1967-01-09

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. H. H. STEVENS

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, from time to time it is the privilege of members of parliament to refer to the presence in the gallery of distinguished citizens of other countries. Today, if the house will allow me to do so, I should like to refer to the fact that in your gallery, sir, is an individual who as a member of the House of Commons for three decades was a great parliamentarian and humanitarian, Hon. H. H. Stevens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: His presence indicates that being a member of parliament for that length of time does not in any way impair one's health or capacity for service.
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the right hon. gentleman has called attention to the presence in the gallery of such a distinguished Canadian. I have had the pleasure and privilege of knowing Mr. Stevens for many years. Indeed, I once had the honour of serving as secretary to a parliamentary committee of which he was the chairman. We worked very closely together in those days and have been friends ever since.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
As the right hon. gentleman has pointed out, in his long career of service to the country and his activities in Vancouver at the present time Mr. Stevens has shown that there is no connection whatever between age and energy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



THE MINISTRY


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a list of the
members of the government in order of precedence by portfolios consequent upon the appointment of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon) to the administration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would also like to table order in council P.C. 1967-17 of January 4 reappointing the parliamentary secretaries for a period of 12 months.



TABLING OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND REPUBLIC OF KOREA

Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the text in English and French of the trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea and the documents pertaining thereto. The agreement came into force-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Has the minister leave to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Henry Winters: The agreement came into force upon signature, which took place in Ottawa on December 20. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and I signed on behalf of Canada. Under the agreement, Canada will accord to imports from Korea the rates of the most favoured nations tariff which are now applied to imports from the United States, Japan and other most favoured nation countries. In return Canadian goods are assured of as favourable tariff treatment by Korea as those from any other country.
There is also an understanding with respect to the access to the Korean market for goods of particular interest to Canada which may be affected by the balance of payments controls applied by Korea. This understanding is in a separate exchange of letters. There are also separate undertakings to deal with possible problems of market disruption which may arise in the future as well as the application by Korea of voluntary restraints on exports to Canada of certain goods for the 12 month period beginning January 1, 1967. These goods are listed in the annex to the correspondence between the Korean embassy in Ottawa and the Department of Finance.
11514	COMMONS
Tributes to the Late Rodger Mitchell
This agreement marks a further step in our program for expanding Canada's trade and economic relations with our neighbours across the Pacific. Canada has supported the accession of Korea to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which is expected to take place shortly. At the present time trade between Canada and Korea is relatively small. Under this agreement we look forward to a mutually advantageous expansion of this trade. With the signing of this agreement, Canada now has formal trade relations with a total of 104 countries.



THE LATE RODGER MITCHELL


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is my sad duty to announce to the house the passing, since we last sat, of Mr. Rodger Mitchell, our colleague the hon. member for Sudbury. Mr. Mitchell had been ill for some time. He had borne that illness with the quiet courage and uncomplaining spirit that was characteristic of him. Only a week or so before he died I had information that he was making a recovery, which was very unusual in the circumstances, and we hoped that perhaps he would get over this illness. That was not to be.
Hon. members on all sides of the house will, I know, join me in regret at his passing. I think he was one of the most highly regarded and best loved members in the house. He was quiet and sincere in his devotion to duty as a member and also a very dedicated and loyal Canadian. He will be greatly missed, I know, by all hon. members, perhaps by me as much as by any other member because we represented adjoining constituencies in the House of Commons and I have benefited for many, many years by his wise advice and good counsel.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, Rodger Mitchell was one of those members who enjoyed the respect of hon. members in all parts of the house. He did not participate in debates generally, but he gave devotedly to his constituency and to his country. He had a wonderfully friendly disposition and, above all, in recent months when facing a fatal illness, of which he knew, he displayed a courage that was almost unbelievable. I talked with him on the last occasion he was here, and he was still full of hope and optimism. All of us in Her

DEBATES	January 9, 1967
Majesty's loyal opposition wish to extend our sympathy to his loved ones, to the Prime Minister and to the members of the government party.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: The members of the New Democratic Party wish to associate themselves with the tributes which have just been paid to our late colleague Rodger Mitchell. He gave good service to his constituency and to the House of Commons. He was highly regarded and greatly respected by all those who worked with him. Those of us who have been associated with him know what a pleasant travelling companion he was. Despite the fact that he was suffering from ill health, he was one of the most active members of the house, and all of us who worked with him on various occasions came to have a very high regard for him. I am sure that his loss will be felt keenly not only in the house but in the constituency which he so ably represented in parliament.
Members of this party would like to extend to the bereaved family, to the Prime Minister and to Rodger Mitchell's colleagues in the house our deepest sympathy in this sad time of loss.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party and personally, I wish to join with the previous speakers to deplore the passing away of a member of this house, Mr. Mitchell. I knew him personally as a fellow member on two delegations. He had a very strong social awareness; he was a very interesting travelling companion and a hard worker.
To his leader and his party, as well as to the members of his family, I wish to extend our party's deepest sympathy.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Social Credit party would like to associate themselves with the remarks which have been made. We are saddened by the passing of Rodger Mitchell who, as has been said, displayed in this house courage and integrity which have served as an example to each and every one of us.
This sad event reminds us of life itself and of the frequency with which we have to rise on occasions like this because of the passing of one of our colleagues. We would like to extend to the Prime Minister and his party our sincere regrets. To the bereaved family we wish every comfort that God can give them at this time of dire need and sorrow.
January 9, 1967

[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Mr.  M. W. Marlin@Timmins: I should like to add a personal note to the expressions of sympathy which have already been voiced. Coming from northern Ontario as I do, possibly I have had occasion to know Rodger Mitchell a little better than many other hon. members. I have had occasion also to visit him in his drug store in Sudbury, the city in which he was affectionately known as "Mitch the druggist". He was a man who was always available to his constituents. He knew most of them on a first name basis. Certainly he will be a great loss to them, to his party and to this house. He was one of the finest gentlemen to ever grace the floor of this chamber.



TRANSPORT


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I should like to table a copy, in English and in French, of the report of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority on the sufficiency of seaway tolls.



CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Robert Henry Winters: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation with an authorized capital of ten million dollars to be subscribed for by the Minister of Finance and paid out of the consolidated revenue fund at such time as the corporation may require; to authorize the minister to make loans to the said corporation the aggregate outstanding amounts of which shall not at any time exceed five hundred million dollars; and to provide further for the employment of staff and for other matters consequential upon or incidental to any of the foregoing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Lester Bowles Pearson: that the house go into committee at the
Questions
next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That the house do go into committee of the whole at its next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:-
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the payment of a retiring annuity to Governors General of Canada and to their widows.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway): 1.	Has the federal prison for women at Kingston, Ontario, reverted to the former maximum security conditions and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Is the emphasis in discipline in this prison punitive or rehabilitative and, if the former, for what reason?
3.	Have any of the trained treatment staff resigned recently, since January 1, 1966, and, if so, for what reason in each case?
4.	Has treatment of inmates retained its importance and, if not, for what reason?
5.	Has the prison for women been put under the regional system designed for men's institutions and, if so, for what reason?
6.	Has a staff selection committee been established and, if not, has such a committee been proposed?
7.	If such a committee has been proposed, is it intended to carry out such proposal and, if not, for what reason?
8.	Have representations been made by the staff charging inequalities in the staff promotion system and, if so, what are the stated causes of the alleged inequalities?
9.	Are the social workers' files in the prison kept confidential according to usual social work standards and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: 1. No.
2.	The emphasis in discipline is rehabilitative.
3.	Yes, two have resigned for reasons stated as personal.
4.	Yes, there has been no reduction in the emphasis given to treatment.
5.	The prison for women is one of the institutions in the Ontario region and as such is responsible administratively to the regional director. As in all federal penitentiaries, the training program is the responsibility of the institutional head.
6.	Yes.
7.	Not applicable.
8.	No.
9.	Yes.

January 9, 1967
Questions


WHEAT MARKETED BY WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Pascoe: 1.	What quantities of wheat, listed separately in the various grades No. 1 Northern, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4 and No. 5, were marketed by the Canadian Wheat Board in the crop year 1964-65?
2.	What quantities of the above grades, listed separately, were marketed by the Canadian Wheat Board in the crop year 1965-66?


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: 1.
(million bushels)
No. 1 Northern	16.8
No. 2 Northern	183.0
No. 3 Northern	112.6
No. 4 Northern	57.8
No. 1 to 4 Cdn. Amber Durum	36.5
No. 5 wheat and lower	54.7
Total	461.0
The above quantities include exports and sales to the domestic market. 2. 1965-66 (million bushels)	
No. 1 Northern	9.3
No. 2 Northern	129.8
No. 3 Northern	168.0
No. 4 Northern	161.1
No. 1 to 4 Cdn. Amber Durum	33.7
No. 5 wheat and lower	43.6
Total	545.5
The above quantities include	wheat exports only. Final figures will not be available	
for several weeks with respect to	the grade
breakdown for the domestic market and the export flour market.


BROADCASTING BY U.S. ORGANIZATIONS OVER CANADIAN RADIO
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): 1.	Are there any regulations restricting broadcasting by American political organizations over a radio station located in Canada?
2.	If so, was station CJSP Leamington authorized to broadcast a program concerning the John Birch Society and sponsored by American firms in Detroit for American consumption on Sunday, October 30, 1966?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Board of Broadcast Governors as follows: 1. No. However, any such programs are subject to the Broadcasting Act and regulations.

2.	Station CJSP had no need to get the permission of the BBG to carry the program but the station would be required to make time available on an equitable basis to other points of view.


IMMIGRANTS ENTERING CANADA, 1965
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many immigrants entered Canada in 1965, from what countries did they come, and in what numbers?
2.	How many of the immigrants who came to Canada in 1965 settled in Nova Scotia and what percentage of the total number does this represent?
3.	Have any special efforts been made by the government to attract immigrants to the Atlantic provinces and what degree of success has been indicated by such a program, if it exists?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1.	See attached table.
2.	Of the 146,758 immigrants admitted to Canada in 1965, 1,612 or 1.1 per cent were recorded as being destined to the province of Nova Scotia at the time of their arrival.
3.	No. The federal government's efforts to interest skilled immigrants in settlement in Canada are not conducted on provincial or regional lines. The overseas counselling officers of the department try to inform all applicants impartially of economic and living conditions throughout Canada. They of course describe the areas where a demand exists for a particular occupation. There is also close co-operation with those individual provinces which themselves promote immigration.


IMMIGRATION TO CANADA BY COUNTRY OF FORMER RESIDENCE-1965
[Stage Direction]
Country of Last Permanent Residence
Algeria	10
Arabia, Saudi	7
Argentina	489
Australia	2,150
Austria	1,472
Belgium	977
Bermuda	120
Brazil	587
Britain	39,857
England	28,820
Northern Ireland	1,934
Scotland	8,363
Wales	682
Lesser Br. Isles	58
Bulgaria	13
Ceylon	126
January 9, 1967	COMMONS
China	197
Czechoslovakia	68
Denmark	859
Egypt	1,378
Finland	504
France	5,225
Germany	8,927
Greece	5,642
Hong Kong	4,155
Hungary	453
Iceland	7
India	2,241
Iran	136
Ireland (Republic)	861
Israel	822
Italy	26,398
Japan	209
Latvia	4
Lebanon	602
Lithuania	2
Luxemburg	22
Malta	1,055
Mexico	147
Morocco	834
Netherlands, The	2,619
New Zealand	561
Norway	324
Pakistan	423
Poland	1,975
Portugal	5,734
Roumania	55
South Africa, Rep.	545
Spain	837
Sweden	361
Switzerland	2,169
Syria	71
Tunisia	12
Turkey	469
U.S.S.R.	157
United States	15,143
Yugoslavia	1,230
Africa, n.e.s.	417
Asia, n.e.s.	2,226
Central America	39
Europe, n.e.s.	9
South America, n.e.s.	1,395
West Indies	3,095
Other Countries, n.e.s.	336
TOTAL	146,758
n.e.s. means "not elsewhere specified".

Mr. Bell (Carleion): 1.	Has a contract been awarded or arranged through external aid for a topographic mapping project in Guyana?
Questions
2.	What are the names and addresses of all firms who were invited to submit proposals?
3.	On what date or dates were such invitations sent?
4.	What firm was chosen?
5.	What is the amount of the contract?
6.	Wherein did the proposals of the successful firm commend themselves to the government in preference to the proposals of other firms?
7.	What equipment necessary for the project was (a) owned (b) leased (c) otherwise controlled, by the successful firm on the date of the award of the contract?
8.	Have any advance or other payments been made in respect of the contract?
9.	If so, what payments, in what amount and when were they made?
10.	Has the government been made aware of litigation arising out of the circumstances preliminary to or contemporaneous with the award of this contract?
11.	If so, what attitude has the government taken in respect of this litigation?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: 1. The government of
Guyana has negotiated a contract, signed on November 26, for a topographical mapping project, to be financed under a development loan, with the Canadian owned company, Terra Surveys Limited.
2.	General Photogrammetric Services Limited (Ottawa), Terra Surveys Limited (Ottawa), Lockwood Survey Corporation Limited (Toronto), Spartan Air Services Limited (Ottawa), Canadian Aero Services Limited (Ottawa).
3.	August 23, 1966.
4.	Terra Surveys Limited was recommended to Guyana.
5.	$1,800,000.
6.	In accordance with established procedures, written proposals were judged on the soundness, ingenuity and the financial implications of the technical procedures and operational plans submitted, the present commitments of each company both for regular commercial contracts and for other projects of a similar nature under the Canadian external aid program, the experience of company personnel in the fields to be covered, and the technical capacity of company personnel.
7.	Terra Surveys Limited indicated that it would have available for the project the following equipment: 1 complete Aerodist system; 1 Wild RC9 Super infragon camera; 1 Wild universal mount; 1 Wild horizon camera; 1 Rosemount 800 F4D altitude transducer (statoscope); 1 APR system manufactured by Electronic Associates; 1 Wild PUG

January 9, 1967
Questions
point transfer instrument; 3 Wild B8 autographs; 1 Wild A8 autograph; 1 Precision co-ordinatograph; Aircraft for the project would be leased.
8.	As of December 2, no payments had been made on this contract
9.	See the answer to question 8.
10.	Yes.
11.	The government does not customarily intervene in litigation between private companies.


INCORPORATION OF TERRA SURVEYS LTD.
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Upon what date was an application received by the Department of the Secretary of State for the incorporation of Terra Surveys Limited?
2.	Upon what date was the grant of letters patent approved?
3.	Upon what date were the letters patent (a) signed by the Secretary of State (b) recorded?
4.	Upon what date were the letters patent dispatched to the applicants or their solicitors?
5.	Who are the persons shown in the said letters patent as first directors of the corporation?


Hon. John N. Turner (Member of the Administration):: 1. August 16, 1966.
2,	3 and 4. The letters patent were issued on August 16, 1966, and pursuant to the provisions of section 11 of the Canada Corporations Act the company came into existence on the date of the letters patent incorporating it. The letters patent were recorded on September 9, 1966.
5. Alastair Macdonald, Robert Cameron McLaughlin, Mary Ann Gaudreau, Jeffrey Lyman Dewitt King and Paul Bernard Stanley Tetro.


CONTRACTS FOR TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
Mr. Bell (Carleion): 1.	Since January 1, 1965, have any contracts been awarded or arranged through external aid for topographic mapping or similar surveys in Trinidad and Tobago?
2.	If so, in each instance (a) what are the names and addresses of all firms invited to submit proposals (b) what firm was chosen (c) what was the amount of the contract (d) wherein did the proposals of the successful firm commend themselves to the government in preference to the proposals of other firms (e) had the successful firm ever previously (i) undertaken works of this nature abroad, or (ii) performed work of this nature for the government of Canada?

