville, Calgary, Charlottetown, Edmonton, Fort William-Port Arthur, Halifax, Hamilton, Kingston, Kitchener-Waterloo, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Penticton, Quebec, Regina, Rouyn, St. Catharines, Saint John, St. John's, Saskatoon, Sherbrooke, Sudbury, Sydney, Toronto, Trois-Rivieres, Vancouver, Victoria, Windsor, Winnipeg.
2. No. (a) Not applicable, (b) The number of appeals to be heard in each centre.


EXPENSES OF WITNESSES, TAX APPEAL BOARD
Mr. Gregoire: With reference to section 91, subsection (3) of the Income Tax Act, who meets the travel expenses incurred by witnesses called to give evidence by the tax appeal board?
January 16, 1967

Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue	and	President	of	the	Treasury
Board): The party calling the witness.


TAX APPEAL BOARD OFFICES
Mr. Gregoire: In what Canadian cities or towns does the tax appeal board have offices or permanent quarters?
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue	and	President	of	the	Treasury
Board): Ottawa.


TAX APPEAL BOARD HEARINGS
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	How many cases have been heard each year by the tax appeal board since its creation?
2.	During each of the past ten years (a) how many of its judgments were appealed before the Exchequer Court of Canada (i) by the Minister of National Revenue (ii) by the other party (b) how many judgments, appealed before the Exchequer Court of Canada, have (i) reversed the judgments by the board (ii) confirmed the judgments by the board?
3.	Out of the total number of cases heard by the board over the past ten years (a) how many were appealed before the Supreme Court of Canada (b) how many judgments by the Supreme Court of Canada have (i) reversed the judgments by the board (ii) confirmed the judgments by the board?


Edgar John Benson: 1. 1949, 37; 1950, 209; 1951, 289; 1952, 211; 1953, 278; 1954, 230; 1955, 239; 1956, 194; 1957, 261; 1958, 273; 1959, 295; 1960, 299; 1961, 260; 1962, 193; 1963, 240; 1964, 216; 1965, 268; 1966, 251 (to Nov. 30).
2. (a)(i): 1956-57, 17; 1957-58, 20; 1958-59, 41; 1959-60, 15; 1960-61, 28; 1961-62, 25; 1962-63, 14; 1963-64, 28; 1964-65, 33; 1965-66; 18. (ii): 1956-57, 16; 1957-58, 66; 1958-59, 32; 1959-60, 49; 1960-61, 47; 1961-62, 56; 1962-63, 59; 1963-64, 51; 1964-65, 72; 1965-66, 47.
2.	(b)(i): 1956-57, 6; 1957-58, 22; 1958-59, 22; 1959-60, 10; 1960-61, 12; 1961-62, 17; 1962-63, 14; 1963-64, 10; 1964-65, 8; 1965-66, 5. (ii): 1956-57, 10; 1957-58, 17; 1958-59, 16; 1959-60, 16; 1960-61, 9; 1961-62, 20; 1962-63, 15; 196364, 24; 1964-65, 19; 1965-66, 10. These figures do not include 303 cases which were withdrawn or settled without a hearing.
3.	(a) 101. (b)(i) 27. (ii) 35. These figures are as of November 30, 1966, and do not include 24 cases which were withdrawn or settled without a hearing.
Questions


RETROACTIVE PAY FOR TEMPORARY RAILWAY EMPLOYEES
Mr. Fawcett: What is the present position, with respect to retroactive pay for temporary employees, of those temporary employees of the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways who resigned from the service prior to the national railway strike, and prior to implementation of Bill C-230, which provided for pay increases effective during a period when such employees were in the service of the railways?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: In accordance with past practice and the collective agreements, wage increases apply to those persons who had an employee relationship with the company, as established by the collective agreements, as of September 1, 1966.
In so far as the Canadian Pacific Railway is concerned, the information requested is not available.


WAGES FOR UNSKILLED LABOUR, PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Barnett: What was the average rate of wages paid to employees in the public service of Canada, in the classification of "unskilled labour" in each of the years 1946, 1951, 1956, 1961 and 1966?


Edgar John Benson: The average rate of wages paid to employees in the public service of Canada in the classification of "unskilled labour" in each of the years 1946, 1951, 1956, 1961, 1966, is not known for the following reasons: 1. There is no classification "Unskilled labour" in the classified service; 2. Employees who could be categorized as unskilled are found in prevailing rate classes; 3. Prevailing rate employees are paid a variety of rates in relation to the locality in which they work; 4. The number of employees at the various locality rates for the five time periods is not available.


PURCHASES BY C.B.C. OF COLOUR TELEVISION SETS
Mr. McIntosh: 1.	What number of TV colour sets have been purchased or are planned to be purchased in 1966 and 1967 by the C.B.C. for the individual utilization of C.B.C. officials in their offices or residences?

January 16, 1967
Questions
2.	What are the titles and locations of C.B.C. officials who received TV colour sets purchased by the C.B.C. in 1966?
3.	What are the titles and locations of C.B.C. officials for whom the purchase of TV colour sets by the C.B.C. has been approved, but delivery has not yet taken place?
4.	What has been the expenditure by the C.B.C. for TV colour sets which have already been delivered to C.B.C. officials in 1966?
5.	What is the estimated expenditure in 1966 and 1967 by the C.B.C. for colour TV sets on order from manufacturers?
6.	What are the names of the manufacturers of colour TV sets which have been purchased by the C.B.C. in 1966 and what quantity has been received from each in 1966?
7.	Does the C.B.C. purchase colour TV sets from manufacturers at (a) retail prices (b) wholesale prices (c) discount prices?
8.	From what vote are funds authorized for the purchase of colour TV sets by the C.B.C.?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1, 2 and 3. 107 TV colour receivers have been purchased by the corporation tor monitoring of the English and French program services at 18 locations across Canada. Receivers are assigned to those officials whose duties require program viewing at home or in offices where production monitors are not available. Set assignments are made to management officials across the country plus selected department heads.
4.	Approximately $80,250.
5.	See 4 above. None on order in 1967.
6.	Canadian Admiral Corporation, Canadian General Electric, Philips Electronics Limited, R.C.A. Victor Company of Canada Limited.
7.	Discount prices.
8.	These purchases were financed from the portion of the authorized capital budget of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for 1966/67, known as ordinary capital.


DUMPING DUTY ON TEXTILE IMPORTS
Mr. Mandziuk: 1.	Is dumping duty legally charged on Imports to Canada If these are within the quota agreed upon by Canada and the exporting country?
2.	Is dumping duty charged on worsted imported from mainland China if the quantity is within the quota agreed upon?
3.	Is dumping duty charged against Schacter Woollens of Montreal, P.Q., and, if so, for what reason?


Edgar John Benson: 1. Yes, if applicable, within the provisions of the customs legislation.
2.	Yes, if applicable, within the provisions of the customs legislation.
3.	This type of information is regarded as being of a confidential nature involving the personal affairs of an individual business concern.


ARTICLES WRITTEN BY C.B.C. PERSONNEL
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Have any officers, officials or employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation during the past six months been writing articles in periodicals
or newspapers for which payment has been or is to be made?
2.	If so, who, and how much has been received by such persons?
3.	In each of such cases, was authorization given by the corporation prior to the acceptance of what is described as "outside" work?
4.	On what date, and by what officer or official was each such authorization granted?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: No official record is kept of those officers or employees of the corporation who perform outside work. Those in some bargaining units are entitled, as a result of negotiated provisions in their contracts to perform outside work without permission from officials of the corporation provided that the nature of the work does not conflict with their C.B.C. responsibilities and the work is not performed for competitive broadcasting organizations. However, in instances where such employees may be in doubt as to whether they should accept outside work, it is customary for them to request permission from their supervisors.


LAY-OFFS OF AIR CANADA EMPLOYEES
Mr. Regimbal: 1.	Were non-striking Air Canada employees laid off during the recent strike at Air Canada?
2.	If so, what groups of employees not on strike were laid off?
3.	How many of such employees were (a) union members (b) non-union members?
4.	Has a protest been received by the Prime Minister from the Air Dine Pilot's Association relating to the layoff of non-striking union members?
5.	If so, what action will be taken to remedy the situation of which the association complains?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: In so far as parts 1, 2
January IS, 1967

and 3 are concerned the management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Yes. Approximately 4,000 non-striking Air Canada employees were placed on "off duty status-without pay" during the recent strike.
2.	Some employees who are members of unions or associations, whose services were made completely redundant. (Employees who are members of unions or associations for whom work was available were retained on the payroll.)
3.	(a) Approximately 4,000. (b) None.
4.	Yes.
5.	This would be a matter for consideration of company management.


EXPENDITURES ON SALMON RUNS. EAST AND WEST COASTS
Mr. Crouse: 1.	How much money will be spent during 1966 by the Department of Fisheries in connection with maintaining the salmon population in the rivers of British Columbia?
2.	What is the amount estimated for this work in 1967?
3.	What amount of funds will be spent on maintaining the salmon runs in Nova Scotia during 1966?
4.	What is the amount estimated for this type of fisheries development in Nova Scotia during 1967?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1. $2,214,100.
2.	Not available.
3.	$605,700.
4.	Not available.
Questions


Edgar John Benson: Department of National Revenue, taxation, statement of unapplied tax deductions for the taxation years 1964 and 1965 as at 15th October, 1966.
1964 taxation year Tax deduction revenue Tax deductions applied
Unapplied tax deductions 1964
2,428,466,886.56
2,392,571,989.45
$	35,894,897.11
1965 taxation year
Tax deduction revenue	2,601,056,650.95
Tax deductions applied	2,502,330,954.45
Unapplied tax deductions 1965
$	98,725,696.50
During the period 16th October, 1965, to 15th October, 1966, an amount of $36,656,095.92 was applied in respect of the 1964 taxation year. The above statement for 1964 incorporates this adjustment.
Assuming that a comparable amount of 1965 tax deductions will be applied from 16th October, 1966, to 15th October, 1967, unapplied tax deductions 1965 will be reduced to approximately $60,000,000.
In many cases, the tax deducted at the source would be practically equal to the taxpayer's liability and under such circumstances, many persons would not file a tax return on an annual basis.


EXPENDITURES ON INLAND FISH DEVELOPMENT, ATLANTIC PROVINCES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,303
Mr. Crouse:: How much money will be spent by the Department of Fisheries during 1966 and 1967 on inland fish development and oyster farms in (a) Nova Scotia (b) Newfoundland (c) New Brunswick, and (d) Prince Edward Island?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: During 1966-67 (a) $287,900 (b) $179,400, (c) $60,400 (d) $189,900. Figures are not available for 1967-68.


UNCLAIMED INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS
Mr. Dionne: What was the amount of tax deducted at source under the Income Tax Act which was not claimed by Canadian taxpayers during the years 1964 and 1965?


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR &quot;STUDENT SAFARI&quot; PROGRAM
Mr. Sallsman: Will the government, through the centennial commission, give consideration to providing federal assistance to the "Studeht Safari" program as proposed by Elmvale Expeditions Limited and recognized by the Ontario department of education through continuing daily attendance grants to school boards participating?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the centennial commission that no suggestion or request has been made for financial assistance to the "Student Safari" program. Mr. E. F. Genge, general manager of the "Student Safari" program as proposed by Elmvale Expeditions Limited visited Ottawa in August, 1966 to acquaint the centennial commission with the project. On

January 16, 1967
Questions
his visit he stressed that the project is not dependent on any federal grant or outside assistance but that it is dependent upon the enthusiasm of students and teachers of the various high schools.


PASSENGER TRAFFIC AT CERTAIN AIRPORTS
Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski): How many passengers disembarked or embarked an aircraft each year, from 1965 to 1966 inclusively, at the following airports: Inuvik, Fort Smith, Trois-Rivieres, Drummondville, Rimouski, Baie-Comeau and Sept-lles?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The number of passengers embarked on aircraft on reported commercial services during 1965 and from January to June 1966 at the airports listed is given in the table below. There is no record of passengers who have disembarked. However, to obtain an estimate of total commercial traffic, it is customary to double the figures shown. Traffic data covering passengers of private aircraft are not collected.
No. of passengers embarked
	Year 1965	Jan. to June 1966
	('000)	('000)
Inuvik	10.2	7.0Fort Smith	13.5	4.0Trois-Rivieres	1.6	0.9Drummondville	-	-Rimouski	19.0	9.8Baie Comeau	40.6	19.5Sept-lles	53.0	20.7


TORONTO-SEIZURE OF SCHOOL DISTILLING APPARATUS
Mr. Fulton: 1.	In the light of the recent seizure from a school teacher in Toronto, by R.C.M. Police of a small
Company
(a)	The Bell Telephone Company of Canada
(b)	British Columbia Telephone Co.
(c)	The Bonaventure and Gaspe Telephone
Company Ltd.
(d)	Canadian National Telecommunications
(e)	Quebec, North Shore and Labrador Railway Co. (Telephone Service)

distilling apparatus similar to that used in grade 7 science classrooms, is it now government policy to require all schools in Canada to obtain licences for the use of similar apparatus in science laboratories and classrooms?
2.	If so, what is the basis of this policy?
3.	If not, will the apparatus seized be returned to its owner without delay?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, this question is in three parts. The answer to the first part is no. The answer to the second part is "Not applicable", and the answer to the third part is yes.


TELEPHONE RATES IN CANADA
Mr. Harley: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, what are the companies in Canada that provide telephone service and what areas do these companies cover?
2.	What are the various rates charged by these companies in various parts of Canada, both local and long distance?
3.	What factors influence these rates?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Board of Transport Commissioners advises as follows: 1. There are approximately 2,000 telephone companies in Canada, ranging in size from The Bell Telephone Company of Canada, (4.6 million telephones as at December 31, 1965), to small service systems with less than 25 telephones. Most of these companies are relatively small and are not within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, but are subject to provincial jurisdiction.
Companies subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada serve over 70 per cent of the total telephones in Canada and are listed below:
Service area
Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland, Labrador and North-West Territories British Columbia.
Gaspe Peninsula (Quebec).
Newfoundland, British Columbia, Yukon and North-West Territories.
Quebec and Labrador.
January 16, 1967

Questions
The major telephone system in each province or territory and the jurisdiction under which it falls is shown below:
Province Newfoundland Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec and Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta
British Columbia Yukon and Northwest Territories
Major System
Avalon Telephone Co. Ltd.
The Island Telephone Co. Ltd.
Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company
N.B. Telephone Company
The Bell Telephone Company of Canada
Manitoba Telephone System
Saskatchewan Telephone System
Alberta Telephone System
B.C. Telephone Company
Jurisdiction
Provincial
Provincial
Provincial
Provincial
Federal
Provincial
Provincial
Provincial
Federal
Canadian National Telecommunications Federal
2.	The answer to this question would require the provision of many hundreds of telephone tariffs, the total volume of which would be very substantial. For example, the general tariff of The Bell Telephone Company of Canada is a loose leaf publication of some 200 pages and, in addition, there are several hundred other tariffs. Most tariff publications are issued by companies under provincial jurisdiction and thus are not on file with the board. Tariffs on file with the board may be inspected at the board's offices.
3.	So far as companies subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Transport Commissioners are concerned, such companies are free under the provisions of the governing statutes to initiate new rates, or to change existing rates, upon statutory notice, (three days for decreases and 30 days for increases) and such rates are subject to the approval of the board. Such rates must be reasonable and free from unjust discrimination or undue preference, and not otherwise contrary to the provisions of the statutes. The board has power to prescribe rates when it is determined that any particular rates are contrary to the provisions of the statutes. The philosophy of rate making used by The Bell Telephone Company of Canada is described in the board's judgment of November 15, 1950, (40 board's judgments, orders, regulations and rulings No. 17A) on pages 37 and following.


C.B.C. FARM NEWS DEPARTMENT
Mr. Schreyer: 1. Is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's farm news department about to be changed?
2. If so (a) is this action being taken as a result of a very significant number of suggestions or complaints to the effect that the existing programming or format is unsatisfactory or inadequate (b) what is the nature of the proposed changes?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that no significant program or policy changes are being contemplated in the farm broadcasts department at this time and that there have been no complaints. However, the C.B.C. intends to review the organization of this department in Toronto in the near future as is done periodically with various departments.


WHARF REPAIRS, PORTNEUF COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Godin: What was the cost of the repairs carried out in 1965 to the wharf at Lac-aux-Sables, Portneuf county, Quebec?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minisier of Public Works):: 


$3,888.00.   CONSTRUCTION OF REPLICA OF &quot;PELICAN&quot;
Mr. Keays: Has any agency of the government authorized the construction of a replica of the Pelican and, if so (a) who has undertaken the construction of this ship and at what cost or price (b) what program has the government planned for this ship?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: No.
11318	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


INQUIRIES RESPECTING NORTHERN TERRITORIES
Mr. Laprise: 1.	How many federal officials are posted in (a) Fort Smith (b) Inuvik?
2.	How many (a) Indians (b) Eskimos are employed by the federal government in Fort Smith and in Inuvik?
3.	How many (a) doctors (b) nurses are there in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory?
4.	Are any steps being taken to curb alcoholism among Indians and Eskimos in (a) the Northwest Territories (b) the Yukon Territory?
5.	If so, what are they?
Return tabled.


APPOINTMENT OF RETURNING OFFICERS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What returning officers have been appointed for the next general election by name and riding?
2.	Who of the above (indicate by an asterisk) previously held such positions?
3.	What are the qualifications used in making such appointments?
Return tabled.


EXPORT CREDITS IN 1964-65 CROP YEAR
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	To which exporting companies did the Export Credits Insurance Corporation extend coverage in the 1964-65 crop year and what was the total amount provided for in each case?
2.	Of the above amounts, what proportion of coverage was extended relative to grain exports?
Return tabled.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether she is in a position to state that she has been in touch with the C.B.C. regarding the prospective visit to Canada of Mr. von Thadden. Has her attention been drawn to the arrogant statement made by Mr. Duke to the effect that regardless of public opinion this man will be heard, and that a C.B.C. team will be going abroad to interview him?

DEBATES	January 16, 1967


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I undertook in the house to convey to Mr. Ouimet the representations which have been made to me of both opinions, one that free speech is paramount and the second the objection of certain groups and the objections which have been made in the house to Mr. von Thadden's appearance. I have done so.
The president told me he had already taken a decision, which was buttressed by the representations which I passed on to him respecting violence, to cancel plans to bring Mr. von Thadden to this country. I heard subsequently an announcement read over the radio which indicated that plans would probably be carried through to interview him in Germany. I have not had any further conversations with Mr. Ouimet since that time.
The right hon. gentleman will realize that there seems to be a very strong element of public opinion against such an interview being held. There is as well, as has been reflected in telephone calls and mail which I have received, a strong element of public opinion that it is the mandate of the C.B.C. to provide a forum in which the people of Canada may see and hear those individuals who are active in current public affairs. I have not had any further communication with the president of the C.B.C., as I consider this now to be an internal matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, did the
minister-I am sure she did-bring to the attention of Mr. Duke and some of these other
ducal Caesars, these petty Caesars in the C.B.C., that this is not a case of freedom of speech; this is deliberately flouting public
opinion by having a neo-nazi tell Canadians why that particular philosophy should be acceptable to them?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed that Mr. von Thadden appeared for a full 30 minutes on the program "The Public Eye" on November 22 last on the subject of right wing resurgence in West Germany. This program included an interview done in Germany with Mr. von Thadden by Charles Wasserman, a veteran broadcaster and acknowledged authority on German politics. There was no adverse reaction to that appearance made a couple of months ago.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister mentioned that there are some who are desirous of having this philosophy elucidated for their benefit, and she mentioned that there were arguments on both sides of this question. How
January 16, 1967	COMMONS
many communications has the minister received in favour of having this person brought over here or our moneys expended in sending a team to Germany?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, usually I do not tote them up. I am sure the right hon. gentleman will understand that one does this by weighing the opinions of individuals. I am sure there is one group in which the right hon. gentleman is interested. I am informed that there was an editorial in this morning's Globe and Mail which is directly opposed to what he is now suggesting. The representations which I have received have been oral, in writing and by telephone on both sides of the question.
This is an extremely difficult point, since 1 suspect there is no one in Canada who has the slightest sympathy with nazi feelings either at present or for what they have done in the past. But there is the principle of respecting the right of the Canadian people to know what is current in the world and to be alerted to such changes as may occur, which is perhaps of overriding importance.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Many of us feel that all points of view should be expressed on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, whether we agree with those points of view or not, provided that those who hold opposing views are given an opportunity to express them. In view of this fact I would like to ask the minister whether she would consider making representations to the president of the C.B.C. asking if some responsible public man in Germany, and there are many, who opposes the views of the neo-nazi party could also be interviewed at the same time, so the Canadian people would have an opportunity of hearing the two points of view from Germany in this connection and not just the point of view of a small minority who hold the particular view represented by Herr von Thadden.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: When interviewing representatives of the survivors of nazi prisoners of war on Friday I was informed by their spokesman that they had already been in communication with, I believe, the producers of the program, who had satisfied them that it would not be a one sided representation but that both sides would be presented. Their point was that they did not feel it would be in any way a slanted or one sided program.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Some person in Canada presenting a point of view of the Canadian people would, of course, be excellent; but may I ask the minister whether she does not think that some of the public men in Germany who oppose the neo-nazi party, the National Democratic Party, and who hold strong views on this matter ought to be given the opportunity to present their views so the people of Canada will not have a slanted view with respect to Germany and the political feelings of the German people.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I suppose it would be much the same position if my hon. friend were interviewed on German television. I might be put in the position of having to give my views on the things he said.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There are a few people who would benefit from that.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: However, Mr. Speaker, 1 will be happy to pass on this suggestion to the C.B.C.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister if she has elicited from the C.B.C. whether they have any plans to interview people in any other country with regard to their political philosophy.


John George Diefenbaker: What about Rhodesia?