3.	Were any representations or submissions, formal or informal, received from the Government of Trinidad and Tobago expressing concern about this contract?
4.	If so, what was the nature of such representations or submissions?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: 1. Since January, 1965, a photographic contract has been awarded to General Photogrammetric Services Limited and a topographic mapping contract to Sur-vair Limited.
2.	(a) The contract awarded to General Photogrammetric Services Limited for preliminary photography was awarded on the basis of a tender call. Other companies which submitted tenders included Aero Photo Inc., Canadian Aero Services Limited and Lockwood Survey Corporation Ltd. (b) See answer to Question 1. (c) General Photogrammetric Services Limited, $80,000; Survair Limited, $1,414,612. (d) The award to General Photogrammetric Services Limited was based on the low tender. The award to Survair Limited, in accordance with established procedures, was based on written proposals which were judged on the soundness, ingenuity and the financial implications of the technical procedures and operational plans submitted, the present commitments of each company both for regular commercial contracts and for other projects of a similar nature under the Canadian external aid program, the experience of the company personnel in the fields to be covered, and the technical capacity of company personnel, (e) (i) Yes. (ii) Yes.
3.	No.
4.	See answer to Question 3.


AIR CANADA PASSENGERS CARRIED, AIRCRAFT, ETC.
Mr. McCleave: 
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. In 1956, 5,664. In 1961, 10,170. In first three quarters 1966, 15,234.
2.	In 1956, 70. In 1961, 82. In first three quarters 1966, 81.
3.	(a) In July 1956, 21. In July 1961, 29. In July 1966, 24. (b) In July 1956, 6. In July 1961, 8. In July 1966, 9. (c) In July 1956, 8. In July 1961, 8. In July 1966, 11.


FEES FOR APPEARING ON &quot;SUNDAY&quot; PROGRAM
Mr. Johnston: What fees were paid to the following for their appearance on the C.B.C. program "Sunday" (a) Allen Ginsberg (b) Dr. Shepperd (c) Mrs. Porter (former Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald)?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It has not been customary to require the C.B.C. to disclose fees paid to individuals, since this could adversely affect the corporation in the competitive field of broadcasting.


C.B.C. PROGRAM &quot;SUNDAY&quot;
Mr. Scott (Victoria (Onl.)): 1.	What is the cost of production of the C.B.C. program Sunday?
2.	Has the C.B.C. a contract with the producers and, if so, for how long?
3.	Are any precautions being taken to eliminate the showing of further programs of this nature?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1. Cost of individual programs will vary but the budget allows for an average of approximately $30,000 per week.
2.	Yes. Contracts with the producers run to next summer.
3.	The new "Sunday" series is continuing to develop and efforts have been made to eliminate the shortcomings that have occurred in the early programs of the series.


REQUEST FOR TAX RELIEF UNDER AUTOMOTIVE AGREEMENT
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Have the Ministers of Finance, Trade and Commerce, National Revenue, and Industry received a
Questions
submission, prior to this date, from the Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association requesting tax relief in specific areas due to economic pressure generated by the Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement?
2.	Was there included in this submission a recommendation for the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on machinery and equipment for the automotive parts manufacturing industry?


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: The answer to the first part of the question is yes, ministers have recently received a letter from the Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association (Canada) urging changes in the sales tax and income tax law.
The answer to the second part of the question is yes.


FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT, NOVA SCOTIA INDIAN RESERVES
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	For each year since 1963, what fire-fighting equipment and other assistance has been provided by the government to the Indian population on the Eskasoni Indian Reserve, N.S., and the Middle River Reserve?
2.	On each reserve, who is the person responsible for and competent to operate such equipment?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Eskasoni reserve-In August 1964, the following equipment was purchased: (a) four ton fire truck with 500 gallon tank and pumper; (b) 150 linear feet of two inch fire hose; (c) fire axes; (d) stretcher; (e) 200 linear feet of one and a half inch forestry hose; (f) roof ladder and extension; (g) 60 foot extending ladder; (h) 20 linear feet of suction hose; (i) 5 horse power pump; (j) siren.
In addition, there is also a separate pump and a large quantity of forestry hose which can be used.
Middle River reserve: No equipment has been purchased for this reserve. Fire service is provided by the adjacent town of Baddeck.
2.	The equipment is housed in the fire hall on the Eskasoni reserve, under the charge of the chief of the fire brigade, Mr. Adrian Morris.

January 9, 1967
Questions


FREIGHT AND PASSENGERS CARRIED, C.N.R. AND C.P.R.
Mr. Douglas: 1. How many ton-miles of freight were moved by (a) the C.N.R., and (b) the C.P.R., in 1956 and in 1965?
2. How many passengers were carried by (a) the C.N.R. and (.b) the C.P.R., in 1956 and 1965?


Mr. Jean-Charles Caniin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. (a) and (b)
Net Ton-Miles of Freight*
C.N.R.	C.P.R.
Year	Revenue Non-revenue (000)	Revenue	Non-revenue (000)1956	37,591,061	2,419,190	30,433,335	1,731,9901965	42,174,182	1,068,605	33,773,280	652,684
* Represents the movement of a ton (2,000 pounds) a distance of one mile. A charge for a movement classifies a ton-mile as a revenue ton-mile. Non-revenue ton-miles reflect the transportation of company materials and supplies such as rails, ties, ballast, fuel, etc., without charges, for the railway's own use.
2.	(a) and (b)
Revenue Passengers Carried
Year	C.N.R.	C.P.R.1956	14,528,473	8,906,2881965	16,760,830	6,868,283Source:	Dominion Bureau of Statistics
Catalogue No. 52-210, "Railway Transport, Part IV"


CARBON MONOXIDE POLLUTION IN INDUSTRIAL PLANTS
Mr. Fawcett: 1.	Is there any federal regulation which establishes a threshold safety limit of air pollution by carbon monoxide gases in industrial plants where such pollution is expected to occur?
2.	If so, what has been established as the maximum under which employees can be exposed without incurring effects detrimental to health?
3.	If not, is any federal research being carried out to determine a maximum safety level?
4.	Does inspection of plants for possible pollution of air come under federal jurisdiction, provincial jurisdiction, or both?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Department of National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	No.
4.	Provincial jurisdiction-except federal undertakings.


INSPECTION OF GREAT LAKES VESSELS UNDER CANADIAN REGISTRY
Mr. Gray: 1.	What are the names and dates of construction for each vessel under Canadian registry which was in use on the great lakes during the 1966 shipping season, and which was (a) constructed in 1906 (b) in each year previous to 1906?
2.	What are the requirements for inspection of these vessels under Canadian law, and do these requirements include checking for "metal fatigue"?
3.	When was each of them last inspected by officials of the federal government?
4.	Will the government be carrying out any further inspections prior to the next shipping season, in addition to the inspections referred to above, in the light of the recent sinking on lake Huron of the Daniel J. Morell, and will any such further inspections include checking for metal fatigue?
5.	If the answer to part 2 or 4 is in the negative, what is the reason for such answer?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. and 3.
Date of
Name of	Date of Last
Vessel	Construction Inspection
Victorious	1895	5.4.66Pic River	1896	2.4.66Black River	1896	31.3.66Mohawk Deer	1896	7.4.66Dolomite	1897	8.6.66Burlington	1899	12.4.66Douglas Houghten	1899	5.4.66Maunaloa II	1899	6.4.66Portadoc	1899	5.4.66Windoc	1899	5.4.66Saskadoc	1900	4.4.66Captain C. D. Secord	1900	6.4.66Howard L. Shaw	1900	5.4.66Alexander Leslie	1901	11.4.66Martian	1901	4.4.66Bricolduc	1902	5.4.66G. G. Post	1902	22.4.66Soodoc	1902	5.4.66
January 9, 1967

Mancox	1903	1.4.66Ontadoc	1903	5.4.66Stonefax	1903	13.4.66Augustus B. Wolvin	1904	22.4.66Michipicoten	1905	2.4.66Martha Hindman	1905	2.4.66Grovedale	1905	5.4.66Westdale	1905	5.4.66Ridgetown	1905	31.3.66Thornhill	1906	2.4.66Meaford	1906	2.4.66Sir Thomas Shaughnessy 1906	1.4.66Pinedale	1906	5.4.66Outarde	1906	6.4.66Goudreau	1906	9.4.66Heron Bay	1906	7.4.66Goderich	1906	31.3.66Helen Evans	1906	5.4.662. Canadian law requires that	the vesse
be inspected annually in accordance with detailed regulations made under the Canada Shipping Act. The requirements are broad and permit checking for metal fatigue when considered necessary by officers of the department. It should be noted that the age of the
Questions
vessel is not necessarily indicative of the age of all portions of its structure due to renewals of material as the result of damage and normal wear and tear.
4.	Each vessel will be inspected in accordance with statutory requirements prior to the next shipping season. Special instructions with respect to older vessels, and including checking for fatigue, were in effect prior to the sinking of the Daniel J. Morrel and will continue in effect.
5.	No answer required.


FISHERIES DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES, ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Crouse: 1.	What is the total amount of money that will be spent by the Department of Fisheries during 1966 on the following services (a) resources development branch (b) inspection services, and (c) economics branch in (i) Nova Scotia (ii) Newfoundland (iii) New Brunswick, and (iv) Prince Edward Island?
2.	What are the estimated totals for this work in the four Atlantic provinces during 1967?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1.
Nova	New-	New-	Pr. EdwardScotia	foundland	Brunswick	Island$	$	$	$Resource development	Operation and maintenance	653,499.52	167,606.88	345,975.94	133,822.56Construction	244,391.66	64,432.45	106,887.06	29,235.96Total	897,891.18	232,039.33	452,863.00	163,058.52Inspection service	Operation and maintenance	561,836.26	494,540.04	229,900.25	95,272.07Construction	16,860.93	52,145.38	130,846.63	1,317.38Total	578,697.19	546,685.42	360,746.88	96,589.45Economics service	Operation and maintenance	53,799.11	34,726.72	7.80	NilCOMMONS	DEBATES	JanuaryQuestions	Estimates 1966-67	New- foundland	*Maritimes$	$Resource development	Operation and maintenance	237,000.00	1,345,400.00Construction	127,600.00	490,400.00Total	364,600.00	1,835,800.00Inspection service	Operation and maintenance	545,350.00	970,750.00Construction	86,000.00	67,300.00Total	631,350.00	1,038,050.00Economics service	Operation and maintenance	44,150.00	61,025.00
^Estimates are prepared only on basis fisheries regions; Newfoundland forms a region as does the three maritime provinces. Figures of expenditure at year's end are developed by province for purpose of annual report.


JAPANESE WHALING SHIP &quot;KYO MARU&quot;
Mr. Crouse: 1.	What was the nature of the joint venture between Arctic Fisheries of Dildo Newfoundland and the Department of Fisheries?
2.	What is the total amount of federal funds expended on this venture?
3.	Under whose authority was the Japanese whaler Kyo Mam brought from Japan to Newfoundland?
4.	How many Canadians are employed on this whaler and what are the financial arrangements between the ship owners and the federal Department of Fisheries?
5.	What are the financial arrangements between the ship owners and Arctic Fisheries?
6.	Why were these arrangements initiated?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1.	There is no arrangement between Arctic Fisheries and the Department of Fisheries. The department however entered into a charter agreement with Kyokuyo Hogei Ltd., of Tokyo, Japan, for hire of the steel whaling vessel No. 17 Kyo Maru to undertake on a commercial basis whaling operations out of Newfoundland. The whales taken were processed at the Dildo plant.
2.	The charter rate was $2,000 a month, the total not to exceed $12,000.
3.	The Minister of Fisheries.
4.	No Canadians were employed as crew, but Canadian scientists and technologists observed these experimental operations. Re financial arrangements, see 2 above.

5.	Unknown.
6.	To encourage the development of a modern whaling industry in the Canadian Atlantic region. In 1964 a similar arrangement was in effect in Nova Scotia, when a Norwegian whaling vessel was chartered. The department, in co-operation with industry, has established that whaling operations can be undertaken successfully out of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.


REGULATIONS ADJUSTING OLD AGE SECURITY PAYMENTS
Mr. Allmand: 1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare prepared the regulations necessary to adjust the basic amount of old age security in accordance with the "Pension Index" as set out in section 120 of the Canada Pension Plan and in section 3A of the Old Age Security Act?
2.	If so, when will the first adjustment under these regulations be made with respect to the basic amount of old age security?


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The answer to the first part of this question is no.
The answer to the second part of the question is as follows. If, pursuant to section 3A of the Old Age Security Act, adjustment is required in respect of the basic amount of old age security pension, the first such adjustment will be in respect of months, beginning with the month of January, in 1968.
January 9, 1967


LOSS OF AIR CANADA PERSONNEL DURING STRIKE
Mr. Laprise: During the Air Canada strike, how many (a) air hostesses (b) pilots (c) other members of the staff, left their employment?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: (a) Flight attendants, 9; (b) Pilots, 0; (c) Other members of the staff, 57.
Note: These figures are not significantly different from the average two week period during the past 12 months, or from the comparative two week period in November 1965.


GRANT TO AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTE, SAINT-HYACINTHE, QUE.
Mr. Ricard: What was the final amount of the grant for the construction and equipment of the Institut de technologie agricole of Staint-Hyacinthe?


John Carr Munro: The total amount of the approved federal contribution for construction and equipment costs of the Institut de technologie agricole of Saint-Hyacinthe is $6,146,103.00 which amounts to 75 per cent of the total shareable cost of $8,194,804.00. The cost of land is not shareable.


NON-PROFIT FERRY AUTHORITY, GLOUCESTER, MASS.
Mr. Crouse: Has the government any information regarding a non-profit ferry authority to be set up in Gloucester, Massachusetts, following a project study by Caldwell, Tremble and Mitchell of New York for the provision of a second passenger and freight ferry between Gloucester and Nova Scotia?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Insofar as the Canadian Maritime Commission is concerned, the answer is no.


CRITICISM OF C.B.C. GREY CUP PARADE BROADCAST
Mr. McLelland: Did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation receive any complaints and criticisms (a) by telephone (b) by letter, regarding the C.B.C. broadcast of the Grey Cup parade in Vancouver and, if so, how many?
Questions


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the C.B.C. that it received 1,782 unfavourable telephone calls and 74 unfavourable letters with regard to coverage of the Grey Cup parade, predominantly from Vancouver viewers.


CONSUMERS DIVISION, HEALTH AND WELFARE DEPARTMENT
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway): 1.	Is there a consumer division in the Department of National Health and Welfare?
2.	What personnel does it include?
3.	What is its budget?
4.	What are its functions?
5.	Does it undertake consumer research?
6.	If so, what are its techniques?
7.	How does it communicate with the consumer?
8.	Has it any regular channels of communication with the Consumers Association of Canada and if so, what are they?
9.	Have studies been made to determine what the consumer wants in the way of package and consumer sizes?
10.	Have studies been made to discover what specific fields of consumer education should be stressed?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes.
2.	Authorized establishment includes:	8
professionals and 4 administrative support Personnel (clerks and typists).
3.	The budget for 1966-67 is $40,150 (exclusive of salaries).
4.	The major functions of the consumer division are: (a) to plan, organize and direct a program of consumer education; (b) to plan and direct a program to ensure a flow of information from consumers to the directorate; (c) to determine consumer needs and gaps in consumer protection and to recommend means of improving such protection; (d) to conduct special surveys of consumer attitudes and interests; (e) to plan and arrange for the production of informational material for consumers; (f) to prepare displays on matters of consumer interest for exhibitions, fairs and consumer meetings; (g) to handle consumer correspondence for the directorate and to analyse and report on trends as reflected by such correspondence.
5.	Yes.
6.	Consumer research is carried out by means of (a) surveys of consumer opinion regarding food and drug products; (b) evaluation of resolutions received from meetings of consumers; and (c) analysis of complaints

January 9, 19G7
Questions
for individual consumers and consumer groups across Canada.
7.	The consumer division communicates by (a) preparing and distributing booklets and other informational material; (b) publishing a "Consumer Memo" dealing with current topics of interest to consumers; (c) addressing consumer groups; (d) providing displays for consumer meetings; (e) participating in discussion panels, radio and television consumer programs, and (f) corresponding with consumers.
8.	Yes. The consumer division maintains contact with the Consumers Association of Canada through the following channels: (a) direct contact with officers of the Consumers Association of Canada at its headquarters in Ottawa; (b) attendance at annual meetings of the Consumers Association of Canada and meetings of provincial and local groups across Canada; and (c) correspondence with the provincial and local branches of the Consumers Association of Canada.
9.	Yes. A survey of consumer opinion carried out in 1961 included questions relating to the packaging and labelling of foods.
10.	Yes. Advice in this regard is also obtained from the advisory council of consumers appointed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to advise the department on matters of consumer interest.


PROVINCIAL POPULATIONS AT CONFEDERATION
Mr. Laprise: What was the population of each of the ten provinces at the time they joined Confederation?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
dates when each of the 10 Provinces entered into Confederation, and their estimated population as at these dates are as follows:
	Date of	Estimated
	entry into	population
	Confed-	at date
Province	eration	of entryNewfoundland	1949	345,000Prince Edward Island	1873	98,000Nova Scotia	1867	364,000New Brunswick	1867	271,000Quebec	1867	1,123,000Ontario	1867	1,525,000Manitoba	1870	22,000Saskatchewan	1905	236,000Alberta	1905	166,000British Columbia	1871	36,000


METHOD OF DEALING WITH PERPETUAL BONDS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Will the government give reconsideration to its decision not to redeem the Perpetual Bonds issued in 1936?
2.	If the answer is in the negative, would it not redeem the bonds whose holders have held them for 15 years or more?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. No. Careful consideration was given to the matter prior to the decision.
2. Careful consideration has been given to a number of proposals involving redemption of all or some holdings of perpetual bonds. Unfortunately all such proposals, including the redemption of bonds held for a specified number of years, involve arbitrary and discriminatory treatment against other holders whose bonds are now quoted at substantial discounts below the original cost.


BONUS ON AGRICULTURAL LIMESTONE
Mr. Fairweather: Has it been decided to discontinue the bonus on agricultural limestone as of January 1, 1967 and, if so, what were the reasons for this change in policy?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Assistance on agricultural lime is provided by provincial programs, and since 1943, the federal government has reimbursed the provinces for a portion of their expenditures under such programs.
The federal government gave notice to the tax structure committee in September of this year of its new approach to shared cost programs, and its intention to remove federal conditions in respect of certain well established and continuing programs. In keeping with this policy, the decision was taken to discontinue federal support for provincial programs of lime assistance after March 31, 1967. Such programs are regarded as being well established and within the financial capability of the provinces, taking into account the additional resources to be made available through equalization and the other fiscal transfers from the federal government to the provinces.


STAFF SHORTAGE, ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	Is there a staff shortage on the Atlantic Development Board which is causing a delay in getting under way some of the studies which the board should be conducting and, if so, has this been brought to the attention of the government?
January 9, 19G7

2.	If a shortage does exist, will steps be taken immediately to provide the required staff to enable the board to proceed with the recommended studies?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Atlantic Development Board as follows: 1. Yes.
2. The cause of the staff shortage is a shortage of qualified professional personnel to fill established positions. The board is continuously attempting to recruit qualified personnel from the available supply.


FEDERAL LOANS TO RIMOUSKI, MONT-JOLI AND TROIS-PISTOLES, QUE.
Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski): 1.	What was the number and amount of the loans granted by the federal government to the town of Rimouski, to the town of Mont-Joli, and to the town of Trois-Pistoles, in 1965 and 1966?
2.	What was the nature of those projects that benefited from a federal loan in 1965 and 1966, in the towns of Rimouski, Mont-Joli, and Trois-Pistoles?
3.	At what conditions and interest rates were these loans made?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 
DISCONTINUANCE OF MAIL ROUTE, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Has the Postmaster General received a letter from the town clerk of Thorburn, N.S., or on behalf of the citizens of the town, protesting the proposed discontinuance on February 28, 1967, of the mail route-Thorburn, N.S. to New Glasgow, N.S.- which mail route now departs from Thorburn at 1.30 p.m.?
2.	In view of the importance of this service to the citizens of this town, is the Postmaster General giving consideration to the continuation of the present service?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: 1. Yes.
2. Yes. Thorburn will continue to have an early afternoon dispatch at approximately 1:30 p.m. An additional service will also be provided by a dispatch at approximately 6 p.m. These services will be performed through a rearrangement of other services operating in the area.


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO ARMED FORCES PENSIONS
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	How much money has the government contributed to the pensions of retired officers and men of the regular armed forces under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act each year since 1948?
2.	What is the present balance of the Canadian Armed Forces Superannuation Fund?
3.	What was the amount of contributions by serving officers and men to the fund during the past year?
4.	What was the total of pension disbursements to retired officers and men during the past year?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. Pensions of retired officers and men of the regular armed forces are paid from the superannuation account to which are credited the contributions of both the government and military personnel. Government contributions to the superannuation account since 1948 are:
11526	COMMONS DEBATES	January 9, 1967
Questions
Permanent				Actuarial
Services				Liability
Pension Account	Contributions	Interest	Adjustment1948-49	$ 7,395,379	$	664,165	1949-50	9,046,347	1,219,701	1950-51	11,974,766	1,980,693	1951-52	30,711,777	2,811,597	1952-53	30,008,601	4,700,762	1953-54	35,213,966	6,669,761	1954-55	36,734,187	8,926,549	1955-56	40,144,164	12,004,946	1956-57	46,351,821	15,001,456	1957-58	49,731,909	18,306,790	1958-59	49,504,051	31,811,886	$ 326,300,0001959-60	51,791,054	39,343,006	Canadian Forces	Superannuation Account	1960-61	$ 40,549,588	$	43,432,211	1961-62	55,984,894	48,049,880	1962-63	58,103,389	53,084,902	$ 198,549,0001963-64	59,654,950	66,307,701	76,500,0001964-65	58,774,467	74,981,492	67,202,0001965-66	58,789,870	83,251,648	16,600,0002.	Credits to the Canadian armed forces superannuation account as at November 30, 1966-$2,256,699,638.3.	Contributions by serving personnel for fiscal year 1965-1966-$34,052,969.4.	Pension disbursements for fiscal year 1965-1966-$36,878,141.


INCOME TAX ALLOWANCE FOR AUTOMOBILES
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	Will the government examine section 11 (11) of the Income Tax Act which provides that certain taxpayers are eligible to claim capital cost of an automobile that is used in the course of their employment to help earn income, and consider amending the act to provide similar capital cost allowances for those individuals who substitute an aircraft for an automobile for the same purpose?
2.	Why are the words "and/or aircraft" omitted from section 11 of the Income Tax Act which now applies only to a taxpayer's vise of an automobile?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. This has been examined in answer to representations made in past years and the decision reached was to propose no change.
2. The subsection referred to permits certain employees, who require transportation from place to place as they perform their employment, to claim capital cost allowances in respect of an automobile required for use in the performance of their duties. It has been considered sufficient to allow this deduction in respect of the means of trans-

portation most generally used and unnecessary to allow a deduction in respect of the capital cost of a boat or aircraft acquired by an employee for use in his employment.


SCHOONER &quot;BLUENOSE&quot; ON TEN CENT PIECE
Mr. Crouse: Is It the intention of the government to return the likeness of the Lunenburg schooner Bluenose to the back of Canada's ten cent piece in 1968, following the issue of special coins to be struck for the 100th anniversary of Confederation?


Mitchell William Sharp: In a press release dated April 20, 1966, dealing with the new wildlife series for the centennial coinage, it was stated that the government would decide some time during 1967 whether the new designs would be adopted for regular issue following centennial year. No further decision in that regard has been made.


TRADE AND COMMERCE NEWSPAPER &quot;CANADA COURIER&quot;
Mr. Guay: Does the Department of Trade and Commerce publish a tabloid newspaper titled Canada Courier for distribution outside of Canada only, as a trade promotional measure and, if so (a) how many copies are printed (b) how frequently does the newspaper appear (c) what is the annual cost of the publication (d) to whom are copies distributed (e) what results are achieved?
January 9, 1987


Jean-Charles Cantin: The Department publishes a tabloid newspaper titled Canada Courier, for distribution abroad only, as a trade promotional measure. Its contents relate to news items and feature articles about Canadian products and services available for export, particularly material which indicates the new and the novel or otherwise reveals the achievements and competitive capabilities of Canadian manufacturers and producers. No paid advertising is carried but contributions describing the export activities of Canadian firms are welcomed and considered for publication.
(a)	Published in five language editions, the total combined annual circulation is 538,000.
(b)	It appears six times a year in English,
twice a year each in French, Spanish, German and Arabic, (c) The appropriation for fiscal year 1966-67, to print and distribute 14 issues, is $59,700.	(d) Canada Courier is distributed by direct mail to potential buyers of Canadian products and services in more than 100 countries. The mailing list is kept up-to-date by Canadian Government Trade Commissioners abroad, (e) Every copy incorporates an enquiry coupon whereby the foreign reader may enquire about any product or service mentioned. For example, the department received 587 individual trade enquiries in response to the last issue for which complete figures are available.


SUB POST OFFICE LOCATION, SYDNEY, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): 1.	When will the sub post office be established in the Sydney River area, located outside the city of Sydney, Nova Scotia?
2.	Where will such a sub post office be located?
3.	Who will be the postmaster at such a sub post office?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: 1. The sub post office will be established when the premises are available for occupancy.
2.	The Plaza Smoke Shop in the new Joy shopping center.
3.	Mr. Harold W. Davis.
Questions


EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, BLANDFORD, N.S. FORCES BASE
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department of National Defence to provide its own educational facilities for the children of personnel staffing the Canadian Forces Base at Blandford, Nova Scotia?
2.	If not, is it the government's intention to educate the children of personnel on the base, at Shatford Memorial School in Hubbards, Nova Scotia?
3.	If not Hubbards, will the children of personnel be educated at Chester, Nova Scotia?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. No.
2 and 3. Because of plans to reduce grade levels at the Shatford Memorial school and because this school could not accommodate all the secondary pupils concerned, consultations have been held with the chairman of the Chester municipal school board as Blandford radio station is in the Chester municipality. No decision has yet been made but it is proposed that elementary pupils attend Mill Cove and Blandford schools and secondary pupils attend Chester high school.


'IMPORTS OF CANNED TOMATOES
Mr. Ricard: 1.	In the year 1966, has Canada imported canned
tomatoes from the following countries:	Spain,
South Africa, Italy, and Bulgaria?
2.	If so, what were the quantities for each of the above-mentioned countries, and what was the value of the imported products?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. Yes, Canada imported canned tomatoes from the countries specified in 1966.
2. According to the latest statistics available, the following quantities and values of canned tomatoes were imported in the nine-month period, January-September 1966:
Country	Quantity Lb.	Value $'000Spain	599,155	44Republic of South Africa	443,685	49Italy 	1,415,072	151Bulgaria 	2,757,099	193


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Orlikow: 1. What are the qualifications of the present senior staff officials at the prison for women in Kingston?

January 9, 1967
Questions
2.	Have any of the senior staff received training in the behavioural sciences-psychiatry, psychology, sociology, social work, education and, if so, what are the degrees?
3.	Do the senior staff responsible for operating our penitentiaries seek the advice of those with professional knowledge of methods of changing behaviour?
4.	Have the recommendations of the Archam-bault Report 1938 and the Fauteaux Report 1956 in relation to establishing liaison with universities to formulate programs for staff training, been followed?
5.	If so, how is this put into practice?
6.	How many staff in the penitentiary service are employed exclusively on counselling-dealing with inmates' families, planning pre-release, and release?
7.	How is staff selected?
8.	What is the basis of selection?
9.	How is staff trained?
10.	What is the curriculum?
11.	What materials are used?
12.	Who staffs the training college?
13.	What are their qualifications?
14.	What role does the superintendent of the institution play in the selection and supervision of staff?
15.	What responsibility and authority does the superintendent have?
16.	What authority is delegated to lower levels by the superintendent?
17.	What proportion of staff is for treatment?
18.	What are their positions?
19.	How many female staff in the penitentiary service have professional training?
20.	How many female staff have graduated training in the behavioural sciences?
21.	How many of the correctional staff members have been promoted in the past six months in the prison for women?
22.	What are the criteria for promotion?
23.	Is promotion of staff dependent on a progressive non-punitive attitude towards inmates?
24.	Is promotion of staff dependent on efficiency in operating an institution?
25.	Has the penitentiary service an estimate of the "ideal" institution and, if so, what is the ratio of staff to inmates in such institution?
26.	What is the ratio of staff to inmates in the prison for women in Kingston, today?
27.	What is the ratio of staff to inmates in the prison for women in Natsqui, today?
28.	What is "the treatment of staff" in the prison for women today?
29.	What is the cost per inmate per annum, in the prison for women?
30.	What are the salary ranges of staff in the prison for women?
Return tabled.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition!: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the serious turmoil taking place in communist China, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a position to give a statement to the house regarding the danger, if any, to Canada's trade in wheat with that country? In view of these circumstances and the seriously increasing foment which, indeed, is approaching civil war, is the government going to postpone its apparent intention of giving recognition to the Mao regime.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the basis for the question my right hon. friend has just asked in the concluding part of his statement. The government did indicate it was giving consideration to this matter. Naturally the events in China, as they are unfolding, remain to be finally assessed. This undoubtedly will be a factor in whatever decision the government takes.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister advise whether the situation there is of such a nature as to cause a degree of fear respecting the potential future deliveries of wheat to communist China?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have no information that would warrant that conclusion, Mr. Speaker. The best information I have is that the rioting continues, principally in Nanking. There is a continuing feud between workers and the red guard in some of the factories. There is a conflict between agricultural and urban elements. However, the final pattern, in the judgment of those countries which have representation in Peking, has not yet been determined.


Hon. Alvin Hamillon (Qu'Appelle):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister be able to inform the house whether he has seen a copy of the message sent from Peking to the Canadian representatives at Hong Kong refusing entry of the Canadian trade commissioner into China? Has the minister seen a copy of that message?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have not.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of
January 9, 1967	COMMONS
the unsettled conditions in China has the minister any information to give the house about the possibility of future wheat orders from that country being discontinued or not being placed with Canada?


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Speaker. There is no evidence to indicate that.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the refusal of China to allow the Canadian trade commissioner to Hong Kong to enter that country, is the government taking steps to facilitate the efforts of Canadian businessmen to build trade with that country?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can assure my hon. friend that we will lose no opportunity to keep as close to those markets as we can.


George Harris Hees: Can the minister give the house briefly some idea of what he has just said?


Some hon. Members:: Oh,oh.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister with respect to the action of the Steel Company of Canada in raising the price of steel bars and the decision of the government not to intervene. I would ask the Prime Minister what events have taken place since last September which would warrant the government in changing its position and now accepting an action which it asked the company to defer a few months ago.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, any answer to that question would require an analysis of recent economic and financial developments which would not be appropriate for the orders of the day. I can only say that the government felt this was not a situation which required intervention. I am also informed that the action taken now is not in all respects the same as that proposed some months ago.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the right hon. Prime Minister if the government would consider referring this matter to the Senate and House
Inquiries of the Ministry of Commons committee on consumer credit and cost of living which is studying the whole question of price increases at this time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be quite unnecessary to refer this particular matter to that committee.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Bert Raymond Leboe: My question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Some time ago the hon. member for Red Deer inquired about the government's response to the notes from Washington regarding the Mercantile Bank. Has the Prime Minister anything to report on this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



PERPETUAL BONDS-INQUIRY AS TO REPLACEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, but in his absence I shall direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the answer given to question No. 2,339 regarding perpetual Dominion of Canada bonds-today a $100 bond is worth only $54-


An hon. Member:: It is a shame.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It is a shame; I agree with the hon. member who made that comment. Would the Prime Minister give consideration at least to implementing this clause in that bond:
When the coupons attached hereto are exhausted the bearer hereof or if registered, the registered holder hereof on surrender of this bond will be entitled to receive in exchange therefor a new bond of like tenor with coupons for a further period of years.
I ask this because the bonds have dropped to almost half their value and the banks have not received notice to date about replacements for the bonds, with coupons attached.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I shall discuss this particular matter with the Minister of Finance who will be in Ottawa later in the day.
11530	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



SASKATCHEWAN-REPORTED DELAY IN MILK SUBSIDY PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-
Tisdale): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture in reference to the subsidy for milk and cream which the farmers are supposed to receive quarterly. The farmers in Saskatchewan are very much dissatisfied with these payments. I should like to bring to the attention of the minister-
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask a question.