Mr. Real Caoueite (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State informs us that both sides of the question will be presented on the C.B.C., that is to say the nazi viewpoint and doubtless the anti-nazi side. Why is it, then, since there are all types of opinions in Canada, that the C.B.C., particularly in Quebec, allows only one group to be heard repeatedly on the airwaves? I am talking of certain separatists, such as Pierre Bourgault, for instance, whom we see every week on television-revolutionary elements. We have no need of people from Germany. And I should like to know from the minister whether steps are being taken so that the C.B.C. may be more fair, more impartial, and so that they may invite representatives of different viewpoints to be heard on the air, in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
January 16, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I would like to say to the hon. gentleman that I will accept any invitation from Radio Canada to appear.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mi„ R. N. Thompson (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the *Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns Viet Nam and the efforts of Canada and India, as joint members of the international control commission, toward some kind of a peace approach, and the report that this has been vetoed by Poland, the third member of the I.C.C. Does the minister have any statement to make to the house on this situation?
Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I take it that my hon. friend has reference to the story of David Van Praagh in the Globe and Mail this morning from New Delhi. The story from New Delhi is substantially accurate, but the word "veto" I think is inappropriate in the circumstances. These matters have been under discussion for some time among India, Poland and Canada.
While there are reservations in some quarters as to the timing of any joint commission initiatives, it is the intention of the Canadian government to continue to explore possibilities in this regard with our commission partners, and in fact we are doing so at the present time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell the house the terms and conditions upon which Canada proposed initiating this peace move? What were the terms and conditions which Poland rejected, if they did reject the proposal advanced by Canada?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: I do not think it is desirable to outline at this stage the terms and conditions which the Canadian government, or for that matter the Indian government or the Polish government, seek to have established before such a joint initiative could take place. The fact is that for some months now the three countries have been in consultation with one another on this question.
All are agreed that in the right circumstances there may be a role for the commission in trying to bring about preliminary [Mr. Caouette.l
negotiations. However one country, in spite of its good intentions and the coUaboration it has given in this matter, does not feel that the appropriate time for such action is at the moment. Nevertheless, as I said a moment ago, we are continuing our discussions in hope of being able to reach some agreement in a matter of such vital importance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a supplementary question, may I ask the minister whether the only difference of opinion related to the matter of the time element, or was it with respect to the terms and conditions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The difference concerned largely the time element.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it correct that a major portion of the half a million dollars allocated for flood relief in Italy is being sent to that country in the form of live cattle? If so, is the minister selecting and purchasing this cattle? If not, to whom has he delegated this responsibility?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is as generous a tribute as I have ever received on an agricultural matter, and I thank the former minister of agriculture for recognizing a talent which he had not accepted at the time I was sitting in almost the same seat he is now occupying.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I hope the minister will now answer the question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon. friend knows, the government set aside the sum of $500,000 to be expended for the people of Italy because of the damage suffered as a result of recent storms, particularly in the Florence area. An interdepartmental committee has been advising the external aid office and it has been decided to use $400,000 of this sum for the purpose of purchasing cattle. It has not yet been decided how the remaining $100,000 will be spent.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister has not yet
said-in view of the fact, as I understand it, that he has not had the time to use his expert judgment in selecting these animals himself -to whom he has delegated this job.
January 16, 1967


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: As I said, there is an interdepartmental committee on which the Department of Agriculture is represented, of course, and the minister has exercised a supervisory control over the matter.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: My
question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. In view of current rumours in Ottawa last week that the First National City Bank of New York wrote a letter to the minister of finance, who was then Hon. Mr. Gordon, one month before the confrontation of Mr. Gordon with Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. McFadden, would the Minister of Finance inform the house whether such a letter was received. If so, would it be possible to table the letter before the Mercantile Bank officials present their case to the banking committee?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled by this question and I would like to take notice of it. I would like to read it very carefully, since I am not aware of any such correspondence but would hesitate to deny its existence.


John George Diefenbaker: Read Mr. Gordon's book.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder whether I could help the present Minister of Finance find this letter. I understand it was mentioned in the book published last year by the ex-minister of finance.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member would not be satisfied with the minister's answer, which was that he wishes to take the question as notice.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Finance with respect to the Mercantile Bank of Canada.
Could the hon. minister tell us if he has received other representations from American banks, the Chase and Manhattan Bank in particular, headed by another member of the Rockefeller family?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I have had representations about the Mercantile Bank from a great many people, some orally and some in writing. I will have to take this question as notice.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY-INQUIRY AS TO INCREASED TOLLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister advise the house whether discussions dealing with the possible increase of the St. Lawrence seaway tolls are still proceeding; and have any conclusions been reached in these discussions?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: As I told the house the other day, discussions are proceeding with the United States authorities but they have reached no conclusion.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister assure the house that this matter will be thoroughly discussed in parliament before any decisions are taken?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I indicated a month ago that the normal constitutional course will be taken in this matter.



SKIING-SHORTAGE OF FUNDS FOR NATIONAL TEAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the charming parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. My question is based on the very unexpected and distressing news that the national ski team of Canada is running out of funds and will have to return to Canada before the international ski competitions in Europe have been completed. I think this would be a tragedy, and I should also like to point out that Nancy Greene comes from Rossland, where the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner) was born.
Since this has become known I have received telegrams from various places. One of them, coming, to me from Nova Scotia, sends $100 in aid of the ski team. I have also received telephone calls offering $500.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask his question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have just come to that point. I have received telephone calls from five people, each of whom is offering $100. I
11822	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry should like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether, in view of the fact that Nancy Greene is one of Canada's great ambassadors, the necessary funds could be provided from the physical fitness and amateur sports fund for the purpose of maintaining the ski team in Europe. Failing that, I should like to suggest to the members of parliament that we should immediately go to a local bank and arrange for a loan so we can send funds overseas, and then have this sum taken as a payroll deduction from members' indemnities if necessary at the end of the month.


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could suggest that the minister inquire whether the hon. member who has just spoken would be willing to underwrite this whole operation, inasmuch as the team is from his riding.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am willing to put up my $100. I would like to hear an answer from the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question which is supplementary to the previous question I asked the parliamentary secretary. Is the government interested in keeping the national ski team over in Europe to finish these competitions.
Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and
Welfare): May I bring this question to the attention of the minister, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is based on the announcement by the Minister of Labour to the effect that study groups are being set up across the country to examine the housing shortage. Will the Minister of Labour assure the house today that these study groups will not take the place of immediate action which is required to alleviate the present situation?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, if the action taken in arranging for the mayors and other heads of different municipalities, lending institutions and house building firms to meet and discuss housing

DEBATES	January IS, 1967
matters jointly with the federal and provincial governments can be considered as study groups, then my answer to the hon. member's question would be yes, such meetings are to be held. These meetings are taking place not only for the purpose of reporting progress on what has happened during the last two years, but for getting the advice and the suggestions of all people concerned as to how house building may be stimulated. In the meantime the government has the matter constantly in mind, and I am hopeful that within the next three or four weeks a further announcement will be made.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Because of the present crisis situation have these study groups been given a date by which they must report their findings so that action can be taken forthwith?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I do not really consider these conferences to be study groups. I thought I had explained that they are conferences or symposia.


William Heward Grafftey: Whether they are conferences, symposiums or study groups


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member received an answer from the minister. I suggest we should proceed to another question.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In order to assist the minister in the solution of problems which he has created in national defence, what information may we give to ambitious officers in the services in order that they may "develop or increase their tri-service potential"? This phrase occurs in the departmental order. Is support for unification the main qualification?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member will recognize that the question in the form it is now put is argumentative, and I do not think it is acceptable.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I was asking for information that I thought the minister could give. If he cannot answer that question may I ask the minister this one. What is the unified force to which he refers in the order that has gone out to the services?
January 16, 1967


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman's question is based on a wire story by the Canadian Press. On reading this wire story I checked it out with the defence staff and I was informed that the charge is not correct. The writer took excerpts from two separate documents and put them together to reach a false conclusion. At no time is an assessing officer asked to indicate the attitude of the person being assessed toward integration or unification.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: A supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister now prepared to answer the question I put to him in December with reference to the qualifications for advancement in the armed services?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I cannot at this particular moment recall the question, but I would be glad to look through my files and see whether I can find it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The minister did not answer my question and may I repeat it. What is the unified force referred to in the order that went out from his department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the question is in order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is there a unified force in existence in Canada now about which we have not been informed? That is what I am asking the minister.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is the force as a whole, Mr. Speaker, and there is a considerable amount of unified thinking in it at the present time. This has developed logically from the policies which have been evolved over the last two and a half years, and I hope that ultimately my hon. friend will be able to see the merit in them and give this particular concept his full and unqualified support.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should now like to repeat the question that I put to the minister some time ago to which he has difficulty in finding an answer. May I ask the minister whether prior to proceeding overseas servicemen were interviewed at Camp Gagetown and told that promotions were available providing that they met certain qualifications? Can the minister answer that? If he is an intelligent individual he should be able to.
Inquiries of the Ministry NORTHERN AFFAIRS



APPEARANCE BEFORE COMMITTEE OF RETIRING COMMISSIONER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that the commissioner of the Northwest Territories, Mr. Sivertz, is retiring today following a distinguished public career, particularly in service to northern Canadians' would the minister extend an invitation to Mr. Sivertz to appear before the parliamentary committee so that members might have the advantage and benefit of his knowledge and viewpoint which have proven so popular in the north?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I would think that is the responsibility of the committee; thereafter it would be a matter for Mr. Sivertz or any other Canadian who wished to appear. I would think he would appear, though I do not know what are his plans. He tells me he is taking an extended holiday.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-
Tisdale): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that a commission is investigating farm machinery prices, would the minister consider imposing a moratorium on these prices since they are going up all the time and the farmers will not be in a position to buy any more of this machinery?
Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should delude the agricultural community by indicating that we have any constitutional authority-authority known to myself, at any rate-to freeze prices. I have interviewed various officials from the major farm machinery companies, and I hope I will have some information available shortly in this regard.


Mr. Rapp:: A supplementary question.
Would the government not have authority to stop the rise in farm machinery prices until the commission is able to present its report?


Michael Starr: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In
January 16, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry view of the fact that the minister was successful on one occasion in holding prices in the steel industry, could he not intervene in the same way and under the same authority and ask the farm implement manufacturers to hold their prices in order to help the farmers?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of Agriculture has been discussing this matter with the farm implements companies, and I have the utmost confidence in my colleague.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. More than six weeks ago the minister said he would consider the advisability of tabling copies of correspondence between himself and the farm machinery companies relating to recent price increases. Has the minister had enough time to make that decision?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I saw the last of the presidents of the various companies recently, and the matter is still under consideration.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statement by the premier designate of the Bahamas, Mr. Lynden Pindling, that that country would be interested in becoming more directly associated with the United Kingdom, the United States or Canada, will the government reciprocate this interest by discussing this question with representatives of the new government of the Bahamas?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Bahamas were represented at the Caribbean commonwealth conference which was held here last July. That conference decided on certain courses of assistance, which the Canadian government proposed, to endeavour to give help to the Caribbean countries. This covered external aid, assistance in transport and in education, etc. A meeting is to take place in Saint Lucia at the end of the month on certain aspects of the conclusions which were reached then. However, this meeting will not of course deal with the political implications which are involved in the question put by my hon. friend.



SHOES__EFFECT OF IMPORTS FROM ASIATIC


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Is the minister aware of the difficult situation in which the Canadian shoe manufacturers now find themselves due to excessive importation of these products from Asian and communist countries?
If so, will the hon. minister inform the house as to the steps he intends to take in this regard; also, will our representatives in Geneva be advised in time to avoid a catastrophe in this industry?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been brought to my attention before and it is under consideration. It is a fact that imports of shoes have increased, but domestic production has substantially increased too. This is a matter of world competition and we are considering the position of Canadian industry as well as we can, having regard to all the circumstances.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it the intention of the Canadian Wheat Board, or would the minister ask the Canadian Wheat Board to give favourable consideration to making a declaration that there shall be an open quota on flax, as was the case at about the same time last year?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss this matter with the wheat board and give a reply at an early date.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask
January 1G, 1967

the Prime Minister whether the Gordon Sheppard report on culture vis-a-vis the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the film board has been examined at cabinet level and whether the report will be made available to parliament. May I also ask the Prime Minister whether Sept Jours magazine is correct in stating that this report says there are permanent employees of the C.B.C. for whom the corporation has not enough production work to keep them busy, and that they continue to be paid for doing nothing.
Under all these circumstances, and in view of the fact that this report was received some months ago, would the Prime Minister table the report, 200 copies of which were produced for the government?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this report has been considered on the ministerial level. It is the report of an official to his minister and normally such reports are privileged and not made public. I should be glad to look into the situation to see if there are circumstances to justify an exception in this case.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I presume he has had drawn to his attention certain legislation, now proclaimed, of the province of Nova Scotia calling for the disclosure of the cost of credit. Does he know that the chartered banks have refused to register under this act on the grounds that it is ultra vires, beyond the jurisdiction of the province. Further, has the minister considered introducing similar legislation within the federal jurisdiction?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the house is aware, when I introduced the Bank Act I said on second reading, that that was my intention. I notified the minister from Nova Scotia of this when we met to discuss consumer credit in Ottawa some weeks ago. The government of the province of Nova Scotia is aware of the intention of this government and parliament to require the banks to reveal the true cost of their consumer loans.
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSE OF COMMONS



REPORTED SPEECH BY HEALTH MINISTER RESPECTING REVIEW OF PROCEDURES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare spoke for the government when he said in Halifax, as reported by the Canadian Press, that a centennial project for the government could be a general overhaul of parliament to salvage parliament's slipping image. If that is so, when may we expect the salvage operation to begin and of what might it consist?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the report I read referred to the overhaul of parliament. Naturally I should wish to discuss a statement of this importance with the minister when he returns. But there is no secret of the desire of the government, and I think of all members of the house, to improve the practices, procedures, rules and regulations of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The government should overhaul itself.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the modest changes which have already been made in the rules, changes which will expire unless action is taken by the government before the end of the session, how soon is it intended to introduce legislation setting up a committee to look into the present changes? Also, does the Prime Minister propose setting up a committee in the next session to recommend further changes in the procedures of the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that an all party committee for the purposes spoken of could be set up shortly. Pending receipt of a report from that committee I would hope also that the house would agree to the extension of the existing changes for another session.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of
11826	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Labour. Can he advise the house whether all applications for deferment, particularly in the field of railway yard and freight workers, have been dealt with under the Canada Labour (Standards) Code hours of work section?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: May I take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Is the Department of National Defence experimenting with the idea of providing rations to personnel by such means as t.v. dinners or other similarly packaged meals?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think that question should be asked at this time.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Minister of National Defence had an answer which he was apparently ready to give. Since the army used to travel on its stomach and sabotage has been going on since the minister took over, it is time we got an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: That is hardly a point of order.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. On November 18 last the minister informed the house that recommendations by the Canadian political youth council with respect to a youth seminar in centennial year had been accepted in principle by the centennial commission. Has the minister received official recommendations from the commission? If so, when will members of the house be informed of them?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, such a proposal from the commission was received by the government some weeks ago. After careful consideration the government decided that it would not be possible to support such a plan or proposal of the youth council. Before this decision was announced I was asked by a representative of the council to withhold any announcement to

DEBATES	January 16, 1967
this effect until they had submitted an alternative proposal. That communication took place shortly before Christmas and I have not yet received any detail of this alternative plan. I believe I was told I could expect it last Friday. As of today there is no proposal the government can support from any such council.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Apart from any alternative proposal from the Canadian political youth council, may I ask whether the government is doing anything on its own to foster or develop the idea of a political seminar or political youth parliament?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Time is so short now, Mr. Speaker. It was considered that this had to be done through an agency already established, with certain lines of communication, for it to have any hope of being effective. It was hoped that the youth council would have a proposal which would be acceptable. So far that has not come forward.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand the hon. member has a further supplementary question?


J. Michael Forrestall: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister or the government feel that there is any merit in reconvening the ad hoc committee for the purpose of resolving this matter, because of the lateness of the time?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I would be very happy to do that.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General. On Friday last I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration about the situation at a seminary or monastery at St. Jovite. The events over the week end have been extremely revealing. May I ask the Solicitor General whether members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are investigating this situation to try to find the boys who are lost or have been hidden?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that any members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are engaged in the operation referred to in the question by the hon. member. From my reading of
January 16, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	11827
Inquiries of the Ministry
the papers this seems to be a matter for the Mr. Drury: If the hon. member would cite provincial authorities rather than the Royal me an instance I would be glad to have it Canadian Mounted Police.	looked into.


Frank Howard: As the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is involved, some of the young lads having come to Canada by courtesy of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, does the minister not think that the federal authority should be interested in what has happened?


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



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Industry. Inasmuch as approximately 23,000 auto workers have been laid off owing to present and proposed shut-downs in the Canadian car manufacturing and associated industries, what plans has the minister or the government for the return to work of these people.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the lay-offs which have occurred in the automobile industry in Canada and in the United States result from a decline in the total demand for automobiles. It is hoped that the demand will rise again and that those currently laid off will be re-employed.


Alfred Dryden Hales: In view of the fact that a year ago this January Canada imported approximately $115 million worth of cars, trucks and parts, is the government proposing to take any steps to curtail these imports at a time when our own men stand idly by?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Bearing in mind that the ratio of exports to imports has improved materially over the past two years I do not think the hon. member's suggestion is really warranted.


Michael Starr: In view of what the minister has said about the decline in sales, could the hon. gentleman find out why it is that some people have to wait seven or eight weeks for delivery of cars? Is it because the manufacture of some of the popular makes has now been transferred to the United States?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do not think that is the reason.


Michael Starr: Would the minister find out?


Michael Starr: There are hundreds.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Can the
minister tell us how many models previously made in Canada are now being produced only in the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is obviously a question requiring statistical information and it should not be asked now.


William Heward Grafftey: Would the minister suggest to the industry, in the light of the mail which hon. members have been receiving, that the buying public is waiting for safer cars before making purchases?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William Heward Grafftey: I think this is a very valid question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the minister has noted the question.


William Heward Grafftey: Could he answer it then and tell us whether he has made representations to the industry suggesting that the buying public in North America are waiting for safer cars, and that this is why they are not buying cars today?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to be too difficult. I will not argue with the hon. member. I will allow the minister to answer the question.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, I have not made such representations to the manufacturing industry.



REQUEST FOR TELEVISION COVERAGE OF WORLD HOCKEY TOURNAMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  T. S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister of which I have sent him notice. In order to soothe the injured feelings of the publisher of the Campbell River Courier and renew the faith he has in the Prime Minister as a hockey fan, will the right hon. gentleman take steps to ensure that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will give coverage to the forthcoming world hockey tournament including, if necessary, the making available of sufficient funds to the corporation to enable this to be done?
January 16, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to look into the hon. member's question which I received shortly before coming into the house. I understand, however, that this tournament is taking place not under Canadian but under international auspices, and that it is the organizers who would be responsible for the allocation of broadcasting and television rights. I am informed that these rights for Canada have been allocated to C.T.V., in what manner I am not sure. I will be glad to look into the matter.



SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF LACROSSE AS NATIONAL GAME

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Priltie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister and it also relates to fitness and sport. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, as the representative of that great lacrosse city of Cornwall, will be interested. I want to know whether the government will bring in a bill during this centennial year to establish lacrosse officially as Canada's national game, thus correcting an apparent oversight by the Fathers of Confederation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think we should have a national summer game and a national winter game.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Secretary of State.
Since Mr. Yvon Groulx, former Conservative candidate, is against confederation, since Mr. Jean-Noel Tremblay, former Conservative member of parliament is against confederation, since Mr. Maurice Allard, former member of parliament-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member formulate his question?


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to prove that French Canadians who are members of the Conservative party are extremists.
Mr. Speaker, my question is the following: Does the Secretary of State consider publishing a realistic and objective study, in order to prove that confederation was profitable to all provinces of Canada including Quebec?


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question to the hon. Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker.
In order that the study may be realistic and impartial, could the hon. Secretary of State conduct that study, without being asked in advance to prove such a thing, but to demonstrate only the realism of confederation?

On the orders of the day:


Frank Howard: Before the orders of the day are called, might I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would he get in touch with Canadian National Railways to establish whether that company's advertising and public relations arrangements are not somewhat premature? I make specific reference to a sign in the company's Sparks street office which wishes people a merry Christmas.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps this is one question today that I may be allowed to say is not urgent.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister indicate if and when he intends to move the establishment of a parliamentary committee on the national capital?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would anticipate that a proposal to set up such a committee would be made during the next session. I do not think it is realistic to expect such a committee to do the volume of work which will be required of it in the course of the present session.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Transport whether he has received a communication from Robert Cook, national president of the Canadian Merchant Service Guild, drawing his attention to the sinking of the tug M. V. Gulf Master on January 11 with the apparent loss of five
January IS, 19S7
[Stage Direction]


lives, this being the third tug of steel construction which has sunk during the last two months, involving loss of life, and the seventh or eighth in the last three years. Has consideration been given to holding an immediate public inquiry into the design, construction, manning and general seaworthiness of similar vessels inasmuch as this organization is naturally alarmed at the situation?
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have received such a telegram and, as I pointed out in reply to a question asked, I believe by the hon. member for Vancouver East on the last sitting day, an immediate investigation into this matter was undertaken by my department and as soon as a report on that investigation has been made a decision will be reached as to whether a public inquiry should be held.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Solicitor General. In view of the minister's statement last week that the case involving Paddy Neal and Tom Clark is under active consideration, is he now in a position to inform the house if and when these Vancouver trade unionists, who incidentally are constituents of mine, will be released from jail?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I have asked that the file be brought forward to a date early in February for further consideration.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Can
such a statment be made before their prison term is up?



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he tell the house whether his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Mount Royal, is chairing a committee on ways and means of revising the constitution of Canada and, if so, what is the composition of that committee?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is an interdepartmental
Transportation
committee at an official level and my hon. friend the member for Mount Royal is participating in it as an expert adviser.
9 (3:50 p.m.)