Mr. Rapp:: What will the minister do to improve these payments, coming quarterly or semi annually?


John James Greene: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, the payments pretty well have been brought up to date. From the first of the year they will be made monthly instead of quarterly. If the hon. member knows of instances where farmers are not receiving their payments I should be glad to look into the matter.


Reynold Rapp: Supplementary to that, Mr. Speaker, I have letters, but I should not like to show them to the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture if there will be further legislative items in regard to his department or agriculture generally during the balance of the session.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, may I now put my question to the Minister of Agriculture. I should like to ask him whether there will be any agricultural legislation in the balance of this session?


John James Greene: If there is, it will be announced in the proper manner.



CAPE BRETON-IMPLEMENTATION OF ANNOUNCED GOVERNMENT POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask him whether he intends to

DEBATES	January 9, 1967
make a statement to the house regarding the arrangements, which he announced in a press release dated December 29, for a crown corporation and related policies to deal with the Cape Breton coal situation. Will he deal not only with the crown corporation but also with the particular elements of that policy and the coal problem itself.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the statement in connection with the press release should be tabled. That will be done tomorrow, I am sorry it was not done today. There may be an opportunity before long to discuss this matter.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the right hon. Prime Minister what sort of negotiations are now taking place with the Dominion Steel and Coal Company for the acquisition of whatever rights the company may have. Is it the intention of the government to compensate the Dominion Steel and Coal Company for relieving it of its financial burdens?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we should be poor negotiators if we answered that question this afternoon. Negotiations are taking place for ways and means to implement the principles outlined in the statement. In due course, I expect, legislation will be required. That legislation will be before the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Prime Minister, as there seems to be a similar phasing out of the steel industry on Cape Breton Island as indicated by the closing of the rod mill, and similar events which have taken place, whether the government has given thought to widening the scope of the crown corporation to include any phasing out or diminution of the steel industry in that area.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any phasing out of the steel industry in the area. We have been talking of the phasing out of the coal industry.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a communication from Dr. Malcolm MacLellan, president of St. Francis Xavier University, in regard to the serious lay-off of approximately 1,000 employees of the DOSCO steel plant at Sydney during the closing months of 1966. Further, if the Prime Minister had received such a communication, what reply was given? Also to
January 9, 19G7	COMMONS
use the words of Dr. MacLellan, what extraordinary steps are being taken by the government to restore confidence and a sense of security to the Cape Breton industrial community?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to look into that telegram. I believe I received one. I shall have to look into it.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister at present in the house prepared or able to answer for the penitentiaries service what the situation now is at Kingston penitentiary where, as reported, a sit down strike is in progress. What steps have been taken to restore discipline in that institution?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take that question as notice.



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to deal before the house with the question of the Company of Young Canadians, whether guide lines have been given to these young people, and whether that mysterious mixture of imitation and confusion which apparently activates them today is to continue. Does the government agree that these young people, who are supposed to be doing their part to overcome poverty, not only in Canada but elsewhere, should be permitted to participate in programs rather far removed from the objectives of the Company of Young Canadians as set out by the government when the legislation was introduced.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The right hon. gentleman's question covered a good deal of ground, and my answer will have to be a little longer than would normally be desirable. I should like to begin by saying that the peaceful demonstration in Toronto to which the right hon. gentleman was obviously referring had nothing whatever to do with the 23033-730
Inquiries of the Ministry Company of Young Canadians, which was not involved. The two volunteers reported in the press as having taken part did so in their personal capacity as citizens of a free country.
When this house approved the establishment of the Company of Young Canadians last summer we knew, I believe, that we were creating an organization which was expected to be characterized by a spirit of innovation, and of zeal in a new and uncharted field of public service. I stated at that time, and I am glad to repeat it, that "this is not only to be a company for young Canadians, but a company of young Canadians, a company in which young Canadians themselves will play a major role in determining the plans, operations and objectives." In this regard, I believe, the company must have a maximum degree of independence as it seeks to channel the idealism of youth into constructive social action.
I believe it is important at this time to make it clear that the original purposes of the company still have the fullest support of the government and, I hope, of the house. I wish to take this opportunity of reaffirming my confidence in the young men and women who are now serving in the company as volunteers, as staff members and as members of the provisional council. I believe they are a responsible group of men and women; I believe they will discharge their duties in a responsible way, and I do not think the government should interfere with the details of their operations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: While at all times supporting the principle of freedom of speech, I ask the Prime Minister this. Does he agree with the views expressed, and are they consistent with that spirit of innovation in the written statement to which he referred and with the acceptance of a meaningful degree of independence, that a volunteer belonging to the Company of Young Canadians should say he would like to see Yorkville free of police harassment and without restrictive laws against LSD and marijuana? Is this part of the code which is to activate these young people, most of whom are devoted? I suggest to the Prime Minister that this type of thing is not in keeping with Canada's reputation or, indeed, in accord with the understanding of the Canadian parliament when the Company of Young Canadians was set up.
January 9, 19G7

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: There are a great many expressions of individual viewpoints with which I do not agree, some inside the House of Commons and some outside the House of Commons.


Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonton-Siraih-cona):: A supplementary question. There was a news report to the effect that the Company of Young Canadians had issued an objectionably worded circular. Is any safeguard attached to the spending of public funds, or any direction given these young people that public funds should not be used for the purpose of disseminating such literature, or at least literature which uses foul language?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I understand this was a news sheet circulated among the membership of the company, and the council of the company has already taken a look at this particular news sheet. I do not believe I am in a position to comment on the details.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The Prime Minister said these people were independent. Are there no guide lines at all, even with regard to good taste or decency of language?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, there are guide lines. The company was set up under an act of this parliament and is governed by regulations laid down under that legislation.


John George Diefenbaker: They are not being carried out.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. J. Orange (Norlhwesl Territories):: My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I should like to ask him whether, in view of the letter dated December 13, 1966 from the commissioner of the Northwest Territories to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in which the commissioner criticized the failure to take action to bring about a greater measure of political development in the north, the right hon. gentleman would tell the house when the government intends to make its views known with regard to the Carrothers commission report, and what plans the government has to implement this report.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope the Minister of Indian Affairs and

Northern Development, who will be here tomorrow, will be in a position to do this before long. I will be very glad to discuss the matter with him, including the terms of the particular letter to which my hon. friend has referred.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Can the Prime Minister prevail upon his colleague to make an announcement soon with regard to the appointment of a successor to Mr. Sivertz, the commissioner, and, when so doing, impress on him the importance of the recommendation of the Carrothers commission that the status of the new commissioner be equivalent to that of a deputy minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope this announcement can be made shortly. I shall be very glad to take up this important point with the minister.


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees with the view expressed by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories, as reported in today's Globe and Mail, that Mr. Sivertz spoke for the entire territorial council as well as for a very large number of northerners when he complained about the lack of a government statement on the Carrothers report.
Further, if that view be correct, why should there be a suggestion that Mr. Sivertz would be punished for saying something which the hon. member for the Northwest Territories has stated to be right and proper?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure the right hon. gentleman would not wish me to comment on a statement made by another member of the house before I had had an opportunity of reading it. As for punishing Mr. Sivertz, that question does not arise at all.


John George Diefenbaker: According to the paper, a government authority said he would be punished.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and relates to matters raised by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories. Would it be possible to have the commissioner of the Northwest Territories appear before the committee on northern affairs?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to consider that suggestion, Mr. Speaker.
January 9, 1967



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fullon (Kamloops):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I do so in keeping with the understandable desire that all members of the house should be fully enlightened at all times.
In view of the puzzlement expressed by the minister on a C.B.C. program last night arising out of a certain recent appointment to the cabinet, may I ask whether the Prime Minister has yet told him the score in that regard, whether he would let us all know.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the newly appointed Minister without Portfolio.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member realizes that the question must be within the minister's ministerial responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: I was just getting to that. I must congratulate Your Honour on your foresight. I was about to ask the hon. gentleman if at some convenient time in the not too distant future he would outline to the house just what his duties are, in order that we may know what questions to direct to him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question cannot be directed to the Minister without Portfolio.


Frank Howard: Then may I direct it to the Prime Minister? He probably knows the answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I will be very glad to answer that question in due course. Meanwhile I can satisfy the hon. gentleman, I am sure, by stating that the appointment which has been made underlines the unity of the government and of the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: 
Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: The result of my visit was that I was more widely appreciated in Barbados than was my hon. friend who I understand was holidaying in Antigua.



TEXTILES-EFFECT OF IMPORTS FROM JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of several lay-offs in the Canadian textile industry and the considerable harm caused by imports, particularly those from Japan, does the government intend to make a special inquiry into the matter and take the necessary steps to obviate the economic difficulties involved?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This matter is under continuous consideration by the Department of Trade and Commerce. There are also discussions going on at Geneva with regard to international trade matters, discussions which affect our industry. We hope these will be completed shortly with good results for Canada, but until they are completed it would be unwise, I think, to take any specific steps.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: I had a question to direct to the minister responsible for Indian Affairs and Northern Development but in his absence I would direct it to the Prime Minister. It concerns a statement made by the mayor of Montreal at the Richelieu club dinner in Quebec city on December 28 concerning the final berth of the ship Grande Hermine. Can the Prime Minister assure us that the government is giving serious consideration to changing its present policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are getting closer to 1968 but the question cannot be asked just yet; not at this time.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that the mayors and public bodies of the province of Quebec, representing over 80
11534	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry per cent of the population, have expressed the wish that the ship be berthed at Gaspe? If so I hope the majority in this case will rule.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the impression that this question was asked previously. In any event it should be placed on the order paper.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister been contacted either by the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture or the Nova Scotia government, or both, with regard to recent proposals made by the federation in respect of necessary assistance to that industry in Nova Scotia in an amount in excess of $50 million? If so, what action does the minister anticipate taking in this regard?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, at the present time I have no knowledge of such a communication, but I should be glad to take the question as notice and inform the hon. member.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Milton Klein (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the government refuse admission to Adolf von Thadden, deputy leader of the neo-nazi National Democratic party of West Germany, in his announced intention to visit Canada, on the same grounds that his American counterpart Rockwell is excluded from Canada?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I read about this in the newspaper. I am making extensive inquiries concerning Mr. Adolf von Thadden and I hope that later on I can make a statement in the house concerning this matter.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Beil@Saint John-Alberi: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
[Mr. Keays.l
DEBATES	January 9. 1967
Transport. It has to do with the matter of the seaway tolls, in respect of which the minister has just tabled some documents. Can the minister advise us what consideration the government is giving to the general matter of seaway tolls?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for making sure that I had not been overlooked today. I was beginning to be worried. The matter is under discussion with the government of the United States. I think it would be premature for me to say anything in the house.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to assure the minister that in the next few days he very definitely will become aware that he has not been overlooked in respect of the transport legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member going to ask a question?


Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to ask the minister whether he will give an early report on this matter, in view of the fact that many shippers in an important segment of our economy depend on this knowledge in respect of their activities for the season and the months ahead.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I agree with the hon. gentleman.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question which I wished to ask the Minister of Labour. In his absence possibly I might direct the question to his parliamentary secretary. What is the situation concerning the extension of the public trusteeship of the great lakes maritime management as has been done, I understand, in respect of the unions?


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that on his return the minister will wish to comment on this.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime
January 9, 1967

Minister. Can he advise whether the government has any plans for honouring the birthday of our country's first prime minister beyond the tepid and inadequate measure of recognition outlined in the press release issued from his office on January 5 last?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that the plans which were announced during the recess are inadequate in the circumstances. On Wednesday, which is Sir John's birthday anniversary, I think it would be appropriate to table the proclamation and make it possible for representatives of all parties to pay tribute in this house to Sir John.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's statement of a few days ago to the effect that this would be a matter for decision by parliament, has the Prime Minister or any member of his government given consideration to some action which would ensure future commemoration of the first prime minister of our country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes; consideration has been given to that and will continue to be given to it as well as to certain other factors dealing with the commemoration of other important events in our history, including the commemoration of the Canadian flag.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO FINAL PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his capacity as the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. I wonder whether he could inform the house when the Canadian Wheat Board will be mailing the final payments to the farmers of western Canada, and whether the amount paid will be 55 cents per bushel as reported in the newspapers.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the accounts of the Canadian Wheat Board for the last crop year are being cleaned up now. I hope that later this week or early next week I will be in a position to announce the date of the final payment and the amount.
Inquiries of the Ministry WOMEN



STUDY OF STATUS BY ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the statements made over the week end by the Secretary of State I should like to ask him whether it is his intention now to set up a royal commission to inquire into the pressing matter of the rights of women. Does he agree with the Secretary of State in her statement to the effect that members of the cabinet are males, and when you have harpies harping at them they will get their backs up?


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



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norih Centre):: Mr. Speaker, now that we are in our centennial year may I ask the Prime Minister a question regarding our constitution. If it is not possible to reach agreement on an amending formula before July 1, is the government considering taking steps to bring the constitutions to Canada as it is?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give consideration to that very important question, but my first reaction is that it would be unnecessary now to dissociate this particular constitutional problem from the major problem of bringing our constitution in line with the realities or the necessities of our time. That will take time and will require a great deal of preparatory work. That preparatory work is going on in our provincial governments and also in the federal government. In due course there should be consideration of that matter by this parliament. I think, however, that the whole subject matter should be considered together.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not agree that our centennial year would be a most appropriate time to convene a national conference on the constitution? Canadians are desirous of doing whatever they can this year to ensure the strength of this nation for the next hundred years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it would be a wonderful idea, if we had a reasonable chance
11538	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry of reaching agreement at that conference. It would be a deplorable idea if such a conference concluded in division rather than in unity.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question relating to the matter being discussed. Has the Prime Minister given any further thought to the suggestion of the hon. member for Greenwood that a parliamentary committee be set up to study this whole matter rather than waiting until some amending procedure is worked out between the federal and provincial governments, at which time parliament would be presented with a fait accompli?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I agree that consideration should be given to this matter by parliament, in the first instance through a parliamentary committee, and I am aware of the proposal of the hon. member for Greenwood and the interest he and others have shown in this regard. It seems to me that before such a committee is set up the government should formulate its own views and make them available to that committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the government not got any views?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, lots of them.



BILL OF RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the continuing heavy demand for copies of the Canadian Bill of Rights in English, will the Prime Minister look into the matter of having the printing of this document resumed as a centennial project for the printing bureau?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That matter is now under consideration, and if the Secretary of State were here she might be able to make a report in this regard. I will bring it to her attention.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary

DEBATES	January 9, 1967
of State for External Affairs regarding aid for civilian war victims in Viet Nam. Has the department received any request from the Canadian Society of Friends or that particular group of young people who held a vigil here in Ottawa between Christmas and New Years for further financial assistance to aid war victims in both South and North Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not aware of any such request, Mr. Speaker.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question arises out of a long editorial which appeared in the Montreal Gazette on Saturday headed "How Canada Messed Up a Chance to help Viet Nam's victims". In light of Dr. Gustave Gingras' recommendations I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs is now giving consideration to the establishment of a rehabilitation centre for the children of South Viet Nam.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easi: Mr. Speaker, my attention has been directed to the article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette, and I may say that in part it is inaccurate. Dr. Gingras was sent to Viet Nam about a year ago for the purpose of ascertaining whether it would be possible for Canada to provide a rehabilitation centre for the civilian population of South Viet Nam. Unfortunately in spite of his efforts it was not possible to reach an agreement with the government of South Viet Nam which would make it possible to establish this rehabilitation project. I had hoped at the time it would have been conducted under the direction of Dr. Gingras, who is the outstanding authority on this subject in this country.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a further supplementary question. In light of the rapidly changing developments in that country is reconsideration being given to the proposal of Dr. Gingras?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no question of reconsideration being given. The government continues to be ready to participate in and provide for such a project, but it depends on acceptance by the government of South Viet Nam, and that has not as yet been forthcoming.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question. Is the government of South Viet Nam withholding approval in respect of Dr. Gingras' proposal
January 9, 1967

because of an insistance that the doctors and members of the staff come under military medical personnel?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: No, Mr. Speaker. The government of South Viet Nam was not reluctant to agree to this project but it felt it did not have the necessary facilities available to operate the project Dr. Gingras had in mind, which the Canadian government was prepared to provide.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is Dr. S. C. Barry still the deputy minister of agriculture and, if not, when did he cease to occupy that position?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Barry is now the chairman of the new dairy commission.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not indicate when he ceased to be the deputy minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether this type of question should be asked on orders of the day.



HISTORIC SITES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) who will answer on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. If the quesiton is not considered urgent, I shall raise it at ten o'clock.
Does the government intend to comply with the request of the Junior Board of Trade of Montmagny to restore the manor of Sir Etienne Pascal Tache in commemoration of one of the Fathers of Confederation who happens to be my ancestor?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is quite urgent, but I would not want to deprive the hon. member of the pleasure of raising it at ten o'clock this evening.
Inquiries of the Ministry



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatierton (Esquimali-Saanich):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has he looked into allegations of the Canadian Air Lines Employees Association to the effect that during the recent strike against Air Canada, non-striking union personnel only were laid off and that the annual vacation period granted to the striking international association of machinists was extended only to the non organized personnel and not to members of the C.A.L.E.A.?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, these allegations were brought to my attention and I in turn brought them to the attention of Air Canada. I understand they are not correct.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport regarding the question asked by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. Could the minister make available to hon. members, either by a statement in the house or by making them public, the reasons Air Canada gave to the minister in which they claimed that the allegations by the union were unwarranted and inaccurate?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will give very careful consideration to the tabling of the relevant correspondence.



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that no federal action has been indicated in the anti-pollution field, has the government decided to leave this field to the provinces?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisier of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker. We will operate in this field so far as we are entitled by the constitution to do so. I am pleased to report that the guide lines reached at the November conference have now been
January 9, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry collected and analysed. A meeting of the Canadian council of resource ministers' coordinators will take place on January 16, to be followed in due course by a meeting of the ministers themselves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be allowed to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the mounting concern regarding pollution in North America, and in view of the fact that so many departments of government are involved, will the Prime Minister consider appointing a top level committee of the cabinet representing all the departments that are concerned so that an all-out attack can be made on this problem of pollution before it is too late?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have an interdepartmental committee of the government working on this particular problem as well as a committee of the cabinet.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and ask him whether he has anything to report in respect of the Wood commission study?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the most recent information I have in this regard is that it is hoped the report will be available later this month or early next month. It has been completed and is now being printed.



NATIONAL ANTHEM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, just before the Christmas adjournment I asked the Prime Minister when we might have the opportunity to adopt "O Canada" as our national anthem. In his reply the Prime Minister expressed the hope that this matter would be referred to a committee, and this would appear on the order paper when we reconvened. The Prime Minister's hope does not seem to have been fulfilled, and I am wondering whether he can indicate when we may expect such a resolution to appear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the resolution will be presented today. It will appear on the order paper tomorrow. The committee will be set up in a few days.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the question directed to the Prime Minister, may I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he is not aware that he has now on the order paper a resolution dealing with this subject matter, and whether he intends to introduce another resolution? If so, what is the purpose of that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The next resolution, Mr. Speaker, will be one setting up the committee to deal with this matter.



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, but in his absence perhaps I should direct it to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that since this house recessed the Attorney General of Ontario has made a statement suggesting that the disaster of the Prudential Finance Corporation and other associated companies was in some measure the responsibility of the federal government, and the Minister of Finance has said the opposite, has or will the government propose to the government of Ontario the establishment of a joint judicial inquiry to inquire fully into this matter as it effects both jurisdictions in order that similar disasters may be prevented in future?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I doubt whether a joint judicial inquiry would be the best way of proceeding in this matter.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago in answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Broadview with regard to Prudential the Prime Minister indicated that he did not think a joint judicial inquiry would be of value. If that is the case, is the government considering some kind of inquiry set up by the federal government alone in order to make sure of the reasons not only Prudential but North American General Insurance Company got into the position in which they did get?
January 9, 1967


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the responsibilities of the two levels of government are very different in this matter. It seems to me that any inquiry that should be made by the federal government should be made into its responsibilities. I will be glad to discuss this matter with the Minister of Finance.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, before the recess I posed two questions to the Minister of Transport about shipping accidents, one involving the ship Ontario Power and the other relating to the capsizing of the John Cabot. Can the minister provide the house with any information about those two matters?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I have been slightly negligent. Although I have the information, I do not have it at hand. I will be glad to give it tomorrow.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State I wonder whether I might pose a question to her parliamentary secretary or to the acting minister. It was 11 months ago today that this house passed three motions in my name for the production of papers. I wonder whether those papers might be tabled before the first anniversary arrives?



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, December 21, 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 Wednesday, December 21, 1966, clause 1 of the bill was under discussion.
Transportation
On clause 1-National transportation policy.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Chairman, no piece of legislation that will be before the house this year will be of greater importance to the future development of the Atlantic provinces than this bill. I feel certain that the Minister of Transport is well aware of the fears and apprehensions of the people of that area in so far as transportation policy is concerned. We have found in the past 100 years that in so far as transportation policy is concerned everything has been a gamble in the hope of improved conditions in our area in respect of development, a gamble that has almost constantly and continuously proven to be a poor one as far as we have been concerned.
In recent weeks we have seen a certain attitude developing in the province of Quebec with regard to the celebration or lack of celebration of our centennial year in that province. All I can say is that if there is an area of Canada that has less reason to celebrate confederation than the maritime provinces I would like to know what area it is, but certainly it is not the province of Quebec. Our area of Canada has contributed the most and received the least for its contribution in becoming a part of confederation. While we have made this contribution and recognize this fact, we still believe that the move we made in 1867 was the right one. We face our problems, we try to do something about them, and we like to join with Canadians in all parts of this nation in celebrating a wonderful year, one which we hope will lead to 100 years of prosperity for all parts of Canada.
As has been enunciated by the hon. members for Halifax and the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, for those in our port cities there has been a very substantial deterioration each and every year in the degree of business available to those ports because of policies which have been adopted by the Department of Transport and are continuously being implemented with regard to opening up shipping lanes in the province of Quebec and especially to the port of Montreal. I read over the week end an article which appeared in the Montreal Star of January 7. The statistics quoted in that article indicate to a significant degree the reason for the concern expressed by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and the hon. members for Halifax, and the extent of the deterioration in our port business.
In December the Minister of Transport was in our area of Nova Scotia and also in New Brunswick, attending port dinners. In effect he

January 9, 1967
Transportation
told the people in the audiences at those dinners that he was not going to do anything about what was happening in so far as shipping on the St. Lawrence river was concerned and the ice-breaking facilities of his department. As usual, lack of action by the government will cause the economy of the maritime provinces to lag.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I think it is worth while putting the statistics on the record. They refer to ship arrivals at Montreal between January 1 and March 31. In 1960 five ocean-going vessels and two coastal traders tied up at Montreal, or a total of seven ships. The foreign tonnage represented was 14,971 and the domestic tonnage was 2,398. Let us compare these figures with the year 1966. During the six years between 1960 and 1966 the number of ocean-going vessels which tied up in Montreal increased from five to 56, the number of coastal vessels increased from two to 63, and the total increased from seven to 119. The tonnage carried by foreign vessels increased from 14,971 to 214,352, an increase of about 200,000 tons. Domestic tonnage increased from 2,398 to 289,942, or 287,600 tons more than in 1960. If the government does not act there will be no more business at the ports of Halifax and Saint John in the wintertime than in the summertime, and if this situation continues the economy of the Atlantic provinces, especially the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, will greatly deteriorate.
Last night on the television news photographs were shown indicating the greatly decreased shipping at the port of Halifax. Indeed it is shocking to discover the small amount of business at that port at the present time and the great unemployment among stevedores who have to depend on winter employment for their yearly earnings. If the Minister of Transport has his way, this situation will be allowed to continue. We are dealing with a national transportation policy. If this is to be part of that policy, then God help the maritime provinces because the government will do nothing to help them and the Lord is the only one from whom hope may come. We must pray a great deal if we ever hope to get anything because it is quite evident that we will get nothing from the government.
If we were the kind of people who did not believe in contracts that we had signed, once again black bands would be worn in Nova Scotia as they were in 1867 when that province became part of this nation. These are dark days for the people of the maritime provinces so far as the transportation policy is

concerned and in many other fields, as is indicated by the substantial lay-offs which have been taking place in many of our industries.
Not all our problems concern coal. We have problems with steel and problems in just trying to survive. The policies which the government has been putting forward every day do not spell progress for us. Surely we should be able to expect something more from the Minister of Transport who represents a constituency in the Atlantic provinces. He has seen the statistics on the tonnage which our ports are losing. We are told by him that we can expect nothing more than we have received up to date. He sits on his hands and lets the business which for years we expected to come to us go to the province of Quebec, an area which does not wish to take any part in the centennial program because its people are not happy with what they are getting at present. If they are not happy with what they are getting now, let us realize how much sadder we in Nova Scotia should be when every day that this government is in office we get less and less.
This is not the kind of policy which we were led to believe would be established when this government came to office. In 1965 we indicated through the ballot box that we had no trust in this government and that we did not believe the stories they told us in 1963. If there are many more statistics like those indicating the increase in shipping at the port of Montreal and the decrease at the ports of Halifax and Saint John at the present time, we will not believe the government at the time of another general election whenever it may be called. Furthermore, we will not be happy with the kind of policies about which the Minister of Transport tells us even though he knows that by doing nothing he is doing damage and is shattering our hopes for improvement.
I certainly look forward to hearing from the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough because from statements he has made both in the house and outside I gather that he does not agree with the kind of transportation policy which would take business away from us every day of the year. He believes in a transportation policy which will give us some hope of economic improvement. I believe this is a most important aspect of our future in so far as transportation is concerned.
I should like to hear from the Minister of Transport on the proposal put forward by the Leader of the Opposition concerning the
January 9, 19B7

building of a new railway link between Quebec and the Atlantic provinces which would go through the centre of New Brunswick and eliminate a great deal of mileage. It would get our goods to market cheaper and faster than is possible today. I should also like to hear from the Minister of Transport on the corridor road. Here is a means of providing a link which will get our goods to market.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? When he referred to the corridor road did he mean the highway which is being advocated by the Fredericton Gleaner or did he mean the railway which is being advocated by his leader?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Robert Carman Coates: If the hon. gentleman would sit in his seat and listen he would discover that I was speaking about the railway and now I am speaking about the highway. I do not know what the situation is in Newfoundland but I always thought that the minister was a great advocate of both railways and highways in that province. I do not see why we in the Atlantic provinces should have to expect only one or the other. Why can we not be considered to be just as good Canadians as the people in other parts of Canada and have both? What is there about the maritime provinces that puts them in a position where the people have to accept one or the other when the people in other parts of Canada can have both? This is the kind of philosophy that we find coming from the Minister of Transport and his colleagues. It is about time the government woke up to the fact that the mari-times are a part of Canada and deserve just as much as any other part of Canada.
I have nothing to say about the fact that the government has retarded the building of the Prince Edward Island causeway. I understand the project is going forward now, but it has been a long time in coming. We have learned that we have to take things whenever we get them. We may get them five years after everybody else, but we have been told to take them and like them or we may not get them at all.
I say to the Minister of Transport that we should be moving forward faster with these things than we are at the present time because there is a greater indication of recession in the Atlantic provinces than anywhere else in Canada. If the minister does not believe that statement let him go to my constituency. There are lay-offs taking place now such as we have not seen for quite a number of years. He will see the same situation in Cape Breton
Transportation
island. Let him go to Halifax or Saint John, and he will see these things there.
There is one thing for which the government should be complimented and that is the substantial contracts awarded to the shipyards in Saint John. These contracts will be of material benefit to the economy of that area. However, there is not much sense in giving the area one thing and taking away something else. This is what is being done by the icebreaking on the St. Lawrence River. It is taking jobs away from people in the mari-times to a degree that I do not believe most people appreciate, but they will if they read the article that appeared in Saturday's Montreal Star. Anyone reading that article will discover that the philosophy of the province of Quebec is not to get less shipping at the port of Montreal but more. They cannot get very much more because we have not very much left in the maritimes. The maritimes will soon be forced to close down their ports.
I should like to know what program is going to be initiated to provide employment for those who lose their jobs as a result of the icebreaking services provided by the Department of Transport on the St. Lawrence River. It is pretty bad when government policy destroys the economy of two regions of the Atlantic provinces by means of these icebreaking services as effectively as it is being done today.
In view of the fact that a few moments ago the Minister of Transport mentioned the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition for a rail line which would cut through the centre of the province of New Brunswick, I should like to ask him for his ideas in connection with that proposal. What is the government's attitude toward it? It is a proposal that could mean much to the development of the economy of the Atlantic provinces. Surely the minister must realize, since he is so closely associated with the Atlantic Development Board, that if we are to industrialize our region to the extent we want to, if we are to find the kinds of jobs for the people in Cape Breton that we must find, then we must have transport. When I refer to Cape Breton I want to include the area of Inverness-Richmond because there is no area in which there is more poverty than in the constituency represented by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. If we are going to revitalize this area, I should like to know of a better way of doing it than by providing less expensive transport leading to the centres of population in this nation. If we are going to agree to a

January 9, 1967
Transportation
national transport policy, certainly we have a right to know just how much is going to be available to us by way of assets to offset the liability incurred by the minister's policy of allowing more and more of our port business to be transferred to the port of Montreal.
There are other important matters to be considered. The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg and the hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth-Clare have asked innumerable questions of the Minister of Transport about a second ferry link to the New England states. It is just like asking a question of a mute because you receive no reply that throws any more light on the subject than if you had said nothing in the first place. The only thing that is obvious to the people of the maritimes is that they have members in Ottawa representing them who are interested in their problems, but they do not have a government in Ottawa interested in their problems or willing to take the kind of action that has to be taken if that area is not only to survive but to go forward.


Mr. Stewart:: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether the hon. member would permit me to ask him a question? I should like him to let the committee know if the government of Nova Scotia has yet given any indication as to which Nova Scotia port it favours as the Nova Scotia end of this proposed ferry link?


Robert Carman Coates: I do not happen to be privy to information from the government of Nova Scotia on that subject. Perhaps the Minister of Transport would be in a better position than I am to indicate what the Nova Scotia government has proposed to him. The questions that have been asked from this side of the house have elicited no information from the Minister of Transport except the explanation that the proposal is receiving serious consideration. This is a very nice answer, and I hope that in the near future the minister will be able to tell us the result of that serious consideration.


John B. Stewart: Would the hon. member agree that discussion of this proposal would likely be advanced if the government of Nova Scotia would make public its views on this question?


Robert Carman Coates: I do not see how a public declaration by the government of Nova Scotia would be of material assistance. I was always under the impression that each province had to be careful about this co-operative federalism, as it is called, and that there must be consultation with all parties to ensure that everybody is in agreement.


John B. Stewart: Would the hon. gentleman not agree that the government of Nova Scotia has already shown that it accepts the primary responsibility for such a second service by commissioning the Margison report on terminal locations for a second Nova Scotia-New England ferry service?


Robert Carman Coates: I think the government of Nova Scotia always accepts its responsibility and has indicated this in many ways. I am sure that if the federal government would assume the same degree of responsibility that the government of Nova Scotia has with regard to the second ferry link, we could expect one in the very near future. I am not as convinced that the federal government is as willing to assume its obligation as I am that the government of Nova Scotia is.
There is one other area in which I feel we could do more than we are and where I think the federal government could be of material assistance.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I am referring to tourist roads and the kind of assistance that was made available under the roads to resources program. I have in mind the Fundy vacation trail, and I am sure there are other roads in the maritime provinces of a similar nature. There is one in Cape Breton about which there has been a great deal of talk. If a special program were put forward to provide tourist roads to what we feel is a potentially great resource, I think there would be material benefit not only to the people who live there but to the many visitors we optimistically hope to attract to our area each and every year. Our tourist potential has only been tapped slightly.