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 13, 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 on January 13, 1967, new section 314D of clause 42 was under discussion. It is to be found on page 29 of the bill.
On clause 42.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose on Friday I was urging the minister to give serious consideration to accepting an amendment to new section 314D. The remarks I made on Friday were along the line that we should not repeat the mistakes of previous legislation but should give the Canadian Transport Commission the power to direct.
I asked the minister why he had used the words "may recommend" in the new section in view of the representations which I had made earlier in the debate on second reading and on at least one occasion in the standing committee. His answer seemed to be that the board and the minister should not interfere with private enterprise, and I think he was referring to the Canadian Pacific Railway. His answer to my mind was not sufficient reason, and it aroused me to such a degree that even though I had made up my mind just to ask him to consider an amendment, relying on his good will in an effort to try to produce a good bill, I have in the interim, with the approval of the official opposition caucus committee, prepared an amendment which I hope the minister will accept.
Before I move the amendment I am going to give the minister a copy of it so that he can follow me more precisely as I speak. The words in my amendment are not as strong as I would like them to be. I would like to see the new section read "shall direct", without any "may" in it at all, but I recognize that this might defeat the very purpose for which I am battling. If you tell a board that they shall

January 16, 1967
Transportation
direct then, the human nature of board members being what it is, they would tend not to make any directions at all. Therefore in my amendment I am proposing in effect that the words "may recommend" be left in the new section and that additional words be added so as to give the new super board some feeling of the desire of this committee that they may, if they wish, make a direction.
The second reason why I have softened down my amendment from what I originally wanted is that I recognize there are consequential effects to using the word "shall," one of them being that it would affect the ways and means of the public treasury. If I used the words "shall direct" I could run into a situation where the Chair would have to rule my amendment out of order on good and legitimate grounds. Therefore I have worded my amendment in such a way as to achieve the most of what we on this side of the chamber would like to see in the new section without interfering in any way, so far as I can see, with the balance of ways and means of the public treasury, and in the hope of securing its acceptance by the minister, without that acceptance infringing upon the arguments he put forward even though his arguments, in the words of one of my colleagues, were specious. If I could get the minister's favourable consideration for this amendment we would feel that he would have gone quite a bit of the way toward meeting the ideas of the opposition without in any way tying his own hands or the hands of the commission.
My amendment is that in the second line of new section 314D (1) there be added after the phrase "may recommend" the words "or direct as it sees fit". I have copies of the amendment in French if anyone wishes them. I have talked about my amendment at some length in order to give the minister a chance to read it over before commenting on it, and possibly he would like one or two other official opposition members to comment on it before he makes a statement. This would also give his officials time to examine it.
The amendment would give the commission the option of making a recommendation or an order. If the railways accept such an order then we would have achieved our purpose. If the railways do not accept such an order, particularly if there would be any resultant loss to them, then of course they can follow the procedure laid down later under subclause (3).
I am thinking of situations in which the commission could be shown by its experts that there were various things it could direct the

railways to do, for example, make one railway use another railway's lines for running rights, make one railway abandon one line and use a line of the other railway between the two, or issue directions related to interconnections, which the bill covers, thus making the railways operate more efficiently and thereby saving money for the directors and for the Canadian National organization. I would hope that all such directions would be made for the purpose of having the railways operate better and more economically.
Those of us who live in western areas that were over-built by the railways know of many examples to which my amendment would be applicable. We know that experts, in the form of royal commissions, have recommended that changes be made. We also know that changes have not been made. Therefore, when we are drafting new legislation can we not put our trust once again in a commission but this time give it a little more impetus in the form of direction from the House of Commons by saying it will have the power to recommend or direct as it sees fit? This would also give the governor in council an indication of what was or was not being done by the railways in carrying out the wishes of the commission.
There is a second argument which carries a great deal of weight. Railway management being what it is, I suspect that many times railway management would like to propose certain things that would improve the efficiency of its operations but if one railway first made a proposal then in dealing with the other railway or railways, as the case may be, it would in effect lose some of its bargaining power in the actual working out of the details. For that reason there may be a reluctance on the part of railway management to put forward proposals, hoping that somebody who is neutral will make those proposals so that management will not lose its bargaining power.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I can think of one or two examples where this has been so. I am referring now to experiences I had in the spring of 1961 when I was attempting to get grain moved through the west coast ports. There is no doubt that railway management experts, terminal operators, the people on the dockside and others involved in the movement of grain all advised the minister of the day that all that could be moved through the western ports was 15 million bushels per month. Yet after the railway officials sat down with each other, after the
January 16, 1967

unions sat down with management and after the civil servants sat down with all these groups, they were able to come up with an answer which guaranteed that the capacity of those ports would not be 15 million bushels a month but rather 21 million bushels a month. The records will show that in one month the figure of 21 million bushels was exceeded and in fact 29 million bushels were handled.
Were I to tell the committee of all the examples of what was being done in the name of competition it would drive many members away from the concept of competition. What I am trying to say is that there is good competition and there is bad competition. If competition takes the form of one train crew on one railway hauling grain cars across the crossing to block the other railway's access to the port, this may be competition of the old-fashioned sort but is not the kind of competition which brings about the maximum movement of grain. When this situation was presented to the railways they readily agreed that they could change authority from day to day and thus keep the lines clear. In respect of the movement of grain on the west coast, once you get railway management to sit down with unions, with private business and with government groups you are able to clear away all these little practices which have grown up over the years in the name of competition with the idea of getting the best for one company.
I should like to remind hon. members that if the railways benefit, certainly the terminal operators benefit and the workers at the docks and at the terminals benefit. Certainly the business groups benefit and I know the people of Canada benefit. If with this amendment we can get around a difficulty in respect of railway management and have a board which will move with some dynamism in reducing obstacles in railway management in western Canada and if as a result of this progressive dynamism we can get a reduction in the cost, then we will not be constantly faced with higher freight rates and demands for greater subsidies.
That is the second reason I think it is advisable in the long run to use the words "may recommend or may direct" in respect of the commission. I know the word "may" is not as strong as some of us would like it to be. Possibly this is because we have had such a long experience of suffering under the type of emergency where so-called private enterprise fails to do the best thing in its own interest and then turns around, blames everybody but
Transportation
itself and asks for abolition of the Crowsnest Pass rates, higher freight rates and so on when the answer lies right within itself to a larger and larger degree.
The third point, which is minor but important, is that now that the tremendous movement of grain across the west has removed all the argument that there is any loss in respect of the Crowsnest Pass rates there is even greater reason to make absolutely sure the railways can take advantage of the tremendously increasing net return which they derive from the doubling of the amount of grain so that each year they will be able to make the necessary changes in management and run their railways. One thing that all private business tends to do, so long as there is a profit, is never to worry about the fact that there are still savings to be made.
In presenting these arguments I believe I express the hope of a good many people that we can run these railways in a more efficient manner, that we can keep freight rates down by good private enterprise management and represent the interests of the public by giving to this board not only the right to recommend to the railways but also the right to direct.
Finally, although I do not know what is going to happen when we vote on the amendment concerning the setting up of the stronger type of committee which we recommend, whether we set up this stronger type of committee or continue with the present standing committees which are so much under the control and direction of the government of the day, I am sure that with this particular amendment parliament will have a little better measuring stick by which to ask questions. Not only this, but under this type of amendment we will be able to ask what recommendations have been made to the railways. We will have the right to ask the transport commission what directions they have given and if they have not produced directions to meet obvious inefficiencies we will then have a right to reconsider what we have done under this bill. Whether we have the stronger committee which has been suggested or the present type of committee, the words "direct" or may direct" give a little more leverage. I strongly recommend the acceptance of this simple and yet flexible type of amendment which will strengthen the bill and give the feeling to the people of Canada that they have a little more say over their own economic affairs.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before anyone else speaks I should like to raise one or

January 16, 1967
Transportation
two points. Fix'st, I believe the hon. gentleman made the point that instead of putting the word "shall" into his amendment he was going to use the word "direct" qualified by "may". He suggested that if he had put in the word "shall" it might have involved the kind of amendment that could be moved only after a message from the crown. I cannot help but think that if the hon. gentleman has doubt in the one case it would be just as great in the other case because the direction, no matter whether it be an obligation imposed by this parliament or permission given to this board, does not empower the commission to lay an extra charge upon the exchequer. I suggest it would be equally so with regard to the competence of a private member to amend.
If that is an objection to the amendment I do not think the hon. gentleman has improved the position by saying "may" instead of "shall". I would think, if there is a disposition to accept the amendment, that it would be less objectionable to have the word "may" than the word "shall". In the first place, I do not know how the commission would be able to know when it should. There would seem to be a logical difficulty there.
The second point I should like to raise is that I do not think I have much objection if the direction involved is a direction to the railways to provide running rights over each other's lines in certain cases where a contingent loss to one or the other of the railways might be involved. However, it certainly would not involve an order to them to divest themselves of their property. If the commission directs a railway company to lease something is the commission going to determine at what price it should lease it? If you direct someone to purchase something is that also a direction to sell and, if so, at what price? It does seem to me that, taking this kind of consideration into account, you would arrive at certain difficulties which I think would have to be met by more explicit legislation indicating how the direction shall be carried out and who shall determine the adequacy of the compensation.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I think it is clear from the next subsection that there would be additional costs of operating a line which could be recovered from the treasury and be treated as losses. That is true when it affects one branch line of a certain type, but what would be the situation in ordering a railway company to abandon a certain line when it did not feel there was any loss? That conceivably could be done under
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
this arrangement, but how do you measure that?
It seems to me there would be a host of problems created by any kind of direction which would involve doing anything more than the bill already provides by the use of the word "recommend". The recommendations would be made not just to the railway companies but also, if they involved any kind of intervention by the government, to the Governor in Council, and if some expenditure was required to make compensation or do something of that kind, it would be open to the Governor in Council to ask parliament to provide the necessary money.
I think the suggestion that the commission is not being given adequate powers to accomplish anything that we really would wish to be accomplished is met by the bill as it is. I cannot help but think that a recommendation made public, as it would have to be, indicating quite clearly that there were advantages and what the advantages were, would be something which no railway company could possibly afford to disregard unless it was a patently foolish recommendation and one that could be demonstrated to be foolish.
In any event, if there was a recommendation which involved action by the government it would be perfectly competent on the part of the government, no matter what view the railway company might take, to accept the recommendation if in its wisdom it felt it should and if it was within its power. The powers given to the Governor in Council are a good deal wider than the powers we are asking to give to the commission, and I think for a very good reason. The advisers of the Governor in Council are here and can be called upon to account for their actions by the representatives of the people, whereas it would be of considerable significance if a body which of necessity was in the correct technical sense irresponsible, by which I mean independent, were given the power to say that a property shall be transferred from one person to another. Under those circumstances we would be saying that essentially arbitrary acts should be carried out. I am not going to reject the suggestion out of hand. I do want to obtain some advice from my officials before I finally make up my mind because I recognize that everyone taking part in the work of the committee here is trying to improve this bill.
I have had a rather strong predilection all my life for persuation and reason rather than for direction and coercion. That is one of the reasons I remained throughout the second
January 16, 1967

January 16, 1967
Transportation
I also think that if the amendment is pressed Your Honour will have to consider the point raised by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle whether it does imply any contingent charge upon the crown. There may be one or two other hon. members who would like to say something about the amendment right now, and therefore I wonder whether we could let it stand so that my officers could consider it further. We could pass on to the next paragraph and try to make a little progress while the matter is under consideration.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: not an insurmountable obstacle. The companies in question can try to negotiate terms under which they will lease facilities to each other or allow lines to be used by both companies, and if they cannot agree by negotiation on some mutually satisfactory figure the matter can be referred to the courts for decision. If this commission does not want to be a court of last appeal, the matter can be taken to the courts. This has been done repeatedly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman would not contend that this could be done by divine law. Parliament must make some provision whereby this could be done if it were not done by this section.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I agree with the minister wholeheartedly. I am not saying that these simple words will do that. If the minister accepts the principle of this amendment I would certainly think he is the one who has to work out the consequential amendments. As my colleague, ttie hon. member for Springfield, said the other night, we had prepared an amendment but we did not move it. There are just too many consequential amendments that have to be moved, and this is really something which the government draftsmen have to do. I suggest to the minister that the task of making the consequential amendments is relatively small compared to the benefits that can be derived from assuring the Canadian people that this commission will not be another recommending body or another referee whose decisions can be totally ignored.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would address himself to the clause under discussion. This clause deals exclusively with branch lines; it does not deal with any broad scheme of rationalization. It seems to me that if he could just get down to earth on the matter and see whether any directions could be made which would in fact accomplish what the recommendations would not we would be getting further along.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister is aware of many instances in which there is duplication in this country, lines where both the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. are operating in the same district and where one line could be discontinued and the other used by both railways. This situation has been faced again and again and no action has been taken. Under subsection (1) of 314D I take it that if the commmission directed that there be some rationalization with respect to any two lines the company would be required to carry it out. I agree that the minister would have to make consequential amendments to
Transportation
provide for the manner in which the financial terms would be agreed upon, but that should not be very difficult. However, I think that the words which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is recommending should be inserted after the word "to" rather than after the word "companies", so that it would read:
In the exercise of its duties under section 314C the commission may recommend to, or direct as it sees fit, railway companies the exchange of branch lines between companies by lease, purchase or otherwise-
Wherever it is dealing with rationalization, if the commission finds that the making of recommendations is not sufficient to get adequate action to remove wasteful duplication I think it should have the power to direct the companies in question to carry out the program of rationalization set forth by the commission. I do not think that the financial terms need to be an insurmounable obstacle. The minister could either provide that the two companies negotiate and try to agree on a figure or if that failed the commission itself could set down a figure which would always be subject to appeal. Another alternative would be for the legislation to provide that in the event of failure to reach a mutually satisfactory settlement the matter could be referred to the courts.
We are arguing for the principle and I would hope that when the minister discusses it with his officials he will give serious thought to this matter. I think the success of the commission, particularly with respect to the matter of rationalization, will depend on the extent to which it has some power and the extent to which the act has some teeth. The minister may be right that in many cases a recommenadtion will be sufficient. However, I think the knowledge that the commission has the power, in glaring instances, to issue a directive would have a very salutary effect on the co-operation which it would receive from the railroad companies.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, a couple of points were raised by the minister which I think should be nailed down at this stage. So far as the financial consequences of this amendment are concerned I would suggest that they are nil. Let me refresh the memory of the minister on the section under discussion. At the present time, under this bill as it is drafted the commission may recommend the leasing or exchanging of operating rights. However, subsection (3) provides that the commission may recommend certain steps in the operation of railways to improve their

January 16, 1967
Transportation
efficiency and, I suppose, to reduce their costs. If a company feels that it will have to bear a loss as a result of a recommendation the commission may, according to this section, report that to the cabinet. However, suppose that the commission makes a recommendation in a csae in which there is no loss to either railway, and this is what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and I are fighting for. We come from an area where there are many cases of the railways being able to reduce their costs and make money by operating in a rational way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman not think that this is precisely what the railways have been trying to do for quite a number of years and have been prevented from doing by two successive governments because every application they have made to abandon lines in order to reduce their costs has been frozen at the request, first, of the government to which he belonged and, second, of the government to which I belong? There does seem to be a rather odd contradiction in this debate. Until we reached this paragraph nearly everyone who spoke-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the minister asking a question? May I remind him that I had the floor?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1 apologize to the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The railways are abandoning lines with the one hand and building duplicate lines with the other.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Let me finish my argument. I want to emphasize what I was saying previously, that the commission may recommend, and if that recommendation is acceptable to both companies and they can thereby save money nothing further happens under this bill. However, if it recommends something to the companies which would involve losses the railways are allowed the privilege of going to the cabinet to get a ruling on how to meet the cost if it is not met under section 314D.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I suggest that by this amendment we would correct a flaw in the bill; it would provide that the commission may recommend or direct, as they see fit. At the moment, if they are given the power to direct and this direction is not obeyed by the railways, provided there is no loss by either company and therefore no right to raid the public treasury there is no question of any consequential effect upon the balance of ways and means.

One of the arguments raised by the minister was that he would have to ask the Chairman to rule whether the amendment did affect the right of the government to be the only body capable of effecting a payment out of the public treasury. I am suggesting that it does not. Subclauses (1), (2) and (3) make it very clear that the board is not required to raise any objection unless there is a loss to the railways. Where there is no loss, nothing is done.
As a digression, Mr. Chairman, I point out that if you read the bill carefully you will find that even where there is a loss the transportation commission does not have to take the matter to the cabinet. As I have already put on the record, if there is a loss the commission may in its discretion make a recommendation to the governor in council. What I am primarily dealing with in my amendment is a gap in the legislation. In effect it gives some indication to the national transportation commission that parliament wants them to make a direction if they find that the railways are not following their recommendations. This direction will be given in cases where mutual advantage to both railways will flow.
If there is any adjustment in charges to be made for operating on another company's line or for selling certain equipment in the case of a line to be abandoned, then this is a mundane matter that can be worked out by these people. They are skilled at costing. They have records going back years of how much writeoff has taken place and so on, so I do not think that this would be a difficult problem to overcome. By this amendment we will give the commission a little more power to direct. If those directions relate to any loss of public money, then this circumstance is already covered in the bill. But my point is that I want them to have this power to direct.
The minister made two or three other points. He said that he did not like direction by commissions affecting public or private property.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Unless it is really necessary.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Unless it is really necessary. All the way through the bill the power to direct is given. Although this might be an extreme statement I can be caught out on, I think that if I were to go through the bill I could find a dozen cases where the board is given the power to order and direct. In this instance what is the matter with giving them the power to make recommendations or to
January 16, 1967

direct as they see fit on a matter which relates to the railways saving money and therefore saving money for the public purse?
I think the arguments raised by the minister can be described as begging the question. I hope he takes this matter to his officials. I am willing to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. If the amendment requires some further change to deal with a situation where the railways do not accept the direction, this is up to the drafters. We cannot do it here. This is not because it affects the balance of ways and means; it is because it is a matter of coherence and logic in drafting.
The principle for which we are battling here seeks to do more than was done in the act of 1935 and to give this additional impetus to the commission of the power to direct. We have not harnessed or restricted them in any way beyond the fact that we are trying to encourage them to stand up and be counted if they find that their recommendations are not obeyed.
I should now like to move my amendment so that something tangible is before the committee. Therefore, I move-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member moves it I wonder whether he would consider a suggestion I should like to place before him. If he moves the amendment as it now stands I would have no option but to ask the Chair-and I do not want to waste a lot of time with procedural arguments-to consider very carefully whether it is an admissible amendment. In his amendment to subclause 1 the hon. member is proposing that we should give the power to direct, and he says that any financial implications of that direction do not matter because there is permissive power in clause 3 to refer a matter to the governor in council.


Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Chairman, the minister proposes to ask the Chair not to accept the member's amendment, which is not yet before the house. In my opinion, the minister should wait until the amendment is submitted to the house before making his request.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am not rising on a point of order at all. I am exercising my right to speak as a member of the committee in order to make a suggestion which I thought might help the hon. gentleman to get the sense of the committee, that is all. It seems to me that if the hon. gentleman
Transportation
seeks to put in an amendment which will give the power to direct in relation to purchases, leases and things of this sort, which might involve the railways in losses, then this would have one of two effects. It would either be confiscatory, or could be; alternatively, there would have to be some provision for compensation. There is no provision for compensation in subclause 3. There is the possibility that a recommendation can be made to the Governor in Council, who in his wisdom might see fit to ask parliament to provide compensation.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to sponsor or support any measure that is going to be confiscatory without compensation; I want to make that very clear. If the hon. gentleman wanted to change his wording to "or direct, as they see fit, in any case where there would be no monetary loss to either railway company", then that would mean that they could direct the exchange of running rights or anything else. 1 think I would still vote against the hon. member's amendment but I would not raise any point of order in connection with it.
If the hon. member feels that he would like to have the sense of the committee with respect to that change, then as I say I would not be disposed to raise any point of order; otherwise I might. I am not saying I am confident that I am right about whether or not it would or would not involve a charge, in which case in certain circumstances the situation might call for confiscation, but I would have to ask the Chair to look at that point. If some modification along the lines I have suggested could be made which permit a direction in a case where the railways would be losing money because they did not rationalize, then I would be happy to have the amendment voted on. That might be a way out of the difficulty.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Might I ask the minister a question? Is he not displaying a remarkable lack of confidence in this commission? Surely the commission is not going to make a direction that is not workable where there is provision for financial recovery under one of these later clauses from the Minister of Finance or governor in council.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I was in this house when it debated the Defence Production Act in 1955 at a time when hon. gentlemen immediately opposite were unwilling to trust far lesser powers than these given to a government and a minister, both of whom were answerable to this chamber. I find this volte-face on the part of the official opposition rather extraordinary. It is one thing to give

January 16, 1967
Transportation
power to the governor in council; it is another for parliament to do things itself. It is not a case of giving somebody not answerable to parliament arbitrary powers. I am not so surprised in the case of hon. gentlemen in the N.D.P. but I am rather surprised, considering the history of the last ten years, to find that attitude immediately opposite.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Baldwin:: We had a parliamentary committee look at this matter.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If I may go back into history, I do say that there is a difference between the man who was minister of defence production and the Minister of Transport today. Those words hold true if I am right in assuming that the minister of defence production in 1955 was Right Hon. C. D. Howe. His attitude toward parliament was different from the minister's. That is the first point.
Second, the war has been over for some time and defence production does not play as great a part today. Parliament wants to control things differently now. The point is that parliament is being asked to give considerable power to a board. We are doing so reluctantly because we see no way out. That is strictly in harmony with our past positions. In this section we have tried to strengthen the hand of this board, and under clause 20 we shall ask that parliament control it to a greater extent than now envisaged.
The point raised by the minister does not change the picture much. We contend that if the amendment I propose carries it will involve no more or no less financial commitment than under the clause as it stands. Second, it was contended that this amendment might be understood to apply in cases where there was no monetary loss to either railway. I do not accept that.
One proposal I should like to see this commission make is that one railway abandon say 110 miles of line where there is a line of another railway beside the line to be abandoned. Obviously monetary loss would be involved in the case of one railway. That railway could use the other line to transport its goods. As I say, there will be monetary loss. At the same time, however, if as part of the deal another section of railway line, say 150 miles long, is transferred to the first railway, both railways will be better off and the public will be better off. The sum total of the deal is more profit to both railways and lower rates paid by the public.
I toss that in as a quick idea to be fed into the mill. I should like to see this amendment

before the house. I should like to see the minister stand this section. Perhaps the minister's officials could look after the drafting consequences of this amendment. If they and the minister feel there is logic in the amendment, if it is worth while, if they think our amendment is responsible, perhaps they could advise us of that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should be quite happy to stand the section for the time being to do what the hon. member suggests.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I move the amendment, Mr. Chairman? I move:
That clause 42 as it relates to the proposed new section 314D (1) be amended by adding alter the word "to" where it appears on line six of page 29 the following: "or direct as it sees fit"


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it the wish of the committee to stand the subsection?


Gerald William Baldwin: Before it is stood may I ask the minister a question? I have in mind the wording of subsection 3 of proposed new section 314D, which reads in part as follows:
-the commission may, in its discretion, report its recommendation to the governor in council for such action as the governor in council may consider necessary-
Bearing in mind also section 24 of the Financial Administration Act, which says that subject to the British North America Act no payment shall be made out of the consolidated revenue fund without the authority of parliament, and bearing in mind the words of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam, I should like to hear the minister say something to the effect that the limitation placed on the governor in council by subsection 3 and by section 24 of the Financial Administration Act suggests that all the governor in council can do is to come to parliament and ask for an appropriation in the estimates to cover any amount which it wants to recommend. In other words, this bill does not give authority to the governor in council to make any payments. They must come back to parliament.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that would be true if you left paragraph 3-1 do not know what you call these things-as it is. But if you look at subsection 2 it is clear that, if the effect of this direction were a loss of a monetary kind, that loss would be taken into account under the principles of this bill. This is mandatory. This is not like subsection 3. If a decision is made that there is a loss on a branch line, we are giving the commission the power to order that line to be kept in operation. Parliament is
January 16, 1967

saying, when we pass this bill, that in that case the loss will be paid. There is no problem in that respect. This would be adding a new case in which there would be a charge if there were a loss as a result not of refusing to abandon but of a direction with respect to rationalization.
Probably I am being very tentative. I do not feel absolutely confident that, even if we read subsections 1 and 2 together, the amendment suggested by the hon. gentleman, which would necessarily involve a potential charge -I do not say it would be an actual charge but we know that if there is a potential charge it will be a liability-would meet the problem. It would not do that, even though there is no provision for compensation. Then the amendment would not be out of order but I should object to it strenuously on the ground that it would seek to take somebody's property, where loss had been caused, without a compensation provision.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, the minister gave an undertaking to the committee that the amendment will be taken under advisement and that the clause will be stood.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Edward Richard Schreyer: What will be allowed to stand? Is it all of new section 314D or subsections 1, 2 and 3? I wish to speak on subsections 3 and 4.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether it would make much sense to the hon. gentleman, before this question is resolved one way or the other, if we allowed the whole new section to stand. That does not in any way restrict his right to speak when we come back to it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We might as well let all of new section 314D stand.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: That would be my view. If we did not do it that way, we would get into a mess which we could not unscramble.


Thomas Miller Bell: It might be difficult for the minister when he does not have his officials here with him but could he not indicate some method, in relation to the financial provisions which are evidently the main worry here, of placing a claimant under this subsection in no worse a position than that of a person claiming under new section 314E dealing with abandonment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If we were to do that I am
afraid we would be extending the scope of the
Transportation
measure. My officials could not help in such circumstances, it would be a matter for the Chair.


Thomas Miller Bell: How is it then that a person affected by this subsection is in a less advantageous position than a person to who 314E applies, where there is the possibility that the Minister of Finance may make a payment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think that is the question which arises. The question is whether we would be imposing some kind of new charge on the Crown.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree to stand 314D?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I agree that it should stand but first I think there are one or two matters which the officials might consider. The minister rests his whole argument on the supposition that if there were any additional charge or cost to the railways because of a decision by the commission-


John Whitney Pickersgill: A direction.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -under its authority to direct, he could not agree because it might be confiscatory-


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I wonder whether I could clear up that point? What I said was that were such a cost imposed, one of two things would happen. Either there would have to be compensation in respect of it, in which case it would be an additional charge on the Crown, or else it would conceivably be confiscatory.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I understand that perfectly. May I follow up the argument by saying that if there were provision for compensation it would be beyond the capacity of an ordinary member to move the kind of amendment-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It might be.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is the point which concerns me. If we are to accept the minister's argument in this case, he must convince us that boards such as the Board of Transport Commissioners have never been authorized to make decisions which imposed an additional charge or cost on a railway company unless there was a provision for compensation by parliament. Surely the minister does not expect us to believe that. Surely he does not wish to leave the impression that the board-

January 16, 1967
Transportation


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to clear up that point. If some such provision as that had been in the bill to start with, there would be no problem. The situation now is that we have the bill before us and that there is a certain resolution connected with it. If an amendment introduces a charge which is beyond the scope of that resolution it is out of order and cannot be dealt with in the absence of a new resolution. It is not something which would be wrong under any circumstances.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not concerned now about whether power and authority should be vested in this board to impose a charge on the railways. I am not concerned at the moment about the minister's opinion on that point. I am saying that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is perfectly entitled to move that the cost resulting from a directive by the board be an additional charge on the railway.
There are many precedents for this. In dealing with the railways the Board of Transport Commissioners has handed down numerous decisions which have cost the railways money in circumstances where there is no provision for compensation by the parliament of Canada. We should be careful about raising technical questions regarding whether or not an additional charge on the railways as a result of a directive would be met by compensation by parliament or whether the railways would have to absorb that cost. As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has said, there are many provisions in this bill which authorize the commission to impose an additional cost on the railways. If the minister holds that every clause in this bill which gives the commission power to direct should also be accompanied by power to compensate, that is very different from saying that the hon. member is not allowed to move his amendment under our rules because there is a possibility that the board might make a directive which would cost the railways some money. If the law officers are to look at this clause in terms of whether or not there is a potential cost to either parliament or the railways, I should like them to clear up these points because they are bothering me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have never contended that the amendment would be out of order if it simply sought to impose a charge on the railways. I think that in certain circumstances it would be contrary to good public policy to do so, but I would not argue that an amendment to that effect would be out of order. I am concerned only about the narrow and technical point that if this amendment does

involve the possibility of payments out of the treasury, which and I am not convinced it does, of a kind for which no provision was made in the resolution preceding the bill, it would then, under our rules, be beyond the capacity of an hon. member to move or of this committee to decide. If, on the other hand, the amendment was simply to impose a charge on the railways, there might be those of us who would feel that it was not very sound public policy. But it is certainly possible for any hon. member to move such an amendment.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The minister has cleared up that point and I think he has dealt clearly with any point of order which may be raised on the subject. I am prepared to allow this section to stand until it has been examined.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Edward Richard Schreyer: The minister has been good enough to take the subject matter of the amendment under advisement and therefore is asking that the section be allowed to stand. However, I have some related comments to make and possibly the minister may agree to take my thoughts into consideration as well.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That would be a good idea.


Edward Richard Schreyer: If in the minister's position it is simply not prudent to accept the subject matter of the amendment there is an alternative approach, something in the nature of a compromise. It is that the wording of subsection (3) be changed in such a way as to make all recommendations made by the commission reportable on a mandatory basis to the governor in council.
The minister earlier made a logical and forceful argument about the wisdom of avoiding mandatory legislation at times and relying more on the discretionary approach, but if the commission is going to make recommendations to the railways there is really nothing which smacks too much of compulsion in having the commission required to report all its recommendations and the subsequent actions, or lack of them, by the railways. If such a report were made to the governor in council, then the onus would be on the cabinet to take action to protect the public interest.
I understand that this is what the minister would prefer. He implied and may even have said that he would not like to see parliament delegate power to the commission which would give it the authority to require railways to dispose of property, purchase property, or enter into leases in certain places. I took it from his remarks that if such things were
January 16, 1967

involved the power should be left with the governor in council and parliament.
If subsection (3) were amended in the way I suggest the governor in council would then be a kind of last authority in this respect and would be in a position to recommend action to parliament in the public interest. The public interest would be as well protected as the cabinet of the day wanted to protect it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman has made a very constructive suggestion. If I were a good lawyer and could make up my mind on these things without any help I would probably say his suggestion is one I would not have much trouble in accepting, but I am glad that we will have a little time to reflect on it.
I agree completely with the objective the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has in mind. We do not want these recommendations to be hole-in-the-corner recommendations. We want them to get all the publicity possible. Where the railways did not comply or showed reluctance to comply with the commission's recommendations, if it were mandatory on the commission to report to the governor in council that would ensure additional publicity and additional pressure upon the governor in council if there were some real public opinion behind the matter. I think this would improve the bill but I would like to examine it further.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I realize that I cannot move an amendment since there is already one before the committee, but with respect to subsection (3) I would suggest for the minister's consideration that all the words after "subsection (1)" in line 2 of the clause, actually line 28 on the page, be deleted up to the word "the" in line 31, and that the word "shall" be substituted for the phrase "may, in its discretion," so that the subclause would read:
Where a recommendation is made by the commission under subsection (1) the commission shall report its recommendation to the governor in council for such action as the governor in council may consider necessary in the public interest.
If this course of action were followed there would be a mandatory requirement on the commission to report all of its recommendations to the cabinet. The cabinet would then see what was recommended, what action was taken by the railways or whether the railways ignored the recommendation, and would be in a position to act if it wished.
T ransportation


Thomas Miller Bell: With reference to what has been said by the last speaker, Mr. Chairman, this is what I had in mind but may have expressed clumsily. It may be necessary to make a claim of this nature on the consolidated revenue fund through the Minister of Finance, as is provided for in a later clause, but if it were done in this way it would be simpler. Now that the matter has been brought out in the open I believe some amendment will have to be made. Otherwise the commission may take this debate as indicating it should not go very far in making a recommendation, not to mention something stronger than a recommendation.
I do not want to be understood as being against the publication of figures but I do have a question with respect to subsection (5) on page 30 of the bill. Everyone has his own ideas about draftsmanship, and this seems to me to be a clumsy provision. I wonder why the phrase "so far as it is practicable to do so" appears in lines 9 and 10. Who is being protected? What is the idea of this? It is almost an invitation not to make the relative traffic figures available.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I can explain that simply. It is provided in an earlier part of the new section that the commission may require information about traffic, costs and so on, pertaining to a branch line that is to be abandoned, and that information has to be published. But for its own purposes the commission may ask for information about a line that the railway does not want to abandon. That information is not normally to be made public but there might be certain circumstances in which, in order to justify its decision, the commission would have to publish some of this information that would normally be kept confidential. So there is no absolute guarantee of confidentiality in the case of this other information.
If it is necessary, in order that the commission can make an intelligible decision, that the commission use information about some other line that is not to be abandoned, it is not forbidden to do so. However, it is directed not to make any more of this information public than is necessary in order to prove the point at issue. This applies just to the commission.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then why put the phrase in at all?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Otherwise the commission
could be censured for giving out confidential
information.

January 16, 1967
Transportation


Robert William Prittie: I would like to make a brief comment with respect to our procedures in committee. I notice that a number of times during consideration of the bill we have had to stand clauses because the minister has to consult with his officials on very complex matters. It always seems strange to me that we allow a minister's officials to sit beside him when we are considering estimates but not when we are considering complex bills in committee of the whole. I suggest that when we establish a committee to examine rule changes this is something which should be considered because it would save time if a minister could get an instant opinion from his officials.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is nothing contrary to the practice of the house in doing that, but I do not think any official who would sit in front of me would want to give an instant opinion on this particular point and I would not want to receive it. This is a point in respect of which I should like to have a little time to reflect. We had very long sessions of the standing committee and I would have hoped that these points would be raised there. They are being raised now, and hon. members have a perfect right to do so. I think it is also quite important that I should have the necessary time to consider them. It is not a question of my being at all inhibited because of the fact that the officials happen to be sitting above the presiding officer rather than being here to advise me. I have never asked that anything be stood except when I wished time for reflection.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the minister not think that some of these matters of a semi-judicial nature could be dealt with right off the bat if his officials were here on the floor so that they could tell him whether or not something could be done?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That may be so, but it is my experience that the more lawyers there are the more opinions there are and the result is that more time is taken in disposing of matters. I say that with respect for the hon. member for Saint John-Albert who is not that kind of lawyer.


Thomas Miller Bell: I think the
minister is trying to practise a little law himself.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall new section 314D stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: New section 314E.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, I hope you will bear with me a little if I generalize to a certain extent in respect of this particular section. In my opinion this bill is one of the most important to come before the house. It affects not only the present and future of railroading but also air transport, road transport and even water transport. Therefore if one section or one clause impinges on another it becomes difficult to stick strictly to the subject matter of the one section.
I come from a pioneer district. An efficient system of railroad transportation is of the greatest importance and that is the reason I feel what I have to say is relevant to this section. To a certain extent we have become bogged down in semantics. The most important question is whether we are or are not going to streamline transportation across Canada so as to give to the pioneering people who need it most the attention they require and often have not had. When one speaks of rationalization this means, I understand, having a rational excuse to streamline our railroad system. I agree with this view 100 per cent. I believe there are a great many clauses in this bill which will help in that regard. I am afraid, however, that a commission such as we have here may become involved in so many duties that it may not be able to see the bush for the trees. In respect of the streamlining of our railroads it may forget that the main reason railroading was started in this country was to give efficient help to the pioneering people.
I had been in this House of Commons hardly a month when I took up this matter with the then president of Canadian National Railways, Mr. Donald Gordon. Of course Mr. Gordon's main responsibility was the profit and loss situation at the end of the year. This involves getting down to dollars and cents. Our main function is to see that the peoples' money is not wasted. I contend, however, that if we lose sight of the fact that service to the people is the main purpose of transportation it does not matter whether or not the books balance at the end of the year because in that event we have failed in our duty to supply the very vital link between producer and consumer. In this regard we have failed in northeastern Alberta. So, if you will excuse me, I will direct most of my attention to this particular problem.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest possible esteem for the hon. member
January 16, 1967



but I should like to remind him that we did agree we would deal with clause 42 of the bill new section by new section and stick to each particular section. It is my understanding that general speeches concerning transportation, if they have not already been made, would be made when we revert to clause 1 which was stood earlier. I have just totalled up the statistics and find that we have been in committee on this particular bill for 31 hours. That was before today so the total now would be 32J hours. We have passed 30 clauses. If we do not follow an orderly procedure in respect of this bill we will never complete our consideration of it. If the hon. gentleman has some general observations he wishes to make, I wonder whether he would consider holding them until we get back to clause 1.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Chairman, I merely beg the permission of the committee to give a little background to what I have to say because if in our consideration of these sections we do not keep in mind the main purpose of the bill our efforts will be frustrated. Sooner or later before this bill is passed I am going to say what I have in mind in any event.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is not one who takes up much of the time of the committee and I hold him in the greatest esteem, but I would hope that we could proceed in an orderly manner. I merely point out that we did have agreement that general speeches would be made on clause 1. This new section merely deals with certain ways in which the compensation will be provided if a line is not profitable and the commission orders that it be maintained in operation. We might make a little progress by following the rules which we set down for ourselves.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: If the minister will exercise the same patience toward me that I have exercised toward him within the last few hours, I think we might get to the meat of the subject. Whether or not compensation should be paid is dependent on whether or not a profit or loss is sustained. Therefore I think the question of whether there is a profit or loss is very relevant to a discussion of this section because we should not pay compensation to a railway company if that company has not done its best to make sure that the profit or loss is proper. I am not satisfied with the bookkeeping system which is used in performing this particular function. Although I have mentioned Mr. Donald Gordon, I do not blame him for this. He did make clear, however, that their method of coming to a decision was a matter of 23033

Transportation
bookkeeping. I cannot stress this main basis of my argument too strongly. I should like to refer to a specific point and I do so without attempting to delay the passage of this bill. If a railway does not operate efficiently on the ground, it cannot operate efficiently on paper.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Two railways exist in the area I represent and from time to time it has been indicated that they are operating at a loss. Neither of these railway lines has been completed. Therefore they have never had a chance to operate efficiently, whether at a profit or loss. If these lines were completed and still operated at a loss I would be the first to support subsidization or a change in the set-up. The government and parliament should provide some guide lines to this new commission so its members cannot come back five years from now and say they did not know what we wanted. We should make it abundantly clear what we want, and we do not require the services of a Philadelphia lawyer to point out our desires in this regard.
I am sure we all want our railways to operate in this country at the least possible cost. If two ends of a railway line do not meet, how can the railway operate efficiently? Anyone who knows anything about hauling freight on tracks, wheels or horseback knows it is cheaper to haul something 40 miles than 328 miles. This is particularly true when the cost is being paid by the small farmer, the homesteader or the small businessman.
It has taken nine years for me to get the opportunity to speak in this house on this subject. We have been told from time to time that the government intends to accept the recommendations of the MacPherson report. No later than yesterday the minister himself made such a statement. The MacPherson report is already out of date. It took six or seven years before we got around to discussing or implementing it, and today we are faced with an entirely different situation. If the railway lines to which I have referred were operating at a loss ten years ago that is now ancient history, and if they are operating at a loss today they are doing so because a gap in the lines has not been filled. I venture to suggest that if that gap were filled they would begin immediately to operate at a profit.
I should like to be sure that the minister and the government, as well as this parliament, will adopt a forward view in respect of the whole question of rationalization and abandonment. Let us look to the future to make sure that the pioneers still moving into certain

January 16, 1967
Transportation
areas today will have an efficient railway system at least until the end of the twenty first century. That is the kind of thinking which existed 100 years ago and I do not see why in 1967 we should not adopt the same kind of vision which existed in 1867. The people of those days did not get bogged down in semantics or make excuses for themselves because they did not have legal opinions or commissions to study the situation. A handful of brave men with visions, courage, imagination and energy built the great railway lines across this country which by and large have served us well. In a few notable areas these railway lines have not served the people well, and as an example I refer to the Athabasca area which has been served very badly.
Great steps were taken by the former administration under the present Leader of the Opposition. The Pine Point railway line was built under that administration and from the day the steel reached Hay River the line has made a magnificent profit. No company anywhere in Canada would suggest that that line be abandoned. It was built for a specific purpose. In northern Alberta today there exists the richest vein of salt in the world; yet there is only one small salt well in operation. Table salt for the world could be supplied by this area if there were an efficient transportation system between Saskatoon and Lindbergh. This would eliminate the necessity of hauling salt an extra 323 miles.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but he is now making general observations about transportation. I suggest he confine his remarks to new section 314E which refers to claims for abandonment by transportation companies.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I have in my hand a letter dated January 6, 1967, in relation to the abandonment of the line to which I have referred. I use this as an example to prove the principle in respect of which I am discussing this new section. It is suggested that 28 miles of line between Spruce Lake Junction and Frenchman Butte be abandoned. As a result, instead of having a 40-mile gap in this line there would be a 68-mile gap. This line is owned by Canada so I have a double duty to discuss it.
The reason suggested for abandoning this line is that it does not make money. How could it be expected to make money when it is not an efficiently built line? New section 314E will give the commission the power to abandon this line on the basis of the figures to which I referred a few moments ago. It may

be shown that this line has only carried so many tons of freight over this 28 miles. Perhaps no thought will be given to whether or not the very opposite result to that desired will occur following the abandonment of this line. If the gap in this line were filled in perhaps the line would show a profit of thousands of dollars. In addition, the people of this area have for years been promised an efficient railway system. If this commission decides that the line should be completed instead of abandoned, what power will it have to make sure this is done?
We have been talking for about two hours about whether or not an amendment might cause the government to impose a slight, additional burden on the taxpayers. I believe in orderly procedure in putting things through parliament, but I do not believe in withholding the right of certain people to earn a living for 40, 50 or 60 years. In this case I have not had the sense before to stand up and instruct the committee, if that is what I am doing, to tell the commission, the government, Treasury Board and the taxpayers to do something they promised to do but have failed to do to my knowledge for over 40 years.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This new section will give the power to abandon lines, but how in the world can a recommendation be made by the commission to abandon a line which has never been completed and never had the opportunity to operate efficiently and take its place in the orderly development of northeastern Alberta? If that is not relevant under new section 314E, I do not know how or when it will ever be relevant. I know I am not allowed to talk about anything which might result in an additional burden on the taspayer. I could suggest that a certain line is losing money and propose an amendment that would mean that the taxpayer would have to pay, and I would be ruled out of order. But surely it is not out of order to prevent this committee, and through it parliament, giving the commission power to stop the proper use of railroads in our part of the country. I could go on and no doubt would be ruled out of order, to mention the effect of this bill on the trucking industry, the air industry and the shipping industry of Canada. I shall not do that; I shall remain very specific in my remarks.
I hope that when the bill is finally passed the transportation commission will look at the debates and say: This is what the representatives from that part of the country intended. They intended an efficient railroad system and
January 16, 1967

if the railroads are not able to provide it and make money they are willing to subsidize them, change their freight rate structure or encourage co-operation between them and the truckers.
What I want to do here, and I think this is the only opportunity I will have to do it, is make sure that no railway line is abandoned in northeastern Alberta until all sides of the question have been heard. This subject was raised by the hon. member for Meadow Lake. I think it is necessary to repeat what he said because this part of the country has been cynically neglected. The answer with regard to that part of the country is the same as that which applied to Pine Point, namely, that we wish to have provided the transportation facilities necessary for the development of this agricultural area. When they are, wealth will flow back to this country as it has in respect of other sections of our great land.
When I came to this house the first promise I made to the people of Athabasca was that I would find out why this railroad had not been completed. In this connection I should like to read to the committee a letter received from Mr. C. W. Rump, secretary of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada. It is dated January 6 and reads in part as follows:
As a matter of information, the intention of the board is to await passage of Bill No. C-231 and such provisions respecting abandonment applications as may be in it when it is passed, and then consider the matter in the lights of such provisions.
Here we have a definite avowal that when they get the power to do it they will roll up these 28 miles of railway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The railway is just going to try. The hon. gentleman does not assume that it is going to succeed, does he?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: In view of the fact that in 40 years it has not completed the line it promised, I assume it is its avowed intention to roll it up unless this parliament does something now to prevent that happening. The same thing could be said about the line immediately to the north. Half of the great area of Saskatchewan and Alberta lies north of the North Saskatchewan river, and there is no completed railroad link running between these two great provinces. Therefore I do not think it takes very much stretching of the imagination or any great daring to suggest that we should give this experiment in orderly transportation a chance. I am not casting any
23033-749J
Transportation
recriminations in this speech on any government, municipality or vested interest. I merely beg them to make sure that when we are putting powers into the hands of these people the railways will not be able to use silence as an excuse for not doing that for which we have waited 40 years.


Maurice Rinfret: Does this conclude consideration of new section 314E?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Rinfret: We shall now proceed to new section 314F on page 32. Shall new section 314F carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall new section 314G carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall new section 314H carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall new section 3141 on page 33 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall new section 314J carry.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we should attempt to carry the whole of clause 42 because I promised to state my position on the amendment. Perhaps we could allow this clause to stand on the understanding that all the new sections have been dealt with except section 314D to which an amendment was moved by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I would like to be able to come back to that section as soon as possible after eight o'clock, if that is agreeable to the committee, because there may be a vote on it.


Maurice Rinfret: Does the committee agree that this clause be stood?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, before we reach clause 43 I should like to say a few words. I noticed that the minister a short while ago lamented the fact that we have spent, I think he said, 31 hours on 31 clauses. Looking back to the debate of last week I found that he lamented the fact that we had spent four days on the bill and had not got

January 16, 1967
Transportation
very far. It occurred to me that he was adopting the attitude of the Minister of National Health and Welfare who said similar things when he had a bill going through the house. With respect to a bill as important as this, I think the minister is making very good headway despite the obstacles he himself is putting in the way.
I checked to see what happened last week in this debate. On Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday 150 pages of Hansard were taken up in the discussion of this bill and on 90 of those pages you will find substantial comments by the minister himself. So if there is any suggestion that the bill is being delayed unnecessarily by the house I think the major portion of the blame must be borne by the minister. I hope that with this cautionary word he will do two things, one, be a better listener and cease to jump to his feet at every opportunity that seems to be offered to him and, two, cease to complain about any delay in getting the bill through the house. I hope that other ministers of the government will discontinue their complaints about delays in passing legislation. When the house is dealing with legislation of major importance we should take time to deal with it thoroughly. The less interference by the minister piloting a bill through the house, the better progress is made in the course of our discussions.
In this respect I speak from experience in the past. Hon. members may recall that the bill setting up the National Energy Board took up nine days in the house. I made no complaint. This is what the house is for. I simply caution this minister not to adopt the pleading attitude of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and not to attempt to persuade the public that the house is not doing its duty. This bill deals with transportation on a major scale and will set the course of transportation for a decade. In view of this I think we do well to examine every clause with the greatest care. I hope the minister will listen very carefully to the discussion and consult his officials whenever he has the opportunity. Instead of telling us that he is not a lawyer, which we know perfectly well, I hope he will consult his legal advisers with regard to changes suggested from this side of the house. This is the way in which this legislation will go through. I think that the house is doing a major and an effective job with this bill.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. gentleman for his fatherly advice and I will do my best to follow it.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it agreed that we stand clause 42 with the understanding that we will come back later to consideration of section 314D?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Rinfret: We shall now proceed to consideration of clause 43 on page 37 of the bill.
Clause 43 to 47 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 48-


Mr. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a brief word about an aspect of this clause which is of great interest to southwestern Ontario. As the minister knows, for some years there has been concern in southwestern Ontario about the freight rates for shipping goods from our part of Canada to other parts of the country. Rates for shipments to eastern Canada have been based on a mileage basis and therefore lower rates were being paid from places like Toronto and Montreal to the maritimes than from Windsor. The rates for shipments to the west, however, are based on block rates and shippers from southwestern Ontario have not been able to get rates based on the shorter mileage through the United States to western Canada. The geographical situation, while reflected in ratemaking to eastern Canada, has not in the past been equally reflected in rates to western Canada from southwestern Ontario.
This problem has been brought to the attention of various governments of different parties and to various royal commissions on transportation by the southwestern Ontario chambers of commerce and particularly the Windsor, Ontario, chamber of commerce on a number of occasions in the past. I myself have raised this matter in the house both when the previous Conservative government was in office and later after our own Liberal party formed the government. I think it is a departure from the usual practice to raise a matter of this type before knowing exactly what would be the attitude of one's own party. In these circumstances one often finds that members who raise such matters when they were in the opposition do not do so when their party is in government. However, I departed from this practice and brought this matter to the attention of my government in the house. Since that particular occasion I have remained in direct contact with the minister and his department on this important matter.
The freight traffic committee of the Windsor chamber of commerce decided to present a
January 16, 1967

further brief on this problem to the transport committee of the house while it was studying Bill C-231. It suggested that the freight rate problem in southwestern Ontario could be at least partially solved by a certain amendment to the wording of section 325 which is covered by clause 48 of the bill. I might add that I met with the Windsor freight traffic committee in Windsor to discuss the proposed brief with them before they appeared before the transport committee and in fact assisted them in making arrangements for their appearance before this particular committee of the house.
When the bill was reported to the house the transport committee did not recommend the particular changes to clause 48 requested by the Windsor freight traffic group. Since 1963 the Windsor area and southwestern Ontario generally have benefited from an unparalleled period of economic growth and development. I think that the policies of the present government, particularly the designated area program and the auto pact, have had a lot to do with this. The need for certain changes in the legislation governing freight rates would have appeared more significant had these other government policies which I have mentioned not worked as well as they did. However, more equitable treatment for southwestern Ontario with regard to freight rates would certainly be helpful in assuring the continuing economic health of our area. It deserves some improvement in its presently existing freight rate situation.
As the government has apparently not accepted the specific form of amendment to this clause proposed by the Windsor chamber of commerce to the transportation committee, I ask the minister to indicate just how this bill can be of assistance to southwestern Ontario. It may be that the specific amendment sought by the Windsor chamber of commerce would have been better suited to the regulatory approach of the previously existing legislation which the bill before us is designed to replace and therefore does not fit in with the different philosophy of rate-making and transportation policy which underlies the proposed legislation. It may be that the minister and the department feel that the aim of the Windsor chamber of commerce to get more equitable treatment in freight rates for southwestern Ontario shippers is in fact being met in the present bill although in a different manner from that specifically sought by it. If that is so may I ask the minister to indicate specifically how this is being done.
Transportation
It is proposed by means of this bill to bring about far-reaching changes in our transportation system to benefit Canadians generally. This bill lays down a transportation policy which will form the framework for this system for many years to come. Therefore it is important for this legislation to meet the aim of southwestern Ontario to get more equitable treatment in the freight rates that have to be paid to ship its goods across Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, without going into any detail I will say very briefly that the elimination of certain rigidities which exist at present in the law will be of benefit in the particular case of southwestern Ontario and certain aspects of the rate equalization requirements which have not been of benefit to that area which they were intended to benefit and have, perhaps to some degree, been discriminatory in another area, will not be in the bill if it is adopted in its present form. The maximum rate formula will be a substantial advantage in southwestern Ontario but I think the main advantage will be found in the new clause 16, particularly in the form in which it is now couched. It is my view that this will give the shippers of southwestern Ontario a bargaining power with the railways and ultimately recourse to the commission, if they want to have it, which will be more effective than anything in the present law.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I have one further question with respect to clause 16 which speaks of a person having the right to apply to the commission. Am I correct in my understanding that under this clause shippers will be able to get assistance from chambers of commerce and industrial commissions in putting forward their case for the removal of any inequities which they feel still exist when the bill goes into effect?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would think that there would be no difficulty.