John B. Stewart: Would the hon. member permit me another question at this time? I am sorry to interrupt him. Does he realize that in the year 1966 there were 89 federally-assisted highway projects under way in the province of Nova Scotia?


Robert Carman Coates: The hon. member is, of course, a much better statistician than I am, and as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works he is in a much better position to secure that kind of information than I. What the hon. member says may be true. All I am saying is that the roads to resources program was dropped by this government. As far as the Atlantic provinces were concerned, as far as the maritime provinces were concerned, it was a very good program. That is the kind of program I should like to see. I do not care what you call it or how it is applied, whether
January 9, 1967



nationally or specifically in the Atlantic prov-nces, but I should like to see a similar program put forward. This would enable proposed projects such as the Fundy vacation trail to qualify for a special type of assistance.
The people in the maritimes do not feel that the program being proposed is going to take anything away from an existing program to which the provincial government involved has already committed X number of dollars. If we could revive or reintroduce in the Atlantic provinces, a program similar to the roads to resources program, so far as the tourist trade is concerned I think we would be taking a step that would have a substantially beneficial effect from an economic point of view and would materially assist the economy of this particular area of Canada.
After all, Mr. Chairman, this is what we want from a national transportation policy. It is all very nice to talk of a second trans-Canada highway and things of that nature, but so far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned what we would like are more tourist roads.


John B. Stewart: Would the hon. member permit me to pose another question?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I would point out to the hon. member for Cumberland that the time allotted to him has expired.


John B. Stewart: Then I will forgo my question, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Danforih:: Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any question in the mind of any member sitting in this chamber as to the great consequences this bill will have on the entire transportation system of Canada. On reading the bill there can also be no question in anyone's mind as to its complexities. No one qua-relled with the objective that the government had in mind in introducing this bill, that of trying to evolve a transportation system to serve Canada as a whole. I do not think anybody took serious issue with the government over an honest attempt to put the railways in the position where they were self-sustaining rather than financed by government subsidies to such a large extent.
I was impressed with the presentation of the minister on television when he was questioned on this subject. He stated that the taxpayers would be duly concerned about any increase in subsidy above $100 million, and I think he is correct in making that assumption.
My reason for rising today, Mr. Chairman, has to do with the fact that during this entire
Transportation
debate and in the many debates which have preceded it on the subject of transportation constant reference has been made to the vast distances between the eastern and western regions of Canada. We are told about the vast distances covered, the services rendered and the costs involved in covering these vast distances.
The arguments in this connection are very valid indeed, but what we tend to forget are the complexities and problems which arise as a result of similar vast distances between the northern and southern areas of Canada. I think, for example, of the distance between Windsor in Ontario and the port of Churchill in northern Manitoba. The problems relating to the port of Churchill and to the northern areas of Ontario and Manitoba will be dealt with in detail by other hon. members but I wish to take a few moments, if I may, to talk about the particular problems with which we in southern Ontario are faced as a result of our geographic location.
If you were to refer to a map of Canada, Mr. Chairman, I am sure you would realize what a problem we have owing to the fact that we are located so far to the south. As a matter of fact, I believe southern Ontario is almost on the same latitude as the city of New York. As a result of this geographic location the people of southerstern Ontario engaged in industry and in business as well as in various aspects of transportation have for many years felt that they have been working under a tremendous handicap as a result of the regulations previously laid down to govern transportation, especially railway transportation. I am sure the minister is aware of this.
Recently a presentation was made to the transportation committee by the Windsor Chamber of Commerce which, may I point out, spoke with the complete support of the various chambers of commerce and municipalities in that area. When the presentation was made to the transportation committee in connection with this particular problem, I am certain I am being fair when I say that the minister expressed sympathy with their view and also expressed the hope that when this bill in its amended form was once more presented to the house certain areas would be granted the relief which they sought.
In talking with the various interests concerned with transportation there appears to be a general feeling that the amendments which have been made in the revised version of the bill will not provide an avenue for

January 9, 1967
Transportation
granting the relief which was so earnestly sought. There is no doubt that the people of southwestern Ontario will find it increasingly hard to compete with other areas of Canada if the present system of railway rate allocation is incorporated in this revised bill.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
You will recall, Mr. Chairman,-it has been pointed out by many briefs from that area and also in this house by myself and other members-that because of our geographic location we are subjected to one type of railway charge in moving goods eastward and to another type in moving goods westward. This means that in moving goods from Windsor to the harbour of Halifax the rate on first-class goods on a pound per mile basis is roughly twice as great as the rate from Montreal to Halifax. This appears to be fair and justifiable because the distance from Windsor to Halifax is almost twice as great as from Montreal to Halifax. But when we move goods west we find that this is not the system followed. When goods are moved, for example, from Windsor to Winnipeg, though Windsor is 600 miles closer to Winnipeg than is Montreal the rate from Windsor is almost identical with the rate from Montreal. We maintain that this does not appear to be fair. Because of our location, when we wish to move goods westward we are charged on the basis that all goods moving out of our area have to move east, almost to Toronto, before they can move west. Therefore we are subjected to a double rate.
That this sort of thing will have a tremendous impact on our area, if incorporated in the new bill, is borne out by the fact that when the area in question in southwestern Ontario was made a designated area with special tax concessions, over the period of the next two or three ensuing years there was a tremendous influx of almost every type of industry. The industries ranged from the very large to very small subcontractors. This influx had the effect of bringing a vitality to the area which had been sadly lacking for some time.
Those who have studied this subject are convinced that if we are subjected to an excessive charge in moving our goods westward the effect will be to slow down the influx of new industry, to curtail the expansion of industries already in the area, and generally to apply the brakes to growth. As a matter of fact this has already started. Some industries have thought that under this bill the relief that is necessary will perhaps not be obtained.

It is true that large industries, because of their political power and because of the tremendous tonnage they move, are able to negotiate special rates with the railways. One would expect this to be so. Perhaps in the new bill as envisaged by the minister more scope will be given for this type of negotiation. A tremendous number of small industries will not derive benefit from this type of negotiation, first, because the volume of goods they ship does not merit such negotiation and, second, because they have not the necessary pressure to enforce their wishes in negotiating with a body as large as a railway company. It is true that small industries will not be able to negotiate in this way but the aggregate tonnage of the production they ship is tremendous. Were such industries to act as one body they could perhaps obtain the rates now enjoyed by some of the major industries.
The minister has said that under the terms of this bill special consideration will be given to captive markets. I know the minister will dispute with me, perhaps with justification, any allegation that the area I represent in southwestern Ontario is a captive market. He will say, I am sure, that not only have we access to two railways, to four if you count United States lines, but that we have access to trucking and water transportation companies. If this were the entire story the minister would be absolutely correct in his assertion. But from the point of view of businessmen I am sure the minister will agree with me that we have a tremendous volume of goods to ship and there is a tremendous amount of money involved in freight charges. In that way we are indeed a captive market. That is so because the rates that the trucking and water transportation companies fix follow very closely, up or down, any revision in the railway rates. The minister is as well aware as I am that if there is a tremendous increase in railway rates there will be a corresponding increase in trucking and shipping rates in our area. Because of such actions on the part of the companies engaged in various methods of transportation I feel that special consideration should be given to our particular problems.
In regard to our particular area there is another factor which ought to be considered. I have spoken of the influx of industry which took place because the area was designated and thus enjoyed tax incentives. Though large corporations can obtain special rates, new industries in looking to this particular area as one in which to locate logically in order to take advantage of power and other facilities will be discouraged because they will
January 9, 1967

not have available to them the special rates negotiated by large industries. New industries will have to rely on economic evaluations and on the rates published by the railway, trucking and water transportation companies.
We are finding that industries in the main feel that the area between Toronto and Montreal, because of the lower rates to the east and west, particularly to the west, offers a more attractive location than our area. We believe that something ought to be done at this time. We are aware that the transportation bill, because of its many complexities and because of the tremendous amount of preparation that went into it, will, when passed by parliament, remain in effect for some time to come. We plead with the minister to consider especially our geographic location and to take into account what we have recommended.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
From long experience we have learned that whenever a new transportation bill comes into effect the processes provided for appeal are long and disappointing, even though in the eyes of the minister, the committee and the house adequate provision for appeal has been made. Even when a favourable recommendation is handed down, as the result of an appeal, the delay which occurs has usually caused irreparable damage. We believe that now is the time for the government to show the special consideration which is needed, not at a later date, and for this reason I ask the minister whether he can indicate to the satisfaction of those who are vitally interested in this question that the necessary measures to give the relief that is required are in fact contained in this bill. Is there something which we in our perusal of this measure have overlooked, or is our understanding correct? Are we still faced with the grave problem to which I have referred.
There is one other matter to which I would like to refer. It affects the entire area and it concerns the withdrawal of subsidies. "Phasing out" is the term used nowadays, I understand. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that for some time the producers of feed grain in the area from which I come have asked for the same consideration as is given producers of feed grain in western Canada in moving feed grain to the markets of the east. We should like to know whether the government is contemplating the phasing out of the subsidy paid to the feed grain growers of the west-
Transportation


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps in the most friendly way possible I might suggest to the hon. member that this subject has nothing whatever to do with the present bill. The feed grain subsidies are paid under entirely different legislation introduced by the Minister of Forestry. Nothing in this bill would have any effect on them in one way or another.


Harold Warren Danforth: I wish to thank the minister, particularly for the last part of his statement in which he told us that nothing in this bill will affect the subsidies which I understand, are now to be handled by a new committee set up under the Feed Grain Assistance Act. This is a matter which we have been considering very seriously. Does this bill supersede legislation administered by other departments? The minister shakes his head.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not unless it repeals it.


Harold Warren Danforth: I appreciate that. We now have an indication from the minister that other government agencies will continue to be concerned with subsidies affecting the railways. This is bound to add to the complexity of the legislation we are considering. Since the minister has told us that the transportation bill will not affect feed grain subsidies I should like to return for a few moments to the contention I advanced earlier in regard to the special problem of the area I represent. The debate has shown us that the transportation question must, because of the location of the commercial centres of this country, resolve itself into a series of regional considerations. The minister has told us that nothing will be done to interfere with the Crowsnest Pass rates. He also told us, I believe, that a two year trial period in the maritimes will precede any change in freight rate structures there where subsidies are involved. There is a growing fear, particularly in southwestern Ontario, that once subsidies to the railways and the other transportation media are phased out the additional revenue will come mainly from the provinces of Quebec and Ontario and perhaps to some degree from British Columbia.
These subsidies now amount to some $100 million and could increase to $130 million as higher wages are paid to transportation employees. The government has put forward the view that automation and increased efficiency can go a long way toward reducing the need for subsidies. Despite this, we all know that additional revenue will have to be found by the transportation media and that it will be achieved as a result of increases in freight

January 9, 1967
Transportation
rates. As I say, there is the greatest fear in my area that since fabourable rates are to be retained in the west and in the mari-times-and I have no quarrel whatsoever with those special rates-the additional revenue will come mainly from the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia.
I believe we are justified in assuming that there will be increases in freight rates and that they may be increases which will prove to be frightening. Bearing in mind that there is no real competition among the various transportation media, and since we are paying almost double the rate applicable to western shipments we feel the minister should give special consideration to the particular plea we are making at this time by indicating that the government is agreeable to bringing in the amendment necessary to meet our case or, alternatively, by showing without a shadow of doubt that the present bill contains provisions which would enable us to relieve ourselves of the burden which we foresee. Should the minister fail to do this it will be necessary for me, as a member who is honestly presenting the views and interests of industry in southwestern Ontario, to seek desperately during the clause by clause perusal of this measure to persuade the government to accept recommendations designed to achieve the end which we believe is so necessary.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I offer no apology for intervening a second time in this debate on the clause by clause study. I consider that the debate which took place in the house before the Christmas recess was very useful and I commend the minister for his frank and honest answers. Similarly, I believe that hon. members on this side made useful and constructive suggestions. The interchange has made it easier for us to consider where we are and where we are going.
I may tell the minister at once that I propose to offer an amendment to clause 1, the clause now under study, in the firm belief that this legislation is somehow lacking. There is an element missing here, and it is one which is essential with respect to the legislation offered to this house and to the country as containing the elements of the national transportation policy needed to provide a better and fairer means of carrying goods and people between all parts of Canada.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
In offering this amendment to clause 1, which I understand is an indication to the commission to be established of the extent it should take into account a number of factors,

I do so because as I indicated earlier this commission will be venturing into uncharted courses like a spaceman reaching for one of the planets. It will come up against problems which it never has contemplated and which I am sure neither the minister nor those persons who drafted this bill have considered. All one needs to support this is to look at the report of proceedings and evidence of the committee. It is my belief that the element which is mentioned in this bill is one which has been the subject matter of a great number of directions. It has been the basis for inquiries made heretofore over a great number of years. I am speaking of the direction that the board have responsibilitiy for regulating and setting freight rates to provide for as great a measure of equalization as is possible within the very difficult circumstances which we have in this country because of the matters of geography and economies.
I do not care what is done; you cannot escape the fact that there is going to be some inequity and some discrimination. It will be impossible to reach that measure of equalization which we would like to see. Perfection in this aspect of our problems is not at all possible. I readily accede to that. However, under the existing law which we are to replace to some extent there were some attempts to eliminate this inequity and bring about equalization. I am referring to section 336 of the present Railway Act which, of course, will be eliminated by the provision we are now making.
A very brief historial record I think will help to place my views before the committee and indicate the reasons I am moving this amendment. In 1925 order in council P.C. 886 was passed by which the Board of Transport Commissioners was directed by the government to examine the freight rate structure and attempt to bring in harmony and provide for a measure of equity in all parts and regions of Canada. Later, in 1948, by order in council P.C. 1487, there was a further direction by the then government to the Board of Transport Commissioners.
The board of transport commissioners, in taking this responsibility, required a number of years to report. I do not think it was until some time in 1955 that they filed their report. At that time they made a statement which was quite correct. They said that equalization in Canada involved the establishment of a fundamental base and a statistical survey which would take many years of study to complete. The board of transport commissioners proceeded some distance along this
January 9, 1967

line and was successful in making certain suggestions. However, in the interval between the time the Board of Transport Commissioners was directed to do this and the time when they made their report, the same government established the royal commission which served under the late Mr. Justice Turgeon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He is still very much alive.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am sorry. I should have said the former Mr. Justice Turgeon still very much alive as an individual. The recommendations in the report were brought in in 1950. They led to the amendment of the Railway Act in the second session of 1951. The minister may correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was in the second session of 1951 that section 336 of the present Railway Act was brought forth as being the answer in part to the suggestions and recommendations of Mr. Justice Turgeon and his commission.
Then we had the royal commission which was set up in 1959 by the Conservative government under the leadership of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. One of the terms of reference to the royal commission was that it report upon the inequities in the freight rate structure in Canada and so on. What I am pointing out is that if you examine one by one the various directions-these terms of reference-to the royal commissions and the directions to the Board of Transport Commissioners, you will see that there is a similar vein running through them in the form of a direction to them to examine the very serious problem regarding the inequities and the necessity of equalizing freight rates throughout Canada so far as possible in order to bring into closer alignment the disparities which have been created because of our geography.
Transportation policy, monetary policy and fiscal policy are the three weapons by which a government can partially bring together- lower the heights by raising the valleys- the different parts of the country. Certainly by no means the least of these is transportation policy. I should now like to repeat what I said when speaking on the resolution stage. I think it is necessary to do so because the commission which is to be established by Bill C-231 is directed in clause 1 in its activities and functions to carry out, under the same arrangements, the same directions, regulations and jurisdictions as the Board of Transport Commissioners now possesses. We are faced with the fact that, like the Board of Transport Commissioners, the commission
Transportation
which is now to be set up will establish its own jurisprudence and will be bound by these decisions.
As I pointed out once before, if you read the report of Mr. Justice Turgeon you will see quite readily that Mr. Justice Turgeon was very much of the opinion that the Board of Transport Commissioners, acting under the powers it then had, fell far short in its jurisdiction or power of trying to bring the equalization principle into effect. At page 23 of the royal commission report Mr. Justice Turgeon also said:
In the first decision of the hoard filed in the 30 per cent application on March 30, 1948, the position of the board with respect to its jurisdiction and powers to reduce rates to assist industry or to equalize, through the prescription of reduced rates, production costs, geographical location, or climatic conditions, was dealt with at considerable length.
The board said quite frankly that it did not think it had the power to do so. Again, at page 24-these are excerpts from the report of the royal commission-there is the following:
Railways are not required by law, and cannot in justice be required, to equalize natural disadvantages such as location, cost of production and the like.
Then, further on:
The board has many times said that it is not concerned with equalizing costs of production.
And again on this page:
It has been held time and again that rate-regulating commissions have no right whatever to attempt to equalize geographic, climatic, or economic conditions.
And so on. That is the situation. If this bill passes without any amendment, particularly to the declaration of policy enunciated in clause 1, we will be back in the same position because the present clause 68, which purports to deal with discrimination in rates, just and reasonable rates and so on, takes us right back to where we were prior to 1951 in that it says:
All tolls shall be just and reasonable and shall always, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions with respect to all traffic of the same description carried over the same route, be charged equally to all persons at the same rate.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Let me point out the significance of that wording. When the Board of Transport Commissioners reported to the Governor in Council following the direction they received in 1948, the terms of which I have mentioned, they pointed out that the wording of the order in council was very much narrower than the wording subsequently included in the new section 336 of the Railway Act. I refer to the