[Stage Direction]
Clauses agreed to.
Clause 49 agreed to.
On clause 50-
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, to move an amendment to clause 50. This is an amendment which is very simple in form. It will be recalled by those of us who were in the committee that we proposed an amendment in response to recommendations made to us in the committee to put flour to be shipped

January 18, 1987
Transportation
through eastern ports on an equal basis with wheat because it has always been considered to be in the public interest to export our wheat in the form of flour so as to provide the extra earning to the Canadian people.
In the bill which was reported by the committee in its newly printed form the amendment which we now propose was not complete, although we thought at the time that it was, because of some peculiarities in shipping into which I would just as soon not go as I believe that hon. members are not especially interested in those details. The fact was that it would not have established the full measure of equality that we had intended between wheat and flour shipped through eastern ports. It was felt that it would discriminate against mills in western Canada.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
I am going to ask my colleague the Minister of Fisheries to move an amendment which, after reciting all the usual verbiage, would seek to strike out line 24 on page 43 of the bill and to substitute therefor the words "east of the 90th degree of west longitude". That is West of the head of the lakes. It means that in the case of flour shipped from the head of the lakes, which I am told quite often is moved by rail rather than by water, as is most of the wheat, the shipment will be governed by the same relative rates as from the Georgian Bay ports. This should have the effect of giving a more assured supply of flour for export through the Atlantic ports and at the same time be equitable to mills in western as well as eastern Canada.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I move:
That Bill C-231, an act to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions, be amended by striking out line 24 on page 43 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:	"east of the 90 th degree of west
longitude;"


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate our support for this amendment. As one who has been interested in flour shipments for obvious reasons, I am glad we now have the whole matter finally unravelled. I know that the milling and shipping of flour is a very complicated subject, even more complicated than the question of freight rates, but I cannot for the life of me find where we went astray in this new bill.
The minister pointed out the importance of this amendment. Like him I am in no position to go into details nor do I have the desire to
[Mr. Pickersglll.l
do so. It is very important that the balance of cost be kept in line so that grain can be milled in Canada and shipped particularly through the eastern ports to the various countries which contract for supplies. I hope that flour shipments are now put in exactly the same position they were before so far as the question of economics is concerned. In fact, I hope this amendment betters it and that even more flour will be shipped. The railways are desirous of shipping all the flour they can. I am also sure that the mills in the west want this business and are probably inactive at the moment. Perhaps the port of Montreal is busy at the moment as a result of the work of icebreakers and does not need the business as much as Saint John, but I would point out we in Saint John are very desirous of this lucrative flour business which assists all aspects of our port activities.
As I understand it, this amendment will affect all flour going through Halifax and Saint John to Cuba and like countries. If the second amendment made to the bill is adopted by the committee, about 50 per cent of our flour shipments would be affected. The present amendment extends protection to the mills in western Canada which supply about half our production. The minister understands our position. As long as shipments of flour at least remain in the advantageous position which existed before, we will have to be satisfied.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I want to indicate very briefly our support of this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I commend the minister for making this change in response to the representations made to him not only by several members of the house but also by the representatives of the flour milling industry. As the minister pointed out, a lot can be said about the importance of the amendment in bettering the position of mills farther west. It also provides increased opportunities for the eastern ports. As an indication to the minister of how important this amendment is, I point out it has been calculated that 7 million hundredweight of flour which would have been excluded was in fact moved into the ports of St. John's and Halifax-


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Saint John.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Saint John.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish it had been St. John's.


Thomas Miller Bell: I don't.
January 16, 1967


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -during this past year. It this flour had not been moved and the railways had adjusted the rate, I suggest one of two things might have happened. The western flour mills would either have been prevented from shipping by rail all the way from the mills to these ports in wintertime, the seaway being closed, or another route would have had to be found through the ports on the west coast. In some cases this is not the most economic thing to do. It would also have resulted in reduced activity at ports in the maritimes which I do not think is desirable. In other cases it might have prevented mills in western Canada taking orders to ship to specific points which could be served more advantageously by the same route as used in the past. This is at least of advantage to some regions of the country and I am very pleased that the minister has moved the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Maurice Rinfret: Shall clause 50 as amended carry?
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Chairman. I was unavoidably absent from the house last Thursday and Friday because of the funeral of the former Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba. I do not want to enter into a discussion which will involve repetition or debate any subject already dealt with, and you will have to excuse me if I err on that side and advise me if this is the case.
Under clause 50 sections 328 and 329 are being altered. The minister has already made his statement about the Crowsnest Pass rates. I have not had a chance to review all that was said during last week's debate. Though I have advised the minister to listen and not talk, obviously we shall get him on his feet again, which is never difficult. With respect to new section 329, why has there been inserted in that section on page 41 provision for a review after a three-year period of the cost of moving grain and grain products? This will affect the Crowsnest rate and open it for discussion. What is the thinking behind this? Why is a review considered necessary? Why was the three-year period decided on, after considering that particular problem?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman was a member of the government which had a bill all but ready to be introduced based on the recommendations of the MacPherson Commission, on which bill, as I stated, I based a good deal of Bill C-120 introduced in 1964,
Transportation
and I think he will remember that the majority of the commissioners found that the railways were carrying grain under the Crowsnest Pass rates at a loss. They recommended that payments be made out of the treasury to the railways in respect of that loss. That loss was to be verified each year and the payments adjusted accordingly.
Considering that now, at the introduction of this bill, so many years have passed, that we have had so many good crops and that so much grain has been moved, I did not feel that the commission's recommendation would commend itself to parliament. We could not accept the assertion of the MacPherson Commission any longer. The railways maintain that in some circumstances in some years there is some loss in carrying grain.
We as the government were not prepared to make such an assumption. As we had to provide the transitional subsidies anyway for a few years it seemed that the best thing to do was to have the whole matter canvassed over three years which should be a good period to ascertain the facts. If in the opinion of the commission, not of the railways but of the commission, there was a loss, then the governor in council could in his wisdom recommend to parliament that the loss be made up in accordance with the recommendations of the MacPherson Commission. We were not prepared to assume there would be loss.
I think the hon. gentleman understands that this bill specifically reiterates the statutory guarantee of the Crowsnest rates. It goes even further than that. At the request of various witnesses before the special committee, including the government of Manitoba, we inserted subsection 3 of proposed new section 328 of the Railway Act on page 41, which would make the rates to Churchill statutory. Up to now they have been conventional. The rates to Churchill have been the same as the rates to Fort William or Armstrong. It was felt it would be a greater safeguard to the port of Churchill to have these rates made statutory. I thought tha was a reasonable representation and I was very glad to make such recommendation to the standing committee, which accepted it. It appears in that fashion in the bill. All the other rates are in the same statutory form they have assumed in previous legislation right up to the most recent date.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer the minister to what I said previously with respect to the Crowsnest Pass rates and the

January 16, 1967
Transportation
action the commission ought to take. I also refer to part of subsection 1 of the proposed new section 329 which reads in part as follows:
-at such level of rates; and the governor in council shall take such action as he deems necessary or desirable on the basis of that report to provide assistance to such railway companies.
I was concerned that under section 24 of the Financial Administration Act no payment could be made under that provision unless parliament authorized it. This is a matter of great consequence. It has been referred to in many speeches in this house and in western Canada, and it is the Magna Carta of the grain farmers of western Canada.
This matter should not be dealt with by way of estimates. I do not think we can change the act. I emphasize to the minister that the government in power in three years' time may wish to reconsider this matter. It may decide to take action and to make recommendations affecting the subsidy to the railways. The losses sustained in hauling grain and the like might be of such a magnitude that the matter should not be dealt with purely on the basis of an estimate before this house. There should be legislation, with the usual provision to refer the matter to a committee for full discussion and the calling of witnesses. There should be a total and complete examination of the subject.
Let me make clear what I am saying. It is not adequate, it is not acceptable and it would not be satisfactory to have an item in the estimates and simply dispose of the matter in this way. The matter ought to be determined by legislation. While this may come up in three years' time, there ought to be some caveat on the part of those representing the western farmers that this matter ought to be proceeded with in the form of legislative enactment.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Very briefly I wish to comment on the last speaker's remarks. I ask the minister, since the Crowsnest rates are statutory, whether any action taken in future pursuant to new section 329 would necessarily require the government to bring in legislation. Providing financial assistance would in effect modify the existing statutory provisions regarding the Crowsnest rates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. member for Peace River is saying that there are two ways to make statutory payments. One way is by having an item in an appropriation bill which comes in by way of an estimate. Such a bill

goes through as many stages as any other bill but it is not customary to debate it extensively. Of course I am in no better position than anyone else to say what would be done in a hypothetical situation by some future parliament or at a future session of this parliament. I think it would be difficult for any government to try to put an item in the estimates to deal with the matter in the way which has been suggested unless it happened just before the expiry of parliament and it was done for one year only with an undertaking that the next year a specific bill would be brought in for the purpose. None of us, perhaps fortunately, can tell how those who come after us will behave. We have enough difficulty deciding our own conduct. But I am sure the views which have been expressed will not go unnoticed by any government which has to deal with this matter in the future.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


Mr. Barnett:: Might I ask the minister whether he learned from his experience while he was leader of the house with regard to dollar items in the estimates?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope I shall never be too old to learn.


Maurice Rinfret: May I ask the indulgence of the committee in order to make an announcement concerning the proceedings on the adjournment motion?
It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), Post Office Department-alleged tampering with mail by Hudson's Bay Company; the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae), External Affairs-India-Reported unjust treatment of Canadian engineer; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), Canadian Centennial-Trail, B.C.,-Request for stop by centennial train.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, I think all hon. members from western Canada are pleased that once again the minister has placed on record the statement that there is no thought of changing the Crowsnest Pass rates. However, the following words appear in new section 329 (1):
Not later than three years after the coming Into force of this section, the commission shall inquire into the revenues and costs of railway companies.. .attributable to the carriage of grain and grain products-
January 16, 1967

I should like to know what is meant by "inquire into the revenues". Is it likely that the commission will accept the figures of the railway companies or will it use a special costing technique to ensure that the figures cited do represent the actual cost and the actual revenue in connection with the movement of grain which, as the minister knows, is substantially more than it was even a few years ago?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The commission will, of course, not accept the figures given by interested parties. It will pay attention to the figures put forward by the railways and listen to anyone else who may wish to make representations. But it will have an accounting staff of its own, using the best and most modern techniques. It will be required to reach its own decision.


James Ernest Pascoe: Will the figures arrived at by the board be the ones upon which a decision is reached?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Undoubtedly.


Thomas Miller Bell: The minister knows that we in Halifax and Saint John are interested in flour and in port parity. Where can we anticipate that an amendment on port parity-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Clause 59, I think.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is simply the repeal of an act.


J. Michael Forrestall: One amendment will involve new section 32 9A where a description is set forth of eastern ports. Would the minister prefer it to come under clause 59?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to me that anything of that sort would come under clause 59; I think the expression "eastern port" is defined for the purpose of 329 which relates only to grain and flour.


Thomas Miller Bell: When the minister says clause 59 that is just an arbitrary number because it deals with the repeal of another piece of legislation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are trying to avoid renumbering all these clauses and there was room to put in another-


Thomas Miller Bell: That is
agreeable provided that if a debate ensues and it is necessary to make changes-
Transportation


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will make certain proposals and if the hon. member wishes to make a proposal to amend mine he is perfectly free to do so.


Thomas Miller Bell: Suppose our amendment causes a change in another clause which has already been passed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suppose we would have to deal with that problem when it arose. If the committee accepted it, it would be the will of the committee.


J. Michael Forrestall: We are trying to accommodate the minister by co-operating. We have two amendments and we hope he will accept one of them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has it anything to do with grain and flour?


J. Michael Forrestall: It has everything to do with the export and import of commodities.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it would have any relevance to this clause at all. If it does, the hon. member can make a reservation to that effect.


J. Michael Forrestall: We will make a reservation with regard to 329A and let it stand. The minister suggested 59 to avoid renumbering.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope we shall not have to keep this open. If it has to be re-opened as a consequence of something else, that is all right.


Mr. Nasserden:: With regard to 329 did I
understand the minister to say that if a government ever found it necessary to bring forward a measure of assistance to the railway companies because of losses on the Crowsnest rates, this matter could be brought before a committee of the house?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot possibly say. Three years from today it will be January 16, 1970. The election was in 1965. It would appear to me that this parliament would be ended. The hon. gentleman is almost certain not to be in the next one and even I may not be a member. So it would be foolish of us to try to predict the future.


Edward Nasserden: I cannot help feeling a little more optimistic about being back than the hon. member is. I believe it would be a good thing if the minister, as the present Minister of Transport, would state for the record his anticipation that when a matter such as this is brought before the house there will be an

January 16, 1967
Transportation
pportunity for hon. members to discuss it in committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would be my anticipation, it would be my belief, approaching certainty, that unless there were some profound change in Canada any assistance offered to he railways by this parliament for the car-'iage of grain would be debated at length at every stage and in every possible form.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)


Maurice Rinfret: Shall clause 50 as amended carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I do not like
eo consume the time of the committee but I wish to save the situation for a member who is on his way here now, flying on wings. I am not sure that the minister answered my question as to why a three year period was selected as the interval before an investigation should be made of the rates on the transport of grain. Is there any particular reason why it should be three years rather than five years?
I do not think the controversy over Crowsnest pass rates should come up within such a short interval as three years because those rates were investigated by the Mac-Pherson commission and I assume they were dealt with at some length when this bill was before the standing committee. We are now discussing the subject again. The bill provides that the rates shall come up for discussion at intervals of three years, which may perpetuate a state of controversy over a matter that should not be considered for a longer period of time.
Ten years ago this summer the problem of wheat, which was the biggest political problem at that time, rested in part on my shoulders. At that time we had a 730 million bushel surplus, with a 500 million bushel crop expected, and a surplus of soft wheat in the province of Ontario. Our exports for 1957-58 amounted to 320 million bushels. I had forecast that we would export 300 million bushels and I recall being laughed at across the country as an inexperienced, new minister who did not understand the grain trade. We all have such experiences. In fact our exports amounted to 320 million bushels. Those days are now long past.
I also recall when I was making an intensive study of the grain trade that I advanced the proposition that the practice of getting unduly alarmed over that trade each year was unsound, and that it should be looked at over a ten-year period. In my studies I noticed the rise and fall in the world demand for wheat,
[Mr. Nasserden.l
and that over a ten year period the problem tended to solve itself. That has been our experience from 1957 to 1967.
In 1957 nobody could see exports of wheat exceeding 300 million bushels, yet over the last few years we have talked gaily about exporting 500 million bushels. We have increased our acreage under wheat and our crops are larger. We are not concerned about exporting it in the way that we were concerned ten years ago. The reason I mention these facts is that we are incorporating a clause in this bill which says that within three years the Crowsnest pass rates will come up for review.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman is misinterpreting the bill. The rates are not going to be up for review. There is going to be no review of the rates. It is just a question of the remuneration to the railways at those rates.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have not expressed myself as well as the minister has. There is to be no review of the rates. They are to remain static as set in the statute, and assistance may be given to the railways if they prove the rates are uneconomic.
My point is that what has been a long and sustained attack on the Crowsnest pass rates will be revived much too frequently, if this issue is reviewed three years after the coming into force of this legislation. I only hope that the entire preceding ten-year period will be looked at, because it may be found that the railways have made a very substantial profit, due to the quantity of grain they have shipped over the last several years.
With respect to the years 1957, 1958 and 1959, when our exports hovered around the 300 million bushel mark, the railways possibly could have argued, and convinced the MacPherson commission, that the rates were uneconomic. But as I say, I hope the figures for the last several years will be taken into account because the export picture vastly improved during those years.
If the situation were reviewed once in ten years, starting with 1967 as the base year, I think this would be much more satisfactory. The railways might not look at it that way, but my point is that the grain trade should be looked at over a period such as ten years. This would prevent the railways simply picking out a bad year and saying, "This is uneconomic and we need to have financial assistance." If the railways have been making a pile of money in years when we are exporting 500
January 16, 1967

million bushels of wheat, then the alternative is that they should make some contribution to the treasury in compensation for any assistance they might get, due to a decision by the commission.
I am seeking reassurance that the Crows-nest pass rates will be sustained, but inevitably the whittling away at the Crowsnest pass rates will continue despite the reassurance of the minister. The statute says that, if there is an economic loss to the railways, that loss will be made up by grants from the government, and this means by taxation. When that happens people say, "Why should we be taxed in order to support a business that should be paying for itself?" The controversy will tend to continue, and this new section 329 rather suggests that there is some merit in the case which the railways have put up in the past, to the effect that the Crowsnest pass grain rates were uneconomic. I would urge the minister to consider changing the review period from three years to something like ten years.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, I have been quite co-operative. I am sure the minister would be the first to agree that, while I wished to say something more on rail line abandonments, I stated I would wait until we reached this particular clause. I do not wish unnecessarily to hold up the bill. I know the minister has been very co-operative with the committee. Therefore, by containing myself until we reached this particular clause I thought we might be able to make some progress.
I listened very closely to what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre had to say in respect of the Crowsnest pass grain trade, because I realize that when he was a minister of the crown for a number of years he was responsible for this movement and no doubt studied it very carefully. I think what he said about the ten-years provision is very pertinent. The grain trade does fluctuate, and the very fact that a rate has been in effect since 1893 and still is in effect should make it clear to anyone who is interested that it is a proper rate, and we should have the assurance from the minister of the crown that it will remain in effect for years to come.
This section gives me cause for fear, and that is really what prompted me to rise at this time to speak on this particular clause. Without too much ado, I should like to say that I wish the minister would reconsider this three-year period and even withdraw this complete 23033-750^
Transportation
clause. In the time permitted to me I should like to explain to the house my views in this regard. I would say to the minister, first of all, that many people believe this particular clause in the bill is the thin edge of the wedge. Time and time again it has been stated to western Canada that the Crowsnest pass rates are the Magna Carta of the west. This is an accepted view. But if many people in western Canada see what I see in this bill, they will readily conclude that this bill, and this clause in particular, is the thin edge of the wedge with regard to the eventual destruction or removal of the Crowsnest pass rates.
The minister has assured the house that so long as he is minister the Crowsnest pass rates will be in complete effect; but this is not good enough. I do not think the minister will live forever. Also, in the evolution of cabinet ministers one must accept the fact that eventually the parliamentary secretary to the minister aspires to the position of the minister. Then, as has been suggested before in this debate, the minister may aspire to go to the other place. I do not know; but I do know that so long as the minister is in the house we can feel assured that the Crowsnest pass rates will remain. But looking over his shoulder I see the parliamentary secretary. I know his aspirations and I know his views. I know, from a study of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee on transport and communications, that he has said in effect that the Crowsnest pass rates are outdated and are causing the railways to lose money. I do not wish to delay the house by quoting the parliamentary secretary; one has only to read proceedings No. 24 and 27 of the committee reports.
At the time when the officials of the C.P.R. appeared before this committee the hon. member for Kootenay East, who is parliamentary secretary to the minister, said in effect that the Crowsnest pass rates are outdated and that the railways are losing money on them. He said it is high time that the western farmers paid their fair share in moving their product to market. This in effect is what he said. So I hope hon. members will forgive me if I do not place too great an assurance on what the minister said when he stated that, so long as he is minister, these rates will remain in effect. Who knows how long he will be minister, especially when it has been suggested that he aspires to go to the other place?


John Whitney Pickersgill: One has to do more than
aspire in order to get there.

January 16, 1967
Transportation


John (Jack) Henry Horner: One who has been a politician as long as the minister has, and one who is held in such high esteem by the Prime Minister as he is, I am sure can feel confident that his aspirations in that regard will be met.
This is my fear, and my reason for saying that the thin edge of the wedge is in this particular bill. I know the feeling of the railways is that they are losing money, although they have never proved it. How can they prove it? In 1957 the most grain we could move was 256 million bushels. The railways proclaim that under the Crowsnest pass rates they are losing money. Now we are moving 500 million bushels of wheat a year and the C.P.R. is making a bigger profit than it ever has made before, while the C.N.R. is making a larger profit in relation to revenue over cost than it ever has made before.
Lest one think that the railways could move this grain at a loss and still not have it affect their net income, let us see what the C.P.R. had to say with regard to the Crowsnest pass rates. During the committee hearings the officials of the C.P.R. said that the grain moved under the Crowsnest pass rates constituted a tremendous part of their total traffic. I should like to read from page 1966 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence No. 28 of the transport and communications committee-it is significant that they are up to date in this regard:
This traffic represents the largest single segment of the work performed by the railways. Consequently the payments must provide not only for the shortfall of revenue on variable cost but also on amount in respect of constant cost that is proportionate to the work performed in moving this traffic. Failure to do this would leave the full burden of constant cost on other traffic.
What are they really saying in that quotation? They are saying that the grain trade *constitutes the largest single segment of the work they perform. Then the natural question is, how can that segment of traffic double in size without causing a deficit to appear in their returns? Then they go on to say that if they were not allowed to increase these rates the burden of the constant cost would have to fall on some other traffic. Then even if they were losing money under the Crowsnest pass rates, they would have to place that loss against something else and their total loss would increase and move in a direction opposite to that which it has moved in the past number of years.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
The losses of the C.N.R. have decreased and the profits of the C.P.R. have increased. I
fMr. Pickersgill.]
really do not care how the railways show their cost analyses. I would have to check step by step, from the beginning to the end, before being convinced that an operation which has doubled its volume of work is still losing money, even though it may have been losing money at the beginning. That suggestion does not add up in anyone's arithmetic. I am not convinced that the railway companies are losing money under the Crowsnest pass rates. Perhaps the Crowsnest pass rates are too high. It is all very well for someone to say that these rates have been in effect since 1898 and therefore should be increased, but the cost of many things has been in existence since 1898. Let us take for example the moving of earth. When I was a boy, and back in 1898, dirt was being moved by horses.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman was not a boy in 1898.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I said when I was a boy, and in 1898, earth was moved by horses for the construction of dams and for other purposes. There is no doubt in my mind that with the use of modern machinery today the yardage cost of moving earth has decreased from what it was in 1898. There is no logic in the suggestion that because these rates were set in 1898 they must be too low today. It would be just as good an argument to say that as a result of rationalization, such as envisaged by this bill, and a greater degree of efficiency, the rates are too high.
This bill purports to allow more competition. I am sure this would have a depressing effect on the rates set so many years ago. We have observed the advent of dieselization in our railways systems. We have observed the laying of heavier track and the adoption of heavier ballast across this country on our railway lines. One might naturally assume that longer trains can be pulled by bigger power units. At one time the ordinary track being laid weighed something in the neighbourhood of 85 pounds per yard, but this has been substituted by track which weighs in the neighbourhood of 185 pounds or more per yard. We have observed the doubling of ballast on rail lines across western Canada. Greater loads can be hauled over the same track and in many cases larger trains can be moved on those roadbeds built in 1898. For this reason it would be just as logical to argue that these rates are outdated and should be decreased instead of increased.
We from the west are not arguing that these rates should be decreased, even though we are now moving 500 million bushels of grain as
January 16, 1967

Transportation
256,million bushels for export in Perhaps under those circumstances we 1906-57. We made a bargain and we will stick would have the most efficient possible method by it. We observe that on the one hand the government is attempting to stick to its arrangement while on the other it is trying to slide the thin edge of the wedge into this contract which was made for the export of produce in 1898 and reinstated in 1927.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1925.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What is the purpose of a three-year study and what effect will it have? It will have the effect of creating a slowdown in the efficient movement of grain, in order that the commission will be convinced that the movement of grain is a handicap to the railway companies. If someone came along to me or someone else and said the government intended to make a three year study of my business, and if it found that the business was losing money and said it would pay a subsidy from then to eternity, what would I do during those three years? I would certainly attempt to show that I was losing money. I certainly would not adopt means to provide greater efficiency. I would try to slow down movement of grain, and lose or purport to lose money. Certainly 1 would show figures which would indicate that I had lost money during the three-year period.
It is my suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that any operation under the circumstances would be slowed down in order to incur a loss during the three years, thus ensuring the payment of a subsidy. That is why I do not like this clause. There is no doubt in my mind that the railway companies are making money by hauling grain under the Crowsnest pass rates. There is no doubt in my mind that following the large-scale abandonment this bill would allow the railway companies win make more money. It certainly will take more than three years to abandon the 1,800 miles of track which is not protected. It will take more than three years to bring about the abandonment of that 1,800 miles of line, from the time of the applications for abandonment which will be aUowed following the passage of this bill.
One might assume that if aU branch linos were abandoned there could be an efficient transportation system operated, so far as the railway companies are concerned. There would be one line through the prairies in the south and one through the prairies in the north, and the farmers would have to haul their grain distances of up to 100 miles to the main lines. The railways would then be required only to haul the grain to the lakehead or Vancouver.
of hauling grain. I am sure that if we asked officials of the railway companies whether they could make money under the Crowsnest pass rates following the abandonment of all branch lines, most of them would answer in the affirmative.


An hon. Member:: I think that is right.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Someone said "I think that is right". If the officials would answer in the affirmative, would they not also agree that the abandonment of the 1,800 miles possible following the passage of this legislation would bring about a greater saving to the railway companies operating under the Crowsnest pass rates? I think they would answer in the affirmative in that regard as well. Why then do we need a three-year study before the abandonment of this 1,800 miles of track, and before we know what the benefits of that abandonment will be to the railway companies? Those are some of the doubts I have in mind.
Am I correct in assuming that we are to adjourn for a supper hour between seven o'clock and eight o'clock? If there has been that agreement, Mr. Chairman, I would call it seven o'clock.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would like to continue until he has used up his half hour, before we adjourn.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would rather not. I would rather have some dinner and continue after eight o'clock, although it really does not matter to me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then, Mr. Chairman, I think there was an understanding that we rise between seven o'clock and eight o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand there has been agreement among the parties that the house will suspend the sitting from seven o'clock to eight o'clock. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

January 16, 1967
Transportation


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered. Does the house agree now to resume the business interrupted a few moments ago?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.




[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.
On clause 50

Crowsnest pass rates.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Pursuant to an order just passed, I do now leave the chair.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think there was an understanding that we would go back to clause 42 at eight o'clock. However, I think it would be a little unfair to do that before a few more hon. members have come in to the committee. I would suggest that the hon. member for Acadia should conclude his speech first. Then we could suspend discussion on clause 50 and go back to clause 42.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, before the recess I gave some reasons for my doubts on the necessity for an inquiry by the transport commission into the revenues and costs of the railway companies with regard to the grain movement in general, and the effect of the Crowsnest pass rates upon the revenues of the major railways.
Back in 1957 we shipped 256 million bushels of grain in export trade. At that time the railways claimed that they were losing money on this operation. In the last few years we moved twice that amount of grain but the railways are still saying they are losing money. If that is so, then why do the C.N.R. annual reports show an increased revenue and why do the C.P.R. annual reports show increased profits? The MacPherson commission have completed an exhaustive study of the matter. Since the establishment of the commission, the grain trade has been doubled.

I believe quite sincerely that the establishment of an inquiry into the Crowsnest pass rates should be removed from this bill entirely. It might well be argued that as this rate was established in 1898 it is now outdated. The opposite argument could also be advanced, that because the rate was established in 1898, because of the dieselization, the establishment of the heavy track, the better balance on the track and the larger train movement, the rates should be reduced. This would be quite logical. One only has to look at the pamphlet called The Freight Equipment Catalogue, published by the C.N.R., to see the size of box cars for moving grain that were built at that time. Some of them are still in existence.
At that time the average box car could be loaded with 1300 bushels of grain. This has changed in the last 10 years. Instead of a steel frame box car the railway companies are using a complete steel car moving up to 2000 bushels of grain. Recently we have seen the introduction of a new hopper-type car which will load, carry and unload what is commonly called a continuous stream of grain.
I do not believe that the railways have been modernized to any appreciable degree, and I firmly believe that the recommendations based on the MacPherson commission's report will bring to a halt the process of modernization which has been started in the grain trade.
In this particular clause no reference is made to what should be considered as the total cost of the movement of grain. We considered this question in the committee, where we were told by the railway company that 70 per cent of their costs were variable and that 30 per cent were fixed. These are rough figures only. The bill states that all rates shall be compensatory. In the railway committee we were told that this meant that all rates should cover variable costs. In other words the railways are permitted to set a rate which would amount to 71 per cent of their total costs, and the commission would allow this.
How will the commission judge the costs and the revenues of the railway companies? Will it include all the fixed costs or will it include just the variable costs? Will the railway companies have to prove that the Crownest pass rates are only compensatory? In glancing at this clause it might seem logical to some people that the Crowsnest pass rates should cover the total costs, but it is a well established practice that the volume of trade of a given commodity in a given area shall determine the percentage of the fixed cost so
January 1G, 1967



that the greater the volume of a given commodity that is moved, the greater will be the reduction in the rate, regardless of the mode of transport.
This is why it is necessary to ensure that this clause does not in any way outline what shall be the criteria used by the board of inquiry to be set up by the commission. Will it cover all the costs or will it just set down whether or not the Crowsnest pass rates are compensatory?
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The old bill, No. C-120, which the committee studied two years ago and which was not reintroduced under a different number at this session, purported to provide that the Crowsnest pass rates should be compensatory and that the government would allow the railway an extra $9 on the rates-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-to cover the fixed aspects of the cost of moving grain. This bill leads me to believe that 100 per cent of the cost will be provided, and before the bill passes we shall want a better understanding in this regard.
We firmly believe that, if anything, the rate is outdated and in excess of what it should be. We should like to know what costing was used and on what the criteria are based. We firmly believe that in view of the volume of their business with the grain trade the railways cannot be losing money at the present time.
This commission will do nothing but bring about a slowdown in efficiency in the movement of grain on the part of the railways. It will bring about a slowdown of the modernization process which is just beginning to take place in the matter of railway cars and equipment. A study of the C.N.R. freight catalogue indicates that during the last year many means were tried to speed up and effect economies in the handling of grain.
For example, there was the introduction of what is called the prairie schooner, which is a new type of railway car tried last year for the first tune, I believe with some degree of success. There was also introduced the covered hopper car which brought about what is commonly known in the movement of grain as continuous flow loading and unloading of grain. These plant modernizations are a key factor in the movement of this commodity.
One fault which can be found with fixing a set rate on any given commodity is that the commodity tends to become isolated from the movement of other commodities. It also limits initiative on the part of the railways in the
Transportation
modernization or speeding up of the movement of that commodity. To a certain degree this is exactly what has happened with these Crowsnest pass rates. As a result of the demand for Canadian wheat in our export markets the railways have realized that they are 25 or 50 years behind the times in their port facilities and railway plant generally.
This proposed inquiry will not be looking into the provision of modern plant or port facilities, or what I might term modern railway tracks across the prairies. Some modernization will be effected as a result of this bill in permitting applications to be heard for the abandonment of branch lines which are uneconomical and out of date. But in my opinion this proposed inquiry comes at the wrong time and will be using outdated cost figures.
The trouble with the MacPherson commission is that it was initiated in 1959 and its report came out in 1961 and 1962. In those days the railways were losing money and it was felt that some scheme would have to be devised in order to put the railways in a better financial state. That is what has happened, and today we find the railways flourishing in this new atmosphere of total transportation. This inquiry will be looking into revenues and costs which are six years old, so certainly no benefit will accrue to the western farmers.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, this clause in the bill is the thin end of the wedge in the matter of the Crowsnest pass rates. Certainly the parliamentary secretary has shown in his questioning of the officials of the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. that he has no respect or love for the Crowsnest pass rates, and believes they should be increased. In effect, eventually this is what will happen under the bill; and I am sure that most farmers across the prairies will view it with a great deal of scepticism.
Clause stands.
On clause 42.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think it was understood that we would now revert to the clause I stood so that I could give the committee the results of my considerations, and I would be glad to do this now.
First of all, on reflection I do not feel I should press the question as to whether or not this amendment is in order. This does not mean that I do not have a little doubt about it, but I do not think it is worth arguing the point. I am quite prepared to have the amendment voted on, if we have to vote on it, at the appropriate time.

January 16, 1967
Transportation
However, before we decide whether we do want to take a vote on it I should like to point out one or two things which might have some influence on whether hon. members wish to press the matter to a vote. May I point out that the amendment could affect the following matters. The proposed section 314D (1) at page 29 reads:
In the exercise of its duties under section 314C the commission may recommend to railway companies the exchange of branch lines between companies by lease, purchase or otherwise, the giving or exchanging between companies of operating rights or running rights over branch lines or other lines of railway, the connecting of branch lines thereof with other lines of the company or another company, and the abandonment of operation of branch lines in respect of which no applications for abandonment have been filed with the commission.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I think I indicated in a general way that I believed most of these directions could already be made by the Board of Transport Commissioners. I now find that I was right and that under section 196 of the Railway Act there is a provision for the exchange of running rights, subject to the direction of the board. There is no need to give the commission the power a second time to direct the exchange of running rights. Sections 315 and 316 provide for the interconnection of lines and the exchange of traffic, and permit the board right now to direct that these things be done. The only new things the commission can recommend to the railway companies under the new legislation are the exchange of branch lines-that is, the transfer of property from one railway to another by lease, by purchase and sale-and abandonment, when no application has been made.
If this amendment were accepted its net effect would be to enable the commission to direct that one railway lease a line from another railway, or sell a line to or purchase a line from another railway, or abandon a line the railway did not want to abandon. These are the only new things which could be directed.
It is obvious to every hon. member that a direction in any of these respects would have some monetary significance. It is also clear from the rest of the clause that the only respect in which that monetary significance could be compensated for by the crown would be under part III, where there was power merely to recommend certain things to the governor in council. He might or might not do something, as he saw fit, in the matter.
It seems to me it is better to leave subclause 1 as it is. I also want to say a word about the

alternate suggestion made by the hon. member for Springfield, who has suggested a way-it is not dictatorial or directional, and I do not want to use language in any way offensive-to draw the greatest possible attention to this recommendation the commission might make, that one railway should lease its line to another or purchase a line from another, or abandon a line it did not want to abandon. The last of these three contingencies is not apt to happen often, but it might happen.
I would be dubious about the enthusiasm there would be for having it happen.
I am not prepared to accept the amendment in the precise wording moved by the hon. member for Springfield. I do not expect he believed I would accept it like that, because obviously he had not had much time to reflect on it. But I should be prepared, if it would make it easier for hon. gentleman opposite not to press the other amendment, or if the committee thought it was a good idea, as I do, to amend subclause 3 by striking out lines 27 to 35 inclusive and substituting the following: Where a recommendation is made by the commission under subsection (1), the commission shall report its recommendation to the governor in council: and, if the recommendation involves one or more railway companies in cost or losses not recoverable under section 314E or is for that or any other reason not acceptable to one or more of such companies, the governor in council may take such legislative or other action as he considers necessary in the public interest.
That, I think, goes a long way. It says that if the commission recommends any of these drastic things affecting the property of one or other of the railways, and the railways do not accept that recommendation, the commission must send it to the governor in council for such action, legislative, or otherwise, as he considers necessary in the public interest. There will be a powerful sanction there, if the commission is the kind of commission which commends itself to hon. members, and I would think there would not be much doubt that its recommendations would be accepted. This would accomplish practically everything the hon. member for Qu'Appelle had in mind in his amendment, without being open to those objections that I, in all conscience, could not accept.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask a
question? I understood that the request of the hon. gentleman from Springfield for this amendment was predicated on the wording in the amendment of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, that there be a direction to the board. The minister has said that this would be a financial involvement. What is the sense
January 16, 1967

of moving this amendment if the minister will not accept the original amendment of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for
Springfield can speak for himself, but I shall also try to speak for him. He suggested his amendment, I think, as a compromise. The government was not willing to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I do not feel it would be proper, as a matter of public policy, to give this commission the power to direct the railways to lease or purchase each other's property, or to abandon lines they do not want to abandon. There is no objection to giving them the power to recommend, and there is no objection to imposing on them the duty of passing their recommendations on to the governor in council, and action being taken by parliament if the governor in council has no power to take action. That, I think, would accomplish substantially everything the hon. member for Qu'Appelle suggests would be desirable, without giving arbitrary powers over property to the commission which, by its nature, is to be independent and not responsible therefore to parliament.


Edward Richard Schreyer: The minister has not misstated the intention of my suggesion. I sensed that he was not disposed to accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and I thought a change along the lines I suggested might go a long way toward meeting the objectives the hon. member for Qu'Appelle had in mind. I must say the amendment proposed just now by the minister goes a long way towards satisfying at least one requirement, that the commission shall report to the governor in council those recommendations made to the railways for rationalization and that, therefore, it is up to the governor in council or cabinet to take the proper and necessary steps to protect the public interest. This seems a welcome amendment.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Other things being equal I would have preferred the minister to accept the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, but since he has not done so I can only say that this proposal certainly gives us some chance to salvage as much as possible.


Thomas Miller Bell: We have the minister's explanation on record. My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle evidently cannot be here this evening. Could we not stand over the vote on this until tomorrow? Perhaps I
Transportation
misunderstood his intent, but it seems to me that the whole point of my hon. friend's amendment centred upon this question of direction, and the amendment, to my mind, has nothing to do with direction at all-it is simply the recommendation which is being continued, plus some other provisions. If we could defer the vote, my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle would have the opportunity of deciding whether or not he wishes to press his amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would be preferable if the need to vote on this amendment did not arise. This is the difficulty in which I find myself: One hon. member after another has asked me to stand one clause after another for one reason or another, and I would very much like to reach a determination of some of these things at some stage. I do not want to be difficult, but if it is felt that all we are doing is waiting for the hon. member for Qu'Appelle to record one more vote in favour of his amendment, and that we are going to vote on it tomorrow, anyway, I would just as soon come to a vote tonight and have done with it. If on the other hand there is a reasonable chance that it will not be necessary to call a vote, and that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, in the light of suggestions I have made in strengthening clause 3 materially in the direction he wishes to go, will not be inclined to press his proposal, then I would be happy to accede to the hon. member's suggestion.


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not want
to place any restriction upon what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle may do. I repeat that I do not think this proposal by the minister achieves what he sought to do in his amendment, and this is why I ask that it stand over in order that he may have an opportunity to consider what has happened. I realize that it is not easy to consider all these amendments extensively, but they do deserve a lot of thought. The minister appreciates what is involved.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would have no objection if the committee is prepared to let this stand on the understanding that tomorrow, when we resume in committee, we will take up this clause first and reach a decision without, I hope, a prolonged debate. At least we have on record what I am prepared to do with respect to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Springfield.


Gerald William Baldwin: Before we leave this subject, in order to offer the minister something as a

January 16, 1967
Transportation
quid pro quo, and show the hon. gentleman how co-operative we are, the committee might like to clear up at least one ol the clauses which has been allowed to stand-the amendment to clause 20 and to clause 20A. I should like to speak briefly in answer to points the minister made. As far as I know, no one else has any intention of speaking at any length on the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say it would be helpful if there were a general disposition to dispose quickly of clause 20 to which an amendment was moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur, and with regard to which I myself have a small amendment to offer in the light of the observations made by hon. members, in particular by the hon. member for Acadia. It would also be most convenient if we could dispose of the proposed clause 20A.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Before the committee proceeds to decide what it will do with clause 20, it might be wise to decide what it wishes to do with clause 42.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understood we had agreed to allow clause 42, with the amendment of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, to stand until the beginning of proceedings tomorrow. It was further agreed to revert now to the amendment of the hon. member for Port Arthur.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It is this agreement I should like to confirm. The suggestion is that clause 42 stand, with the understanding that when the committee resumes its work tomorrow clause 42 will be the first item to be discussed. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it the wish of the committee to revert now to clause 20?


John Whitney Pickersgill: To the amendment of the hon. member for Port Arthur. Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Port Arthur moved his amendment the other evening the hon. member for Acadia raised a point which concerned me. One or two other members spoke about it; I believe the hon. member for York South said something about it. The point was the relation of this amendment to the Combines Investigation Act. I felt that even though some thought had been given to this matter by my advisers, further consideration was desirable.

I am able to advise the committee that the officials of the combines investigation branch are altogether in favour of the purpose and objective of this amendment, which they feel is precisely along the lines of their own legislation, but they believe it will be improved if in the second paragraph, where it says the commission shall give or cause to be given such public or other notice of any proposed acquisition referred to in subsection (1) as appears to be reasonable in the circumstances, the words were added "including the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act".
This would enable the director under that act to intervene in the hearings if he felt there was any reason for doing so. It was also thought it would be desirable, in order to make sure that there could not possibly be any interference with any action which might be taken under the Combines Investigation Act, that instead of the commission giving its approval in these cases it be given the power to disallow.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
In other words, instead of giving a positive approval the commission could say "disallow", and so far as I can see in that way any possible conflict between the two would be totally removed. Instead of my asking one of my colleagues to move a subamendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur, I wonder whether the hon. member for Port Arthur, if the committee allowed him, would substitute this proposed amendment for the one originally offered?