January 9, 1967
Transportation
Railway Act as it was before the amendment provided by this bill. It read:
It Is hereby declared to be the national freight rates policy that, subject to the exceptions specified in subsection (4), every railway company shall, so far as is reasonably possible, in respect of all freight traffic of the same description, and carried on or upon the like kind of cars or conveyances, passing over all lines or routes of the company in Canada charge tolls to all persons at the same rate, whether by weight, mileage or otherwise.
The board said this is far wider than the wording which now appears as proposed new section 381. This section will no longer be in the act if we pass this bill without change. The Board of Transport Commissioners, with its fund of expert experience and knowledge, said that the wording of section 336 was far wider and broader, giving greater power to the board than the proposed new section 381 in the bill now before us. Keeping that in mind and the needs of the constituency which I represent I must test the government in this regard by proposing an amendment. I wish to make a few more comments but I will read this amendment and send it to the minister so he will have a chance to consider it.
My amendment is as follows:
That clause 1 of Bill C-231 be amended by adding after (c) the following:
Provided however that it is essential to recognize the policy of equalization of freight rates to the fullest possible extent as a means of dealing equitably with all parts of Canada and as being the method best calculated to facilitate the interchange of commodities between the various parts of the country as well as the encouragement of industry and agriculture in all regions and the development of export trade;
That would be added immediately prior to the final paragraph which now follows (c).
Let me read the first eight or nine lines of clause 1 of this bill.
It is hereby declared that an economic and efficient transportation system making the best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest total cost is essential to protect the interests of the users of transportation and to maintain the economic well-being and growth of Canada-
That is very good and I agree with it so far as it goes, but I am disturbed as to what is meant by the term "Canada" in this sense. I referred to this matter the day we recessed by asking the minister about "public interest" and "national interest". I was in a quandry as to whether the commission which will be charged with the responsibility of interpreting these words will decide that the growth of Canada will occur when there is a substantial advance in the gross national product for the country as a whole. Such an advance indicates

growth in Canada but does not necessarily mean growth in all regions of the country.
It is my considered opinion that it is essential during this centennial year to look upon it as a year to initiate policies and programs throughout this country which are designed to bring every part of Canada up to a greater approximation of the economic level those more favoured parts enjoy. By accepting the terms of my amendment we will provide a mandate to the transportation commission, when it considers its functions and responsibilities, to consider the growth of Canada as a whole and as well the growth of various regions of Canada. If that is not done there will be a substantial omission in this bill. There are a number of excellent features of this bill with which I am in complete agreement, but it seems to me that a direction of this kind would be useful.
Before resuming my seat let me remind the minister of what he said in reply to some doubts expressed by Mr. Frawley, counsel for Alberta. I was not present at the time but I have read the transcript. The minister is reported as having said in relation to the doubts expressed by Mr. Frawley, similar to those I have put forward today, that clause 16 would constitute at least a partial answer to his fears. The minister suggested that within the four corners of clause 16 might be found an opportunity to deal with the problems raised. I am wondering whether that is so and, while I recognize this is not the time to deal with clause 16, I must make this observation because it relates to my amendment.
Clause 16, subclause (3) paragraph (a) provides that when the commission gives consideration whether or not a decision has been made which is prejudicial to the public interest it will take certain things into consideration. The paragraph states:
(a) whether the tolls or conditions specified for the carriage of traffic under the rate so established are such as to create an unfair disadvantage-
If it stopped there it would provide a complete answer to the problem I have brought to the attention of the committee, but the paragraph does not stop there. It continues as follows:
-beyond that which may be deemed to be inherent in the location-
And so on. The hon. member for Kent (Ont.) referred to new section 336 as it relates to captive shippers. The question of location is a very vital factor which the commission must consider when deciding whether or not there is a captive shipper. If we remove
January 9, 1967

the right of the commission to consider the question of location in deciding whether or not in fact there is an unfair disadvantage under section 16 the principle of equalization goes out the window. I mention that to the Minister because my amendment will involve consequential amendments, one of which will be required to remove the word "location" in clause 16. I hope the minister will give some thought in this regard when he is considering my amendment.
My point is a simple one. Does the wording of this bill actually provide equalization or will various areas of this country be limited to that relief we can expect to find in the combination of the new section 336 and clause 16 of this bill?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the hon. gentleman has not yet moved his amendment. I hope I am correct in that regard.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I hope the amendment has been taken as moved.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are you moving the amendment now?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Right now?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes.


The Deputy Chairman:: With the permission of the committee I will read the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Peace River. This is the proposed amendment to clause 1 of Bill C-231:
By adding after (c) the following:
Provided however that it is essential to recognize the policy of equalization of freight rates to the fullest possible extent as a means of dealing equitably with all parts of Canada and as being the method best calculated to facilitate the interchange of commodities between the various parts of the country as well as the encouragement of industry and agriculture in all regions and the development of export trade;


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to deal with this matter at any great length because I want to raise some questions in this connection and do not feel that I should right at this moment indicate that something along the lines the hon. gentleman has suggested might not be acceptable. I do not think it would be acceptable in the form in which it is now drafted. Perhaps I should deal first with my fears that if this amendment were incorporated in the bill it would certainly be a declaration that we should no
Transportation
longer have the Crowsnest pass rates, because if you equalize freight rates to the fullest extent possible the discrimination in rates in favour of wheat exports would have to go by the board. I think it would also create great fears in the Atlantic provinces that this was an attack upon the Maritime Freight Rates Act, even though it would not directly repeal that act. It would certainly indicate that parliament felt that this kind of discrimination -because that is precisely what the Maritime Freight Rates Act does; it discriminates in favour of that region to compensate for other disadvantages-should no longer take place.
Therefore, if one considers the phrase "to the fullest possible extent" I think there would be a feeling that a great many embedded discriminations, which I do not think anyone in the house is seriously arguing should be taken away-indeed the hon. member for Kent (Ont.), if I understood him correctly, seemed to suggest that there should be still another special consideration given to a region-would in fact be removed. I am not saying what the legal effect of the amendment would be; I would like to obtain legal advice before saying anything about that. But I think the effect it would tend to have would be that we would get rid of all these historic discriminations- and I use the word "discrimination" in its correct etymological sense-in favour of certain regions, and certain activities would no longer be within the spirit of the new transportation policy. That is something I could not consent to at all. I think it would be contrary to the whole spirit of the bill. I think, however, that objection could probably be overcome by a rewording of the amendment.
The other difficulty that I see at first glance-and I am putting these points forward so that members of the committee may consider them a little before we come to take a decision about the amendment which is now before us-is that it is going to be very difficult to apply such a provision. I recognize that this could only be a declarat'on of principle which would be applied by the commission when the commission had something before it, but it seems to me it would be very difficult to square this amendment with the view that was taken by the MacPherson commission and accepted by the house on second reading. Most of us seem to accept this view in principle for every industry except the one we are interested in. I refer to the view that there should be the maximum amount of competition.
If anybody disliked the rates set as a result of competition, the presence of a phrase like

January 9, 1967
Transportation
this in clause 1 would make it possible for a case to be taken before the board. It could be said that it was not an equitable rate having regard to other rates. In that event I think we would not only be back where we started from but perhaps a few steps behind the point from which we are now starting. I thought there was general acceptance of the view that there should be the maximum amount of competition. I think it would be rather inconsistent with the other three parts of the clause to say that we must have competition but that if anybody d'slikes the competition we must look and see whether the rates are all equalized.
I am glad the hon. gentleman referred to clause 16. In that clause we approach the question from the opposite point of view, that is, the point of view of making it clear that there should not be any unfair discrimination. By "unfair" one means something that is not provided in the law, not the Maritime Freight Rates Act, not the Crowsnest pass rates, not any maximum rates established by any formula, not the frozen rates there will be for two years for the Atlantic provinces, but anything where there are like circumstances and unlike treatment is given. It seems to me this is what we really want to achieve. It might very well be that we could meet this problem, and the other legal problem the hon. gentleman raised before Christmas about the wording of clause 16, if we could find some general declaratory words that could be put in clause
1.	I am not promising to do that, but I would like to give a little consideration to the possibility of perhaps indicating in clause 1 that this was one of the principles that had to be taken into account. Then it seems to me there could be no doubt that when the commission came to consider clause 16 it would be apparent that this kind of discrimination would be contrary to the public interest.
I would really like to have this matter stood so that I might have a chance to consider it. Perhaps I am wrong again, and after a recent experience I am very hesitant to say anything about what is going to happen in the house or in committee, but I think my hon. friend the house leader was to have discussions with representatives of the other parties with a view to having it agreed that we would not sit between seven o'clock and eight o'clock. If that is a correct understanding of the disposition of the committee, I would like to have the chance to talk at that time with my advisers to see whether we might find some phraseology that would meet what I think the hon. gentleman has in mind. I am quite sure that
IMr. Pickersgill.]
the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and I would find great difficulty in going along with something that might be construed as calling into question the continued application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act or some similar measure.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the minister a question? I talked about consequential amendments. I had intended to deal w;th the very practical problem posed by the minister. I would suggest the insertion of the phrase "notwithstanding any other provision of this act", ahead of these sections at a time when movement of such an amendment would be appropriate. This is a time-honoured way by which governments can forget one part of an act while dealing with another. I did not think this was the appropriate time to this but I understand that the minister has said that there is a real question of policy which needs to be considered and therefore I have no objection.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no doubt that the hon. gentleman is correct and we can get over the first problem I raised in the manner he has proposed, although I suggest this might be a rather cumbersome way to do it and might still create fears. We heard the hon. member for Cumberland who seemed to have a great many shadows in his mind earlier today. We do not want any more of these fears or shadows which we can avoid.
The second and more fundamental problem can be approached in two ways. The difference between these ways is the same as the one which exists between the Bill of Rights and the ten commandments. The Bill of Rights endeavours to say what it is we have a right to do, while the ten commandments take a more modest approach and lay down specific things which we should not do.


Gerald William Baldwin: One is for the government
and the other for the opposition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Personally I would prefer a ten commandments approach to this particular problem. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would be willing, instead of formally moving his amendment at this time, to let it lie on the table and have us proceed to the consideration of other aspects of clause 1. This would have another advantage, namely, that of being able to deal with the amendment which either the hon. member for Acadia or I will move, and perhaps we could dispose of it in the interval. I have it all drafted for him. In view of the fact that it appears earlier in the clause, I
January 9, 1967



should not like to be faced with a technical impediment to proceeding with the consideration of the clause, if that would be agreeable to the hon. member for Peace River and to the committee.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it agreed that the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Peace River be stood?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would suggest that it be considered to be tabled for the moment.


Gerald William Baldwin: That it lie dormant.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask the
minister whether, at the same time that he is considering this amendment, he could give some consideration to the amendment proposed by the Maritime Transportation Commission to which I have referred and which has the intent of protecting the national interest? I do not agree with what the minister said about the amendment which has just been tabled or held in abeyance but if at the same time this amendment to subclause (b) could be considered I think it might have a good effect on the maritime provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will also give some thought to that.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words with regard to the transportation bill. First, since the minister has agreed with the amendment I suggested prior to the Christmas recess, perhaps it would be proper to allow him to word it so as to suit himself and the government, so I will leave that up to him.
There is another amendment which I should like to suggest to him but before doing so I would like to say a word or two about the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River. Certainly I can speak wholeheartedly in favour of the suggestion made in this amendment because if it is followed through it will give more substance to clause 16. The general fault which I find with clause 16 is that it lacks certainty of protection against discrimination and also lacks a proper definition of the public interest. I am wholeheartedly in support of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Peace River.
However, my thoughts today lie more along the lines of competition. The minister has brought forward the bill in a rather hasty manner. I say this with due regard to Bill C-120 which was dropped two years ago and with due regard to the number of meetings
Transp ortation
held by the transport committee because it seems to me it is evident that this bill has been considerably amended. In fact some 65 to 70 amendments have been proposed and accepted by the minister which would point to the fact that insufficient consideration was given to the bill in the first place. Surely a bill which needs 70 amendments before being presented to the house is one to which insufficient prior thought was given in the initial stages of its drafting. While I do not lay the blame for this on the minister in particular I think that his staff should have drafted the bill more carefully so as to avoid the need for such a large number of amendments.
This bill brings together every mode of transportation in Canada, namely, railway, air, water, truck and even pipe lines. The theme of the bill is competition. If one really believes that competition will be the answer to our transportation problems in Canada then one must inject competition into every mode of transportation. But has this bill really achieved this? Clause 1(a) says that there shall be no regulations which will in any way restrict competition among the different modes of transport. Is this really enough? Does this clause really say that there shall be competition between the various carriers in any mode of transportation? It does not. This is why, after having given some thought to the matter during the Christmas recess, I once again put forward a suggestion which I made before the Christmas recess that perhaps we should implement an amendment suggested by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association as it appears in transport committee proceedings No. 27 on page 1926 and which provides that after the word "transport" in clause 1(a) the following words be added: "nor any carrier to compete freely with any other carrier".
If we really believe that competition is the answer I think we should state that there shall not be any regulations restricting competition between one carrier and another. Surely this follows particularly with regard to the railroad and trucking industries, if trucks are to fall under this legislation and if clause 1 of the bill is really intended to deal with every mode of transportation. As I read this particular part of clause 1 it refers to any mode of transportation. We must therefore state that we will not allow regulations which will restrict competition among the carriers in any mode of transportation. I should like the minister to consider this suggestion because I think I will move it as an amendment before clause 1 is agreed to.

January 9, 1967
Transportation
I should also like the minister to give some thought to competition in every mode of transportation in Canada. What does this bill do with regard to railroads? If railroads are not included they will continue to set rates which are not necessarily competitive. What does the bill do with regard to air transportation? It does nothing. The Air Transport Board and the Aeronautics Act are included under the bill which, however, does not incorporate competition in this field in any real sense.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
This bill does not touch Air Canada and leaves that company in a monopoly position all across Canada. It does not say that in the future steps will be taken to bring about a greater degree of competition.
It is interesting to note that during the committee proceedings Mr. Crump of the C.P.R. made a statement which appears in report of committee proceedings No. 28 at page 2009. I am not going to read it, but he stated that air cargo is developing into a very significant factor in intercity ton miles. I am paraphrasing what he said. There is no denying the fact that passenger traffic on air lines has increased tremendously during the last ten years. It is my belief, as it is Mr. Crump's, that in the next ten years air freight is going to increase to the same degree.
What does this bill do with regard to air freight? It does very little, if anything. Surely we cannot continue to say that this commission is going to regulate all modes of transportation when the bill does nothing with regard to air freight except transplant the machinery of the Aeronautics Act to this commission. The bill does not touch Air Canada at all. Certainly one of the significant factors in this regard is that Air Canada does not have any competition. If competition is the real theme of this bill, then we should seek some avenue in the bill which in the years ahead would provide a road for greater competition in air freight and air passenger travel as well as air transportation generally.
Every other air line, whether it be a little one operating between Regina and Calgary or Trans-Air in eastern Canada, has to apply for a licence under the Aeronautics Act or I suppose to the new commission that this bill will set up. However, Air Canada can operate all across Canada without applying for a licence and can discontinue a service without anything more than a public hearing. We saw that very thing take place on the prairies a few years ago.