Mr. Andras:: Mr. Chairman, I am most agreeable to that suggestion.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give its unanimous consent for the hon. member for Port Arthur to withdraw his amendment to clause 20?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: And to have substituted therefore the new amendment as read by the Minister of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I shall only take a minute on this because we have already expressed our interest in the desirability of the amendment. I would point out that it was the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Acadia
January 1G, 1967

who mentioned the possible conflict with combines investigations. I think it would be worth while to repeat some of the objections.
As admitted by the minister himself, the provision seemed to be directed to a certain extent against take-overs in the trucking field by the railways, and it was pointed out that it was a little late to move in this way. We do not have any data on the control which the railways have in the trucking industry, but I for one think it would be quite small in view of the general competition in that field. However this is what prompted the amendment. As the hon. member for Port Arthur said, it cannot be made retroactive, and so we are looking into the future.
This is the first place in the bill where we have given a specific direction to the new commission to start looking into things that are beyond its normal scope of activity. Second and this is a matter of principle, this is the only type of activity upon which we are attempting to restrict the diversification of railway operations. Under the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act all big companies are permitted to diversify their operations; as a matter of fact this is the trend nowadays. In some cases diversification strengthens the economy, but now we are saying that there should be a limit placed upon the ability of our two railway companies to diversify into some other type of activity. But even expressing those two reservations, I may say I am sure we in the opposition will support the amendment.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Mr. Andras moves:
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
(a)	by inserting immediately after clause 19 on page 12 of the bill, as reprinted, the following: Notice of proposed acquisition.
"20. (1) A railway company, commodity pipe line company, company engaged in water transportation, or person operating a motor vehicle undertaking or an air carrier, to which the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada extends, that proposes to acquire, directly or indirectly, an interest, by purchase, lease, merger, consolidation or otherwise, in the business or undertaking of any person whose principal business is transportation, whether or not such business or undertaking is subject to the jurisdiction of parliament, shall give notice of the proposed acquisition to the commission.
Publication.
(2)	The commission shall give or cause to be given such public or other notice of any proposed acquisition referred to in subsection (1) as to it appears to be reasonable in the circumstances,
Transportation
including notice to the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act.
Objection.
(3)	Any person affected by a proposed acquisition referred to in subsection (1) or any association or other body representing carriers or transportation undertakings affected by such acquisition may, within such time as may be prescribed by the commission, object to the commission against such acquisition on the grounds that it will unduly restrict competition or otherwise be prejudicial to the public interest.
Investigation by commission.
(4)	Where objection is made pursuant to subsection (3) the commission
(a)	shall make such investigation, inciuding the holding of public hearings, as in its opinion is necessary or desirable in the public interest; and
(b)	may disallow any such acquisition if in the opinion of the commission such acquisition will unduly restrict competition or otherwise be prejudicial to the public interest;
and any such acquisition, to which objection is made within the time limited therefor by the commission that is disallowed by the commission, is void.
Construction.
(5)	Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize any acquisition of an interest in any other company that is prohibited by any act of the Parliament of Canada.
(b)	by renumbering clause 20 on page 12 of the bill, as reprinted, as clause 21; and
(c)	by striking out clause 21 and the heading thereto on page 13 of the bill, as reprinted.
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Gerald William Baldwin: Obviously this brings us now to the amendment I moved to clause 20, and I would just like to reply for a few minutes to the objections raised by the minister and by hon. members to my left. The reasons which prompted me to present my amendment, with the support of my colleagues, have not been properly appreciated by the minister and by government supporters.
This is an attempt to place a limitation on the extent to which the government can procrastinate on the appointment of committees. There is no doubt that only through the medium of a statute is it possible to set such limitation on the government.
On today's order paper there appears a proposal to set up a committee to deal with the provisional rule changes which the house passed a year and a half or two years ago, and which will expire at the end of this session. Before that time we must decide whether some of those important rule changes will be

January 16, 1967
Transportation
continued, but it is only at this late date that this notice appears on the order paper. The personnel of the committee has not been established and there is no indication when the committee will sit. We may well find ourselves in a position where the committee will have only a month to deal with the important question of rule changes.
This example points up better than anything else the attitude of government, be it this or any other, toward the establishment of committees of any kind; and because of the tremendous importance of this legislation, and the fantastic powers it will give to the new transport commission, it should not be left to the government to say when a committee is going to be established, what terms of reference it is going to have, and when it is to commence its duties.
It is not good enough for members of the opposition to have to come hat in hand to the government and ask, "Will you please set up this committee"? Then, when the committee is set up, it is not good enough that they should have to come hat in hand to the government and ask, "Will you please establish the personnel of the committee?" and "Will you please give its terms of reference so that the committee can start operating?"
This is a procedure which will have to be changed, and my amendment is an attempt to change it in connection with this bill. An objection has been raised with respect to the Senate and its role. But that objection is not tenable, Mr. Chairman. In my amendment I make it quite plain that the members of the committee will be appointed "according to the practice of this house" and that the standing orders of the house "shall prevail with regard to the meetings and acts of the said committee." All that the Senate is called upon to do, as a constituent part of the parliament of Canada, is agree to the fact that there is going to be a committee, which then makes it mandatory on the government to see the committee is established, and with respect to the provision as to secrecy it is the committee, and only the committee, which decides that that is essential.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Under those circumstances how can it be said that there is an inclusion of the other place or a change in the standing orders of this house in this regard when it has been spelled out specifically that this is not the case. I submit that this is not a real argument. Some suggestion has been made by the minister that the government has initiated very

valuable and useful recommendations in respect of committees. Reference was made to the defence committee. I am glad to see that the Minister of National Defence is here. If one looks back through the record he will realize that this was a very unfortunate choice. It was the Minister of National Defence who stood up in his place and said consistently that a minister of the crown had the right, if he saw fit, to say that certain witnesses should not be called before a com-mitee, save with his permission. He also said that the evidence of a certain type of witness must be subject to review by the minister. I think I am paraphrasing fairly accurately what the minister said in respect of these specific points. This was supported by the Prime Minister. I asked the Prime Minister about this, and as I understand it he and the members of the government supported this position. Surely this points up the absolute necessity for placing some curb on the powers of the government with regard to committees and their operations.
Reference was made, I think by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, to the public accounts committee as being a prestigious committee which should not be subject to this sort of operation. It is in respect of the public accounts committee that the parliament of Australia has seen fit to provide for statutory terms of reference. For some years I have been in touch with members of the public accounts committee of Australia. From time to time they have courteously sent me copies of their deliberations. This committee, operating under a statute, performs a most valuable function. One of the main reasons for this is the fact that there is no right on the part of the government to curb the establishment of the committee or alter its terms of reference.
In view of this I suggest that what has been said by the minister and other hon. members does not constitute any real valid objection to the points I have raised. In my opinion the government takes the position it does for the same reason any government would; that is, it is a question of power. A government naturally seeks power and has a reluctance to give up any of that power. If this amendment should be passed it would have the effect of taking from the government some of the powers it now holds with regard to the appointment of committees.
Quite frankly in my opinion the government should have the power to establish committees, commissions, and tribunals. I have no objection to that, provided however that this
January IS, 1967

house is left with the opportunity to scrutinize what these committees are doing in a way which is in no sense inhibited by the government. If this is to be provided, then I have no objection to giving powers to committees, tribunals or commissions. Because this power is not being given in this instance, I have moved this amendment and I suggest that it merits the support of all members who d.0 not sit on the treasury benches, irrespective of their party affiliation. This provides an opportunity for members of this house and this committee to exercise the type of scrutiny over a committee which is essential if the democratic processes are to be maintained.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Chairman, personally I have the greatest possible sympathy for the objectives of the hon. member for Peace River in moving this amendment, but I find two difficulties which I should like to draw to his attention and to the attention of members of the committee. I am not so much worried, as was the minister the other day, about the fact that if reference to the committee is included in the statute this will mean that the Senate will have something to do with either assenting to it or dissenting from it. That may or may not be an important constitutional question. What does concern me is that when this is enshrined in a statute dealing with a particular subject in a particular way there is a rigidity about it which in my opinion should not exist in respect of parliamentary committees. If it were the desire to change the number of members of the committee, say from 12 to 13 for some valid reason, this could not be done in the same way it could be done in respect of other committees. It would be necessary to introduce a bill to amend the act which set out the actual number of members on the committee. It seems to be this is not desirable.
I believe it should be possible to amend our standing orders in such a way that the standing and special committees could be given more powers than they now may have, if the hon. member for Peace River was accurate in his statement-and I am sure he was, because I always have found him to be accurate- which he made a few minutes ago. But, it seems to me that the solution is not to provide, by a statute dealing with a public body, that a committee be established with a certain number of members on it, because this is where the logic dissolves. There are a good many crown corporations, regulatory, judicial
Transportation
and quasi-judicial bodies which are set up. It seems to me that if this kind of thing is to be done in this case, then the obvious logic is that it must be done in every statute where a body is set up with the kind of power and area of influence which the body set up under this bill has. That does not seem to me to be a logical or sensible way to achieve the purpose the hon. member has in mind, one with which I am sure every member in the house has sympathy.
I would be more in favour of a bill which would set up some machinery to deal with all such bodies. Had the hon. member produced a bill proposing a framework for direction and financial parliamentary supervision over the activities and decisions of all such bodies, that would have made sense to me. However, provision for one committee in one statute, with the rigidity that this involves, is not something which appeals to me.
Mr. Chairman, I have a second and equally serious difficulty with regard to the hon. member's amendment. I think it is undesirable in the extreme to give any committee of parliament power to hear evidence in secret or require, as is proposed by subclauses 5 and 6 of the amendment, that a committee may, and at the request of the witness giving evidence, shall take evidence in private. What this means, Mr. Chairman, is that if I were to appear before the committee, not only may the committee take evidence in private, but if I appear in private and request that my evidence be given in private, the committee must hear my evidence in private.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The subclause goes on to say that the committee-
-shall take in private evidence whether oral or documentary which in the opinion of the committee relates to a secret or confidential matter.
The next subsection states:
Where at the request of a witness evidence is taken by the committee in private the committee or member shall not, without the consent in writing of the witness, disclose or publish the whole or part of the evidence.
The other day I asked the value of that evidence. I respectfully suggest to you the likelihood is that evidence taken in private will be the most important evidence, because the kind of evidence that the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian National, the Canadian Pacific Airlines, or some bus company is likely to insist upon being taken in private is precisely the kind of evidence about which this parliament should know or, if hon. members

January 16, 1967
Transportation
do not agree with me that parliament should know about that evidence, is precisely the kind of evidence that would affect the conclusion which hon. members might reach.
I personally have no use whatever for the proposition that when parliament or a parliamentary committee is interested in an important issue of public interest, and I say this in broad terms, there is any transaction on the part of a private or public company which should be kept from the members of parliament and the public when that information or transaction is necessary to a proper understanding of the purposes and to a proper appreciation of the public interest involved.
In any case, as other hon. members have experienced, it usually falls within the power of a parliamentary committee to say whether or not evidence which has been asked for should be given. I understand there was a motion before the committee which considered this bill that the Canadian Pacific should produce certain information. There was a vote on that motion and the majority voted that it should not be made to produce that information. If we carry that one step further, by putting this amendment into effect, what we would then have is a situation in which evidence was being produced to 25 members, or whatever the number might be, in camera and in secret, and if every member of that committee carried out the statutory injunction no one else would know about it. If evidence were given under those circumstances the members could not use it and their reports would not refer to it. Parliament would not know about that information and the press would not know about it or should not get a hold of it. That does not mean the press would not get it, but it should not. In heaven's name, what is the purpose of taking that kind of evidence, except to make everyone outside the charmed circle feel that something decisive and important was being kept from them? That is all it would accomplish. It would serve the purpose of arousing suspicions and wonderment instead of giving information and guidance, as should be the result of any evidence taken.
For those two reasons I find it very difficult to support the hon. member's amendment. On the first point I think it is appropriate for us as members of parliament to continue to demand the setting up, of committees where they are required, and to needle the government to that end. When the committee considers changing the rules it should give much more attention in the future to the question of

the powers of parliamentary committees, whether they are standing or special committee, particularly along the lines of the objectives intended by the hon. member for Peace River.
In any case, Mr. Chairman, I could not possibly support this amendment which proposes the taking of evidence in private and in secret and prohibits any members of the committee who hear the evidence from disclosing any part of that evidence outside the committee.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? Is the hon. member aware that the transportation committee sat in camera day after day in consideration of this bill.


David Lewis: I was not aware of that fact. If the hon. member means that the committee held in camera sittings, taking evidence, that is one thing.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


David Lewis: It occurred to me that there may be a catch in that suggestion. All committees sit in camera to consider clauses of bills. I would hope that we do not ever take evidence in camera, because all evidence ought to be taken in public so that information and guidance can be given not only to members of parliament but to the public at large.


Gerald William Baldwin: I do not attempt to change the hon. members mind. He has presented a very reasonable objection and I respect it, but I think I must point out on the point he raises that it was his last point which separates his approach and mine. Other hon. members of this party agree to an amendment under which a committee would have the power, in the same way the transport commission would have, to change its membership and number of members. I have no objection in that regard. I think the parliamentary committee, rather than the government, should have the right to alter and change its members as it sees fit.
My hon. friend, the learned member for Saint John-Albert, has put the case very well. There have been and always will be committees of this house which will be compelled to take evidence in camera and in secret. What bothers me is that we are being asked to give the transport commission the right to hear evidence in secret, a privilege which the government is not prepared to give to a committee of this house. Why should we have any less powers than the Canadian Transport
January 16, 1967

Commission, which will have the right to sit in camera to hear evidence secretly and not divulge that evidence?
Surely when a committee has received information of that kind, that information will play a determining part in forming recommendations to be presented to the house, without divulging the information it receives in hearing evidence in private. Surely evidence given by a shipper in respect of conditions under which he is a captive shipper would be very pertinent and useful, but should be withheld because a competitive disadvantage might occur if it were made public. That is the purpose behind this amendment. I wanted to explain my position in this regard, while at the same time giving full credit to the hon. member for the position he has taken.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the vote is taken perhaps I should just say that for the reason I gave the other day I do not feel I could possibly support the hon. gentleman's amendment. I am sure this house is competent to adopt a standing order which would have exactly the same validity as any statute in preventing the government from frustrating the desire of the house. I believe we must always preserve the position that this house is the master of its own rules.
I am not one of those who want to abolish the Senate, but I do not like that body making our rules. Having made them we would have to seek its consent to change them. What I would find even more objectionable, in view of our long history, would be to require the consent of the crown to change our rules. That is something absolutely contrary to everything that happened in England during the seventeenth century and to the whole struggle for responsible government in this country. For that reason I just could not possibly support the amendment, though I reiterate my support of the objectives set out by the hon. member for Peace River. I also agree in the main with the hon. member for York South about the hearing of testimony in secret.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Baldwin) negatived: Yeas, 30; nays, 62.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost.
Transportation


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1 assume, sir, that we will now go back to clause 50.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now resume discussion of clause 50.
On clause 50-Crowsnest pass rates.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me it was quite a while ago that we were discussing this clause, and perhaps to place in proper context what we are discussing I should read part of the clause:
Not later than three years after the coming into force of this section, the commission shall inquire into the revenues and costs of railway companies subject to the jurisdiction of parliament-
And so on. That passage is to be found on page 41 of the bill. A question I asked earlier today and the answer I received from the minister confirmed my fears that this section proposes a greater problem to the welfare of western Canada than the minister will have us believe by his light-hearted reference to the discussion that would take place in the House of Commons in any subsequent parliament that might be considering this whole matter. As I look at this section of the proposed act, I cannot help but feel that it should be removed, because it is unnecessary. I shall try to place on the record the reasons for my feeling this to be the case. If we go back in the past to the time when the Crowsnest pass rates were initiated and guarantees were made to the western provinces and those who produced grain in those provinces, we cannot but realize that at that time the volume of grain being handled, and even the prospect of grain that would be handled by the railways, was indeed a much smaller percentage than it is today. The volume, in terms of hundreds of thousands of bushels, was much less at that time than it is today and much less than it will be in the foreseeable future.
If we consider our railways systems in Canada today, those of us who come from the grain growing areas do not have to consider them very long to realize that the railways have been very, very slow in bringing in changes in the equipment that they use for the handling of grain, and the whole area in which they assemble their carloads at the various points. We realize that there could be a great improvement in this respect.
One of the reasons for the difficulty in this regard has been the fact that we still have relatively small grain elevators across western Canada. Nevertheless, there has not been that change in the composition of a grain handling

January 16, 1967
Transportation
car that there should have been in the period we have under review at this time. In considering the history of grain handling in western Canada, another matter we should take into consideration is the automation that has taken place in regard to locomotives, locomotive power and the load that a locomotive will now pull.
Also in this connection I think of the elimination of the many stations that has taken place in western Canada, and the encroachment that will take place in the years ahead. If we consider all these things we cannot come to any conclusion but that the cost of carrying a bushel of grain today is much less than it was at the time these rights were given to those who handled grain in western Canada. While at that time they were considered to be guarantees to the farmers and communities of western Canada, today they have to be considered in the context of this bill, which talks so much about competition. Realizing that this particular section of the bill looks only one way, namely to rising costs, we cannot help but feel that it is unjustified in so far as concerns the conditions that have prevailed in the handling and transportation of grain by the railways over the past several years.
In this connection we must consider what the railways have failed to do in regard to those areas in which lines could have operated profitably over the last 20 years in the communities of western and northern Canada. We must also realize the other factors that enter into the cost, not only in regard to the shipment of grain but in regard to the shipment of other commodities, and the effect this has on the slowing down of the development of certain parts of our nation. To introduce a special section in this bill that would have no effect other than to discourage further the search for and utilization of modern handling facilities in the movement of grain seems to be one of those impossibilities that in the year 1967 in the parliament of Canada should not be considered at all.
As I have said, this section uses the words, "'not later than three years after the coming into force of this section." The period is not stated. As I read the section, I gather that one *could refer back to any period of time to figure out what the costs have been. The new section continues:
-the commission shall inquire into the revenues and costs of railway companies subject to the jurisdiction of parliament... and shall report such revenues and costs to the governor in council and "the amount of payments necessary, in the opinion

of the commission, to assist such railway companies to meet the costs of operations in respect of the carriage of grain and grain products after the 31st day of December, 1969, at such level of rates;-
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
When we take a look at the cost accounting which was part of the various submissions from the railways in the years gone by, the failure on their part to substantiate their claims that they have incurred losses in the movement of grain under the Crowsnest pass rates, and the failure of this bill to provide what I believe to be the necessary machinery for parliament to study this matter effectively, we must come to the conclusion once again that this is an open door for the railways to make profits which will affect the welfare of western Canada.
We who come from western Canada do not wish to see a review undertaken every three or five years which would raise the same old divisions which have been raised so many times in the past. I think that it ill-becomes a minister of the government representing one of the historic political parties in this country, which has given lip service to the fact that the Crowsnest pass rates were part of the Magna Carta of western Canada. We do not want to be presented with a clause which would have no other effect than periodically to question the validity of those rates and raise in the minds of people in other parts of this nation the question as to whether the government is indeed subsidizing one section of the country for a particular reason.
I know the minister would like to pass over this matter quickly. He can do so by withdrawing this particular clause because I do not believe it serves any useful purpose. It attacks the very fundamentals of the principle which has been referred to over the years by countless Liberals as the Magna Carta of western Canada. Surely the minister, great Liberal that he is, would not want to attack that principle, coming, as he so often likes to remind us, from the great city of Winnipeg, the gateway to the west. Surely the minister does not wish to be the one to obliterate all the good resolutions of the Liberals before him.
Let us take a look at the advances that have been made not only in transportation but in every other field of endeavour. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport shakes his head. We all know he is opposed to the Crowsnest pass rates. He is against the unity which they have given to this country. This used to be one of the arguments which the Liberal party supported but which they do not support any longer, as is
January 16, 1967



evidenced by this clause and by the stand taken by the parliamentary secretary.
We can see that he is a little concerned about this. It will jeopardize his chances of following in the footsteps of the present Minister of Transport when he goes to other pastures. We can understand his concern in that regard but we cannot understand the Minister of Transport, who apparently thinks that the Crowsnest pass rates will jeopardize the rest of Canada. It was those rates which brought Canadians together and which caused the development of the grain-growing industries in western Canada which has been one of the mainstays of our economy. Hon. gentlemen opposite should know better than anyone else the value to this economy of the grain shipments as reflected in the returns during the last two years while they have been in office. Had it not been for that grain trade the financial position of this government and our trading position in the world at large would have been different from what it is at present.
I plead with the minister to withdraw this clause. I do not think it serves any useful purpose. If the railways really think that they will sustain losses at any particular time, they will still have an opportunity to come forward and make that claim. Surely we should not write into the bill a clause setting down that three years from now the whole question should be reopened, and asking the railways to pattern their affairs in the next three years in such a way as to enable them to make a claim on the government of Canada with regard to the handling of grain, and then enabling them to set rates in accordance with the decisions that are made in that regard.
I am surprised that the minister should allow such a clause in the bill at a time when the railways are showing such large profits. No one in this country can seriously suggest that the railway companies are losing money on the movement of grain. If they were to modernize their facilities to a larger extent they could make even greater economies and therefore reap larger profits than at present. If this clause is left in the bill there will be no incentives for the railways to modernize their grain handling facilities and to try to bring about greater economics in that regard. I hope the minister will say that he is willing to have this clause removed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I will not speak at any length but I do think that the hon. member for Rosthern and the hon. member for Acadia have made statements to which I must make a brief reply. I wish to reply in
Transportation
particular to the statement of the hon. member for Rosthern when he suggested that by putting something into this bill the government called into question the Crowsnest pass rates. If anybody called the Crowsnest pass rates into question it was the MacPherson commission and Mr. MacPherson was not a notorious supporter of the Liberal party. In fact he narrowly escaped being the leader of the hon. gentleman's party. He was also from Saskatchewan. Mr. MacPherson, who was appointed the head of a commission by the right hon. gentleman who now leads the opposition, said categorically-and all but one of the commissioners supported him-that	the
Crowsnest pass rates were not compensatory. He made a recommendation that there should be an annual payment made to the railways because these rates were not compensatory.
This was done by a commission appointed by the last Conservative government. Not only that, but the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and the Leader of the Opposition have both told us that they had prepared a bill to carry out the recommendations of the MacPherson commission; and I know that, of course, because I inherited the bill. I brought in a bill to carry out those recommendations, but then I changed my mind. I decided that I was not going to call the Crowsnest pass rates into question, that instead of saying that they were not compensatory and asking parliament on the basis of the royal commission's report to give compensation to the railways, I would ask parliament to authorize a three-year review to see whether or not they are compensatory, and in that way remove them from the field of doubt.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
All hon. members on the other side of the house who have spoken so far, particularly the hon. member for Acadia, the hon. member for Rosthern, and I thought, with slightly less conviction, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, have said that they were confident the Crowsnest pass rates were compensatory. If they are, then why all this worry about an inquiry? Why this worry about having the facts established if hon. members know what the facts are?
I suggest there are three ways in which the railways can be compensated for the carrying of grain. The first is by the rates paid for carrying the grain. If an investigation shows the railways are being adequately compensated, then that disposes of the matter and makes it perfectly clear that the hon. gentleman is as right as he professes to believe he

January 16, 1967
Transportation
is. In this case there will be no question about their getting anything, except what they receive by way of freights.
The second way to compensate the railways is to say to them that they will get the Crows-nest rates and that there will be no inquiry. If necessary in that case the railways would have to raise out of the freights they charge for carrying other commodities enough extra to carry the grain. Mr. MacPherson in his report put one proposition that I think was very sound and fair. He said that, as far as possible, freight rates should be compensatory, in other words, that the shippers should pay enough to compensate the railways for the carriage of their goods. Similarly, so should passengers pay enough to cover their carriage. He also said that if, as a national obligation, the railways were required to do these things at less than cost, they should be compensated out of the treasury and that other freight shippers should not be forced to compensate them.
I think that is a perfectly reasonable proposition, Mr. Chairman. I do not believe, notwithstanding the rather snide observations, if I may use that term, which have been made about my distinguished parliamentary secretary, that anyone in this country really believes that we will ever have inarticulate members from the prairie provinces, or that in the foreseeable future any government, even one headed by the hon. member for Rosthern, would be able to repeal the Crows-nest rates. The Meighen government did it and look what happened to them. The rates were put back, and no one has ever touched them since 1925 except to increase their effectiveness and to apply them to other ports.
The only thing we are doing with the Crowsnest rates in this bill is to write in a guarantee of the rates to Churchill. I think that is a good thing. When I was young I belonged to an association called the "On-To-The-Bay Association" and I have always been rather pro-Churchill-all of the Churchills in fact.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, perhaps I exaggerate just a little bit, but at any rate I am not anti-any Churchill.
The plain fact is that I do not think any member of their house, if he were to stop to reflect, would be doing the cause of the western farmer any good by suggesting that other freight shippers should have to pay higher freights in order to lower the rates on wheat.
.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Does the minister really believe that statement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not believe any western farmer would be done any service by any member advocating that other shippers should pay higher rates in order to keep the rates on wheat low. I did not say that that was happening.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister is implying that that is happening.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not; the hon. gentleman should not rush into implications. It is always wiser to listen to the whole of someone's proposition before trying to refute it. What I am saying is that if, as most hon. members who have spoken seem to believe, the Crowsnest pass rates are compensatory, then that will be proven and no payment will be made of any kind.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the minister permit a question. On what figures and based on what rates will it be proven? Will it be proven based on railway conditions existing three years ago, existing today or as they will be seven or eight years from now, after complete modernization of plant and port facilities takes place?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The bill prescribes very clearly that for the three years following the coming into force of this act the matter is to be considered by the commission, which will establish its own figures. The commission will not accept the figures of the railways. It will determine whether or not these rates are compensatory.
I was not very much impressed by the argument that the railways will deliberately attempt to be inefficient for the sake of losing money. There is no guarantee whatever in this bill that if perchance it should be shown that the rates were not compensatory the railways would get anything. All the bill prescribes is that a report shall be made to the governor in council, who will take whatever action he chooses.
I quite frankly believe that if, as a result of this study it is shown that the rates are not compensatory, that whatever government may be in office at the time will act within the spirit of the MacPherson report and compensate the railways out of the treasury so that they do not have to be compensated out of freights collected from other Canadians. I believe that is what will happen but that will be a matter for the government of the day to decide.
January 16, 1967

However, one thing I do know is that no minister of finance worth his salt would ever agree to pay money to the railways if they were demonstrably inefficient. We must remember that every one of these payments to the railways recommended in this bill is to come out of the treasury of the government of the day, which will have to raise taxes in order to make the payments, just in the same way as we now have to raise taxes to pay these huge subsidies. Therefore the government and the minister of finance will have the strongest reasons for seeing that these payments are made only if they have to be made.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle told the committee this afternoon about how much he had done to get the railways and others engaged in moving wheat to move it more efficiently. In the same way, all the time we are putting pressure on the railways, the elevator companies and the ports and everybody else. Today we are moving quantities of grain, as every hon. member knows, which two years ago we would not have believed possible to move through our ports. We are trying to modernize them in every possible way. That will not be stopped. No government will allow that to be stopped, and the members from western Canada would not allow any government to allow it to be stopped. I am not impressed by the idea that the railways will be allowed to be sloppy, to drag their heels to prove they are losing money. That will not happen.
I do not think any one of us knows for sure what the result of this study will be. That is why it seemed right and proper, in the light of the MacPherson recommendation, to make the study. It would have been wrong-that is why I changed my mind-to accept the position of the MacPherson commission, that there is loss. That is why I would not recommend such a bill to parliament this year. That is the position of the government. It is not reasonable to say that just because we believe the rates are compensatory we should not find out the facts.


Mr. Korchinski:: After listening to the Minister of Transport for the last week or so, honestly believing he wanted to do some good with his transport bill, I find his conclusions hard to accept. He says that the MacPherson commission said that compensation might be necessary. In his conclusion he says, "We do not really think that such a thing will follow, as a result of this section."
Transportation
What is this section for? Let us face it, Mr. Chairman: It is for the advantage of the railways, and nobody else. It is not for the benefit of the farm organizations. Nobody presenting a brief to the transport commission has ever suggested that the Crowsnest pass rate should be tampered with. That rate is statutory and should not be tampered with. What are statutes for? The British North America Act is not to be tampered with lightly. You may touch it, yes, but you cannot do much.
You are not saying that suddenly, as a result of a study, the Crowsnest pass agreement must be thrown out, that the original agreement, the original intent is not valid, is not useful, does not accomplish what it set out to do? Does any section of this act say that there must be other compensation for what the railways have been given? There is nothing like that in the bill. This is a one-sided agreement, an agreement benefiting the railways. I might say, even, that it is for the benefit of the Canadian Pacific, although I believe phases of it are solely and wholly for the benefit of the Canadian National. I think the president must have said to the minister, "Look here, we have a situation that needs looking after."
I do not suppose the Canadian Pacific was even considered. They would not think for a moment of reopening the whole question, going back a hundred years, or as long as is necessary, on the question of what they have got in the past, and the revenues they get today from the crown property they received. Will they let you determine the amount of money they are getting for moving grain?
What money are they getting for grain movements? After reading the section, nobody will know whether the rates are compensatory, whether the rates to be paid to the railways will take into account the operation of the railways, the capitalization of a particular branch, the over-all operation of the entire system, or whether the rates apply to certain portions of operations.
Nobody argues that certain portions of railway operations will not pay for themselves. That is what we have discussed for the last two weeks-for the last two years for that matter. Nobody denies that certain railway operations do not pay for themselves.
I remind the minister that the Crowsnest pass agreement was the Magna Carta that built up the west and built up Canada. It tied to us that part of Canada which might have gone to the United States. The railway bound us together, and let us not forget this. Let not the parliamentary secretary grin, as though he

January 16, 1967
Transportation
knows it all. Sooner or later all this will have to sink in.
Until the last couple of years the railways have continuously been harping, as had the newspapers in all Canada-other than the western newspapers, of course-that grain movement does not pay. Surely the parliamentary secretary must have read that at one time. Today one does not hear that, because grain movement is a paying proposition.
We are suddenly told, "Do not fear, nothing will happen; this is merely an accounting process." It is an accounting process for whom? This is an opening for the railways, who keep harping about the Crowsnest agreement. If they say that the 22 cents or 23 cents they get is not compensating them for grain movement, they forget the other aspects; they forget what was given to them under the original agreement.
Nothing in this bill deals with the original agreement. The minister can stand there and talk until he is blue in the face: He will not convince me or any other farmer that he is doing justice to the western farmer. I do not care if he condemns the hon. member for Rosthern, the hon. member for Acadia, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, or any other hon. member for suggesting that this is not the right approach. The minister knows full well that he has opened the whole question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He has opened the whole bill.


Stanley James Korchinski: The minister can stand there and say that it is perfectly all right to charge the farmers more, but that it is not perfectly all right to see what he can get out of the Canadian Pacific, for example. He does not mention that. While I might be one of those who might defend the Canadian Pacific, I am not prepared to accept the notion that we should expect our farmers to move their grain for 50, 60 or 70 miles to the elevator, to prove that the railways can make money.
[DOT] (9:50 pjn.)
You could bring grain to Winnipeg from every point 400 miles or 450 miles away. The farmers, having paid the additional cost, might well move it to the lakehead. But what have you done to the Crowsnest pass agreement? There are several ways of destroying that agreement. One of them is the way the minister is using tonight. He has opened it up. He wants it to be proven to the public-and public opinion can bring a lot of pressure to bear. I know there are more people in eastern Canada than in the west. But if the minister

remembers his words, what he said tonight was that the bulk of the payment for any freight would have to come from the west, anyway, so why would we complain. That is what he said, exactly. It does not matter whether you pay it one way or another: You will have to pay it. That is what he said.
Are we to allow any legislation to erode the Crowsnest pass agreement, or are we not? I cannot stand here and accept what the minister tells us. I cannot for one minute think that the Crowsnest pass must make the grain pay for everything in the west, and then move in other freight over and above-minerals, or lumber or anything else.
I cannot accept the fact that the minister tells us this is nothing, that this is merely an investigation. It is an investigation into what? It is opening a way for the railways to try to prove something to the commission. Whether they postpone this thing for two or three years or whether they start immediately after this bill is passed, it does not matter. The fact is that the reporters will continually harp on this one subject, as they did at the time when there was a suggestion that a transport bill would be passed. Nobody in Canada will convince me otherwise, and I think I follow the press as closely as does any other hon. member, including the minister.
I have not seen much reference to the Crowsnest pass agreement in the last couple of years. One of the reasons is the movement of grain, perhaps a realization that the movement of grain is compensatory. The second is that newspapermen are not going to harp on something which they know they can harp on later, knowing that this legislation exists. Why should any manufacturer in the east have a charge against his final products, when the revenue can be obtained in another way, -through the Crowsnest pass agreement?
Prove to the world that the Crowsnest pass agreement is wrong. Prove to the world that the British North America Act is all wrong, and let us destroy the whole thing. How silly that argument is. Surely there must be some value in the whole thing. I cannot accept the premise that it is all wrong, though there may be weaknesses in it. I cannot accept the premise that we should give the railway companies these gifts, and when the railway companies are given these gifts, that we should not reveal what has happened to the gifts-what revenues they have derived.
The fact is, one must preserve the Crowsnest pass agreement for the benefit of those farmers who have survived because of
January 18, 1967
it. I am not far removed from a municipality whose potential is not yet fully utilized. There is land there which is still being broken up, land which will produce more grain. Yet no account will be taken of this. We do not realize what fertilizer will do for that country. We do not know what another freight rate will do. Will it stunt the growth of that country? We opened up the best land. We went where we thought the best grain could be produced. From that point on, we had to move into other areas. As the fertilizer became available, new areas were brought under cultivation.
After the war, when machines became available, they broke up that land, and as we were able to absorb the cost, we did it. But if you alter the Crowsnest pass agreement, if we have to pay the full freight rate and on top of that if everything we ship in must travel at the higher rate and everything we ship out must go at the higher rate, I believe we know where to go. I have heard this before under a Liberal government: Join the United States side. Do not think for one moment that this idea cannot be circulated again, and it might be, unless we are prepared to see that this transport is for east and west, for all Canada. This must be a bill for Canada rather than a bill for certain sections, rather than a bill for certain companies.
It is easy for us to ship some of our finished products into the United States, and we may have a ready market. In the past I have asked the president of Massey-Ferguson why they did not set up a plant right in the middle of the west. That is another subject. The point is this: The minister must realize that if this is allowed to happen certain things will come to Canada which I am sure he will not be interested in.
There is a different type of disunity in Canada. There is a certain group which would like to disunite for a different reason. We should not give them that opportunity.


Reynold Rapp: Ten o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether there would be any disposition to complete this clause tonight.


An hon. Member:: If you remove the clause.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course that is quite impossible.
Progress reported.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion (10:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, am I safe in predicting that tomorrow we will continue with the study of Bill C-231?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue with the study of that bill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

["Mr. Speaker, my first words, after the account given by the hon. member, would be to confirm what he has said. I could tell by listening to the facts recounted by the hon. member that they are the facts as I understand them, and I think I can confirm them. The second observation is a personal reaction of sympathy with this case and the loss that this man has suffered. Mixed with that personal feeling of sympathy is one of disappointment, that after the hundreds of millions of dollars of assistance made available to the government of India by Canada since the Colombo plan started, that country should have failed to make amends to a Canadian ensnared in a maze of petty officialdom. That seems to have been an act of folly on their part. Actions of this kind toward Canadians make the role of the friends of India in this country, and I consider myself to be one, all the more difficult, particularly when a grievance is brought forward by an hon. member like the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae), who in my experience has been noteworthy in this house for his balance and fairness in debate.\nDEBATES\tJanuary 16, 1967\n[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)\nAll that being said in a personal vein, perhaps the only further answer I can make at this point in an official capacity is that the government of India has now made its decision. On behalf of the officials of the Department of External Affairs I think I can say with some justification that they have exercised all possible efforts on behalf of this man. At an advanced stage in the transactions referred to by the hon. member the high commission in New Delhi was consulted by Mr. Webb and the high commission immediately contacted the State Bank of India, the entity involved in this transaction, on Mr. Webb's behalf. As a result of the request by the high commission and, we can presume, representations made by them, the State Bank did treat this as a special case, waived the normal requirements of Indian law and authorized payment to Mr. Webb. Unfortunately, by the time this took place the axe of devaluation had fallen or was on the point of falling. The high commission then intervened further on Mr. Webb's behalf, specifically pointing out that the cheque should be paid at the pre-devaluation rate and that the delay was not Mr. Webb's fault. A negative decision by the State Bank was then appealed to the Indian ministry of finance, which ultimately refused the relief on the ground that it was force of circumstances rather than bureaucratic neglect which was the reason for loss.\nIn summary, from April to October in the year just completed the high commission intervened on Mr. Webb's behalf at different levels on every occasion when the opportunity presented itself, but received a final negative decision.\nPerhaps I might point out that in dealing with foreign sovereign states the government of Canada can ask but it cannot demand. In the circumstances it must be the decision of the government of India whether or not it will make an ex gratia payment. However perhaps the representations made by the hon. member this evening may ultimately reach the attention of the government of India, which may possibly have a change of heart. I can assure the hon. member that his particular words will be drawn by me to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.\nMotion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.\nJanuary 16, 1967"]
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the other day by way of a question I raised the matter of the activities of the Hudson's Bay Company in handling or mishandling the mail in a certain instance, and subsequently sent photostat copies of the documents I had in my possession to both the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell). The contents of them were also widely publicized because of the intense interest that exists in the matter.
I realize that the Postmaster General may not yet have had an opportunity to inquire fully into that and other matters which were the subject of R.C.M.P. investigation, and thus may not be in a position this evening to indicate fully what course the government is taking. However, following my question in the house the Hudson's Bay Company issued a statement, presumably in Winnipeg.
Although I inquired, I have not been able to obtain a copy of that statement, but I do have with me the references to it which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of Friday, January 13. One of the sentences published by the newspaper relating to the statement was as follows:
The H. B. C. statement said Mr. Howard appears
have based his charges on a single incident at Fort Chippewyan, Alta., in November, 1965, which has long since been resolved to the satisfaction of both the post office and the complainant.
The interesting aspect of that is that at the outset the Hudson's Bay Company admits its culpability. At the outset it admits there was such an instance and passes it off as being of no consequence because it happened some

January 16, 1967
11872	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion time ago. It also passes it off as being of no consequence because, as the statement says, the matter had been resolved to the satisfaction of both the post office and the complainant.
Section 55 of the Post Office Act is singularly clear about holding up the mail or unlawfully opening mail. It states that such a practice is an indictable offence, carrying a penalty of $3,000 or three years imprisonment, or both, if the person involved is found guilty. It seems a strange sort of reasoning for the company to say that because the dispute over the payment of an account that Mr. Martin owed the Hudson's Bay Company had been resolved, this wiped out the responsibility of the company, or its liability to a charge under the Post Office Act for having unlawfully opened his mail. No other two people in society can agree, if one commits a criminal offence, that because they resolve their differences there is no longer an offence. I submit it is fairly clear (1) that there was an offence and the company admitted it and, (2) that it tries to get around the fact that it is guilty, because the matter has been resolved so far as the store account is concerned.
The statement, as it appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, mentions that this is an isolated instance. Mr. Speaker, it is not an isolated instance. 1 put to you the proposition that some few years ago at La Ronge, Saskatchewan, where there is a Hudson's Bay store, although the post office was not contained in the store, nevertheless there was an arrangement between whoever was the postmaster and the Hudson's Bay Company, whereby people who were recipients of family allowance cheques and other similar government cheques picked up their mail at the Hudson's Bay store, and not in the post office. In this way the Hudson's Bay store could engage in the same sort of practice with the people there, by having them turn over their cheques to the company and in this way interfere in the normal activities of the mail.
In this instance in Cando, Saskatchewan, while it is not a Hudson's Bay Company store which is involved, nevertheless the situation existed that persons had to deposit their post office box keys with the store manager so that he could open the box, take out the mail containing the cheques, and wait for the person receiving them to open the envelope and sign the cheque over to him in payment for a bill. While I say that in this instance it is not a Hudson's Bay store, it is indicative of the fact that this practice is more widespread


than the Hudson's Bay Company people would have us believe.
While I am not at liberty to disclose the names of the individuals involved, I had the opportunity to listen to a tape recording of an interview in which a woman claimed that the Hudson's Bay Company store manager interfered with her mail. At the present time statutory declarations are being obtained in this regard. It is alleged that when the store manager found out about this he went to this woman in the middle of the night and attempted to obtain a statement from her to the effect that he had not opened her mail.
The people who find these things happening to them are very quiet about them. There may be an element of the responsibility in respect of paying the store bill which is involved, and also the fact that the person concerned will have to go back to that same store and have to deal with this particular manager. They do not wish to jeopardize their credit at the store or their opportunity to obtain food and supplies. This may be the reason that over the years people have remained silent about these practices. At this juncture I think we should urge that these persons make a full disclosure of this sort of practice to the Postmaster General, the Solicitor General, the attorney general in the province or to myself, if they so desire. In this way the type of practice which has been widespread in the north to the detriment of the individuals who have to deal with these stores can be brought to light. While the Hudson's Bay Company is the one company which has been singled out, this practice is not confined to them. Also it is not confined to the one isolated instance in Fort Chipewyan in Alberta as the company would have us believe.
I understand that some time this week at Fort Chipewyan there will be a resumption of the court case involving the store manager. The assault charge in this regard was postponed from last fall. It may be that there will be some extremely revealing information disclosed at this court hearing about this type of practice.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to become involved in a dispute between the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the Hudson's Bay Company. All I can say at the moment is that there are about 71 post offices up north in these Hudson's Bay Company stores. In many cases these are the only places where we could locate a post office because
January 16, 1967

there is no other place which could be used as a post office.
I must say that, in respect of any post office, we sometimes have complaints. When complaints are made we conduct the fullest possible investigation. There are some specific points which have been raised in the question of the hon. member for Skeena. This week I intend to give a full answer to the charges concerning Eaton's and Simpson's catalogues, and the matter of the letters and cheques addressed to a person by the name of Martin. I shall try in my answer to be as fair as possible to all parties and indicate exactly what the position of the post office is in this matter.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)



Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the provision in our procedure which permits me to raise a matter in which I am deeply interested and which I raised on Friday last. It concerns litigation involving a Canadian citizen, who is a professional engineer, Geoffrey P. Webb, and The Government of India. Their circumstances of this particular case are as follows, and I want to put them on the record for the first time. I have no doubt they will be raised on many occasions in the future until the situation is resolved.
Mr. Webb served in India for two years as a professional engineer on the Kundah hydro electric project, which is financed through the external aid office under the Colombo plan. Plants three and four of the project, the equipment and engineering services, were gifts from Canada to the people of India. At the end of Mr. Webb's service there in September 1965-some 16 months ago-he followed the normal procedure in such cases and turned his automobile over to the State Trading Corporation of India. I assume he turned over other assets as well.
The State Trading Corporation agreed to pay Mr. Webb 14,508 rupees which were to be converted into dollars at the rate existing at that time. This would amount in Canadian dollars to approximately $3,300. In January of 1966, a year ago, a cheque was issued to Mr. Webb for the agreed amount, and then the trouble began. From that point on it seems to me there began a period of stalling tactics on the part of the government of India. Mr. Webb had a cheque but he could not negotiate it as a result of difficulties put in his way, and
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion could not arrange for a dollar draft to be issued for the 14,000 rupees.
Finally in June of 1966 the rupee, as we all know, was devalued from 4.76 to 7.5 in relation to the United States dollar. At that particular point or within a few weeks the government of India was prepared to pay Mr. Webb for his car at the devalued rate. Because he was not paid in the six month period between the issuance of the cheque and the devaluation he stands to lose some $1,200. So far as I am able to determine this occurred through no fault whatsoever of Mr. Webb. He has been advised on several occasions, directly and through the Department of External Affairs, that he will be paid at the devalued rate. Mr. Webb is not willing to accept less than the agreed price for his car.
The whole transaction could have been completed long before this devaluation, and I feel that Mr. Webb is receiving completely unfair treatment from the government of India. I have not had much experience in matters of this kind, but presumably those members here who belong to the legal profession encounter a good deal more of this kind of thing. It seems to me that if relations between our two nations were not as good as they are, and if India was not a nation to which Canada had given generous help on many occasions, this situation might be understood. We often hear of situations in which people run into difficulties, particularly in matters of immigration, with countries behind the iron curtain. Recently this country sent a very large shipment of wheat to help feed millions of people in India who faced starvation. Canadians are serving in India under the World Health Organization, and in many other ways, to assist them with problems of health and in other fields.
I understand many representations have been made in respect of this case through the offices of our high commissioner to India, but to no avail. I am asking our Secretary of State for External Affairs immediately to bring to bear the full weight of the Canadian government in this matter. I ask that minister, through his parliamentary secretary here this evening, to make the strongest possible representations to the government of India to see that this clear case of injustice is righted.
The facts that I have were not only obtained from this man, but I have here everything documented by our consular division. It confirms everything that has been said by myself this evening and what was said by Mr. H874	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Webb in the first place. This man gave dedicated service in the two years he was in India. During that time he contracted a tropical disease and was very ill, but he stayed in India, met his obligations and complied with the regulations with one very minor exception, namely that he was asked to surrender his passport and declined to do so. I do not blame him at all for this; in my opinion he was quite right.
Our high commission in New Delhi say that they do not believe there is anything more they can do. I could quote a very long paragraph in a letter from the head of the consular division in which they suggest reasons why they cannot do anything more. I am not personally prepared to accept those reasons and I know that Mr. Webb is not prepared to do so. I feel we have to see th^t the shabby treatment of this Canadian citizen is rectified, and what I am asking now is that the Secretary of State for External Affairs deal with this matter personally and at the highest level to see that justice is done.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary ol Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my first words, after the account given by the hon. member, would be to confirm what he has said. I could tell by listening to the facts recounted by the hon. member that they are the facts as I understand them, and I think I can confirm them. The second observation is a personal reaction of sympathy with this case and the loss that this man has suffered. Mixed with that personal feeling of sympathy is one of disappointment, that after the hundreds of millions of dollars of assistance made available to the government of India by Canada since the Colombo plan started, that country should have failed to make amends to a Canadian ensnared in a maze of petty officialdom. That seems to have been an act of folly on their part. Actions of this kind toward Canadians make the role of the friends of India in this country, and I consider myself to be one, all the more difficult, particularly when a grievance is brought forward by an hon. member like the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae), who in my experience has been noteworthy in this house for his balance and fairness in debate.
DEBATES	January 16, 1967
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
All that being said in a personal vein, perhaps the only further answer I can make at this point in an official capacity is that the government of India has now made its decision. On behalf of the officials of the Department of External Affairs I think I can say with some justification that they have exercised all possible efforts on behalf of this man. At an advanced stage in the transactions referred to by the hon. member the high commission in New Delhi was consulted by Mr. Webb and the high commission immediately contacted the State Bank of India, the entity involved in this transaction, on Mr. Webb's behalf. As a result of the request by the high commission and, we can presume, representations made by them, the State Bank did treat this as a special case, waived the normal requirements of Indian law and authorized payment to Mr. Webb. Unfortunately, by the time this took place the axe of devaluation had fallen or was on the point of falling. The high commission then intervened further on Mr. Webb's behalf, specifically pointing out that the cheque should be paid at the pre-devaluation rate and that the delay was not Mr. Webb's fault. A negative decision by the State Bank was then appealed to the Indian ministry of finance, which ultimately refused the relief on the ground that it was force of circumstances rather than bureaucratic neglect which was the reason for loss.
In summary, from April to October in the year just completed the high commission intervened on Mr. Webb's behalf at different levels on every occasion when the opportunity presented itself, but received a final negative decision.
Perhaps I might point out that in dealing with foreign sovereign states the government of Canada can ask but it cannot demand. In the circumstances it must be the decision of the government of India whether or not it will make an ex gratia payment. However perhaps the representations made by the hon. member this evening may ultimately reach the attention of the government of India, which may possibly have a change of heart. I can assure the hon. member that his particular words will be drawn by me to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
January 16, 1967


[Stage Direction]
PROCLAMATION RESPECTING EXTENSION OF MARITIME TRANSPORTATION UNIONS *	TRUSTEES ACT
[Stage Direction]


Elizabeth The Second, by Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories QUEEN, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. E. A. Driedger
Deputy Attorney General
To All To Whom these Presents shall come or whom the same may be in anywise concern,
GREETING:
[Stage Direction]
Whereas in and by subsection (1) of section 24 of the Maritime Transportation Unions Trustees Act, being chapter 17 of the statutes of 1963, it is provided that the said Act expires on the thirty-first day of December, 1966, unless before that date it is extended to a later date which may be fixed by proclamation of Our Governor in Council.
And Whereas it is expedient that the date on which the said Act expires be extended to the thirty-first day of December, 1967.
Now Know Ye that We, by and with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada, do
by this Our Proclamation declare and direct that the date on which the said Act expires be extended to the thirty-first day of December, 1967.
All Or Which Our Loving Subjects and all others whom these Presents may concern are hereby required to take notice and to govern themselves accordingly.
In Testimony Whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent and the Great Seal of Canada to be hereunto affixed.
Witness: Our right Trusty and Well-beloved Counsellor, General Georges P. Vanier, a member of Our Most Honourable Privy Council, Companion of Our Distinguished Service Order upon whom We have conferred Our Military Cross and Our Canadian Forces' Decoration, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
At Our Government House, in Our City of Ottawa, this thirtieth day of December in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixty-six and in the fifteenth year of Our Reign.
By Command,
Jean Miquelon
Deputy Registrar General of Canada
11877
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, January 17, 1967