This bill does very little, if anything, to bring about any degree of competition in air traffic, whether it be air freight or passenger travel. Let us not fool ourselves by saying that this bill brings all modes of transportation under one commission. The verbiage in the bill may well be to that effect, but it does nothing to bring about any adjustment of the conditions in which we now find ourselves with regard to air traffic. One only has to think back to the recent strike of Air Canada personnel to realize that transportation was severely tied up in Canada. More costly ways had to be found to move many of the perishable commodities which have normally moved by Air Canada. I should like to see some avenue created in this bill by which in the years ahead steps could be taken to create a greater degree of competition in air passenger travel and air freight. We should recognize the fact that there is room for such competition in Canada.
What does this bill do with regard to water transportation? There is a provision to the effect that transport by water, which falls under the Transport Act and is generally under the jurisdiction of the federal government, will fall under this new commission. What was the government's attitude just a year ago with regard to the competitive factor in northern Alberta? The government bought out its only competition on the McMurray waterways. At that time Northern Transportation, a government company, bought out Yellowknife Transportation for some $2.5 million. It was the only competition the government company had. Was that any way for a government to act which now comes to us and purports to believe that competition is the answer to our transportation problems in this country? They are not holding true to their belief of a year ago when they felt they had to buy out competition in order to survive. Today the government purports to believe that we must return to competition.
Let us look at truck competition. The minister says we are going to include a clause, I think in part III or perhaps part II of this bill, which will deal solely with truck competition. Without the amendment suggested by the Canadian Manufacturers Association, how does clause 1 apply to truck transport? We should state quite clearly that we will not allow any regulations which will restrict competition among carriers. This is a very strong point with regard to truck traffic because if you look at the major trucking concerns in Canada which operate from the maritimes through to western Canada you find you can
January 9, 1967

name them on the fingers of both hands. Most of them are owned by the two railroads. Therefore we should not allow any regulations that would prohibit free competition among carriers in the trucking industry. I firmly believe that the amendment suggested by the Canadian Manufacturers Association is necessary in order to safeguard competition within the trucking industry.
During the proceedings of the transport committee we tried to find out the percentage of long-haul trucking services which the railroads really owned. We were not forceful enough in the committee to ascertain just what that percentage really was. There was some indication that this information could not be given out. The trucking association presented a brief to the committee and stated they would like to have that information but they could not really ascertain it. One of the great handicaps under which the transport committee worked was that the committee was not given enough facts to ascertain the value of this bill when one considers the fact that according to the bill competition is the answer to all our transportation problems.
Many people in Canada believe that there is not enough competition between the large trucking concerns because the Canadian National alone, I believe, owns practically outright over half a dozen trucking firms and Canadian Pacific must own a similar number. When you ascertain how many trucking firms there are, for instance, operating in the mari-times you realize that there is little real competition. If one were to project that thinking into other areas of Canada, I am sure one would come to the same conclusion.
With regard to the commodity pipe line aspect of this bill I believe this amendment should be included. The Shell Oil Company presented a brief with regard to commodity pipe lines. This company believes that commodity pipe lines really need not come under this bill because there is no such thing in Canada yet and pipe lines will come under two federal boards, the National Energy Board, which in most cases will regulate the commodity in the pipe line, and this new commission which will regulate the transportation aspect of that commodity. Pipe lines are a means of transportation whether they carry oil or whether they carry sulphur. If jurisdiction over a pipe line carrying oil is with the National Energy Board, I see no reason why that same board could not regulate the
Transportation
charges made for the transportation of sulphur as well as the charges made for the transportation of oil.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
After all, Mr. Chairman, the least government is the best government. That is a principle which is generally accepted in a free society. But what is taking place in this bill? We are including in the bill a clause dealing with commodity pipe lines when we do not have any commodity pipe lines in Canada and when we do not know what commodity pipe lines system will be used in Canada. We are projecting our thinking into the future and are saying that we should have another regulatory body to govern such pipe lines when we already have the necessary machinery to handle them at the initial stage. I see the minister shakes his head but let him hear me out first.
It may well be, Mr. Chairman, that if these pipe lines should develop into a well-accepted means of transportation there would then be ample time to bring in any required legislation. I did ask the minister whether there had been any prior consultation with the provinces about trucks and commodity pipe lines and the minister replied that he would have meetings with the provinces in this regard.
Why do we include a clause in a federal bill dealing with the trucking industry, which is mainly a provincial matter though not entirely, without prior consultation with the provinces? Where is the co-operative federalism we heard so much about two years ago which was going to solve all our problems? The government was going to have ample prior consultation with the provinces on every matter of concern to them.
What have we seen in this house since that time, Mr. Chairman? We have been asked to pass one piece of legislation after another on the pretence that after this house had passed it the government would consult the provinces as to their views. Where, oh where has that co-operative federalism gone? It is certainly not evident in this bill.
As I said in my initial remarks on this bill, I believe that both the government and the minister have proceeded too hastily with the bill and have not consulted the provinces to any extent. They drafted a bill which required some 70 odd amendments and there may yet be further amendments. Surely if some thought had been given to the drafting of the bill and prior consultation had been had with the provinces about the trucking

January 9, 1967
Transportation
industry and commodity pipe lines, the government would have presented a bill which would have been readily acceptable to the house, the provinces and the people of Canada in general. I can only hope that in the coming week or weeks we will be able to iron out the problems in this bill so that some good will come out of it. Either that or the minister should withdraw it altogether and redraft the bill in light of the amendments proposed and the amendments which have been already accepted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, while the hon. gentleman's point with respect to clause 1 (a) is fresh in my mind and before he moves any amendment I should like to suggest one or two difficulties which I think would be encountered in attempting to draft any effective amendment which would purport to forbid the commission to restrict competition within the same mode of transport.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle made a very powerful argument for rationalization of the railways, with a large part of which I completely agree, with a view to reducing, in the interests of the economy and the efficient transportation of grain competition, which is of the wasteful sort.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Wasteful competition, yes, but not fruitful competition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman knows that the whole intention of the Aeronautics Act has been to provide competition where there is enough traffic to warrant it, to make sure that in the case of regional carriers and others there should be adequate scope to operate effectively and to enable them to make a financial success of their operations, and to avoid the kind of cut-throat competition which would make it impossible for any of them to operate effectively.
The hon. gentleman said that we were not amending the Air Canada Act in this bill. We are not amending the Canadian National Railways Act or a great many other statutes either. We are laying down certain general principles.
When the hon. gentleman's friends were in office they did permit a limited amount of competition on main air lines, and I have indicated that this government has no intention of changing that policy. Indeed, I am hopeful that in the very near future I will be able to make a statement with respect to that matter.

The hon. gentleman made three points, two of which I have dealt with and the third I have not. I think what we are seeking to do in this general statement in clause 1 is not to lay down particular rules for the railways, for the air lines or for any other particular mode of transport. What we are trying to do is to lay down guide lines for competition between those modes of transport and for the relationships between them.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, in these circumstances we would be making more difficulties for ourselves than we would solve by attempting to change this particular subclause in the manner suggested by the hon. member. We do have very keen competition now between the railways and there is certainly very keen competition between the two air lines wherever they are allowed to compete. I do not think we need insist on this kind of competition in this legislation. What we are seeking to do is to make it possible for the various modes of transport to compete.
While I am on my feet, though this does not relate to clause 1 at all perhaps I could say a few words about each of the other two points raised by the hon. gentleman. First with regard to commodity pipe lines there is no provision in the law of Canada at the present time for commodity pipe lines, apart from pipe lines to carry oil and gas. It was the view of the government that some provision should be made the first time appropriate legislation was brought before parliament to meet that gap, and it is a gap in legislation. I think it is appropriate to meet this gap in the way it is being met in this bill, which will not involve any double jurisdiction at all. A commodity pipe line that does not carry gas or oil will be exclusively under the jurisdiction of the new commission.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What if one carries both?
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: If one carries both
then there is provision made in the bill. This is covered by one of the 70 odd amendments which were made, although I am not sure the hon. gentleman's figure is correct. I did not bother to count them. I thought it was wise to make any improvements in this bill that it was thought should be made. I do not think it is any criticism of the draftsman that this has been done. I am not criticizing the hon. gentleman because he criticizes me. Every opposition says that if a government accepts an amendment it means that it was a sloppy
January 9, 1967

draftsman and did not know its own business, but if it does not accept amendments it is stubborn, obstinate and arrogant. You have to pay your money and take your choice. No matter what course you take the opposition will do nothing but condemn you.
We are, I hope, nearly through the rhetorical aspects of clause 1. Perhaps we can get down to the bill and forget how many amendments there are. If we see some way to improve the bill, let us do that even if it brings the amendments up to 71 or 72. But if there are to be improvements I think it is perhaps wise, not to do as the hon. member suggests.
The highway situation is somewhat different. Parliament 10 or 12 years ago passed legislation when the Privy Council decided that this parliament, and not the provincial legislatures, had jurisdiction over interprovincial and international trucking. This parliament has legislation empowering the provincial boards to act as federal agents. Many people do not understand that they act as federal agents. They have no power conferred on them by the legislatures. That could not be done. Such power can only be conferred by this parliament. To the extent that this delegation will continue to work there is no disposition to change it. But we have some reason to believe, because of certain decisions the courts have made, that some of these provincial agencies will not be able effectively to carry on their task. This is a matter about which the provincial governments, of course, should be consulted because they have allowed their agencies to act for us until now. The provincial governments should be consulted in due course about whether a change should be made. I do not think that provincial governments should be asked their views about the legislation-the legislative act is exclusively within the jurisdiction of this parliament-any more than we should expect the government of Alberta or any other province to consult us before introducing legislation exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature.
Where the division of authority is completely clear it seems to me that on the whole we get along better if we mind our own business. Whether it is advisable to give this reserve power to this new commission is something we can discuss when we come to the clause dealing with it. The same holds true with respect to pipe lines. Both these matters in my view show deficiencies in the general law at the present time that it is desirable to correct.
Transportation
I shall come back to the point that really concerns clause 1. I shall reflect on what the hon. gentleman has said. I do not like rejecting anything out of hand. I see great difficulty in trying to formulate any general language in subclause (a) that would not create conflicts between the Aeronautics Act and probably the Railway Act, and certainly the clauses we are proposing to put in relating to branch lines. I think we should gain very little by attempting to do such a thing.
Perhaps the hon. gentleman will permit me to take a crack at him and to say that 30 years ago, when I was as young as he is, if any farmer in this house had got up and commended anything suggested by the Canadian Manufacturers Association he would never have come back. Apparently that is not as great a disability as it used to be.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We farmers in the west are very broadminded these days.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, if it will not come as too great a shock to the minister I wish to commend him on his flexibility in agreeing to accept some of the amendments proposed in the committee. No one can accuse the minister of having gone hastily into the preparation of this bill when one looks at its genesis in the days of the MacPherson Royal Commission appointed by the previous administration.
Having said that, I wish to comment about the extraordinary piece of verbiage the minister has included in clause 1 of the bill. This is a most amazing piece of drafting. One might consider the language as the preamble to the bill. If one turns the page and sees the short title referred to in clause 2, one might be pardoned for thinking that the language in clause 1 is the preamble to the bill. The more I have looked at clause 1 the more I have become convinced that the minister's thought about a new transportation policy has gone down the drain.
As I read clause 1 it virtually assures that the new transportation commission the bill seeks to establish will continue to flounder in the sea of misunderstanding and illogicality that has prevailed in the Canadian transportation system over a great many years. In clause 1 the minister, it seems to me, has most effectively sought to perpetuate the confusion in which our transportation system has found itself for a long time.
The bill starts with these words:
An Act to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada-

January 9, 1967
Transportation
That is high-sounding. I have no objection to ministers introducing bills with high-sounding titles. It is within the bounds of reasonable ambition on their parts to have bills with high-sounding titles on the statute books to perpetuate their memories.
When one reads the first sentence of what I call the preamble, because it is not properly clause 1 as I define it, one sees this statement:
It is hereby declared that an economic and efficient transportation system making the best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest total cost is essential to the economic well-being and growth of Canada-
Few Canadians will find much to disagree with in that statement. But when one goes beyond that one immediately enters into the strange realm of thought that has prevailed for all too long, that some mystic benefit is to be derived from competition in transportation. I listened to the hon. member for Acadia, who obviously wallows in the quagmire in which the minister wallows. Some people think that if we could have competition, if we could get 25 railway companies to build lines across Canada to transport goods cheaply, somehow or other we should have an efficient transportation system working in the interests of all transportation users in Canada. That is the attitude that has prevailed. I am no authority on railway history, but if we look back in history I am sure we will find that it was the kind of philosophy I have just alluded to that forced the government of Canada in other days to set up the Canadian National Railways.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
In spite of all this experience, this myth about the value of competition as being basic to the efficient functioning of transportation in Canada is being perpetuated, indeed, enforced in an act of parliament by virtue of clause 1 of this bill. This is the situation which has produced the conflicts to which I have been listening between supporters of the government and members of the official opposition. The minister has pointed out that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle contends there should be a greater degree of control over the railways to ensure that grain rates remain low. I hear voices from the maritimes in favour of moves to ensure that the maritime freight rates subsidy should continue. Now the hon. member for Peace River has introduced an amendment which in some ways I find to be laudable. But I would suggest to the hon. member for Peace River that his attempt to bring reason and order into what is contained in clause 1 is a hopeless effort. All it is likely

to do is to add to the confusion which already exists.
To my mind the basic situation is clear. The best way of ensuring an efficient transportation system in Canada is to bring about a system whereby all modes of transportation and all the vehicles used complement one another instead of indulging in unnecessary and fruitless competition. It is through this approach that we are likely to get the most effective and economic system of transportation best suited to the needs of the people of this country. I suggest to the minister that the best thing he could do would be to remove clause 1 entirely and renumber clause 2 as clause 1. We could then consider the bill from that point. As things stand, all we are doing in effect is to ensure from the very start that the transportation commission will be unable to function in the manner proposed in clause 14.
I put it to the minister that there is an inherent contradiction between what is set out in clause 1 and what is contained in clause 14 as to the powers and duties of the proposed commission. In order to illustrate my point I will quote the relevant part of clause 14.
It is the duty of the Commission to perform the functions vested in the Commission by this Act, the Railway Act, the Aeronautics Act and the Transport Act with the object of co-ordinating and harmonizing the operations of all carriers engaged in transport by railways, water, aireraft, extraprovincial motor vehicle transport and commodity pipelines;
Here we find set out what I consider to be a realistic transportation idea. Unfortunately the idea that the duty of the commission is to co-ordinate and harmonize the operations of all carriers is completely nullified by the terms of clause 1 where we find it stated that these objectives are most likely to be achieved when all modes of transport are able to compete-a contention which maintains and perpetuates the paradoxical transportation policy which has prevailed for far too long in this country.
I know that when he introduced the bill the minister urged strongly that it be allowed to go to the committee where its details could be studied. Many of us were prepared for that to happen. In fact we expedited the passage of the bill to the point at which it could be sent to committee for that purpose, recognizing that certain changes were long overdue particularly with respect to the operations of the national railways.
I do not profess to be in a position to discuss in detail the proposals contained in this bill with respect to railways operations. Some of my hon. friends who are more directly
January 9, 1967
*


Mr, Hamilion:: Mr. Chairman, this evening I am going to address my remarks to the

January 9, 1967
Transportation
amendment put forward by the hon. member for Peace River. Once again I am very pleased that the Minister of Transport is here because these remarks will be basic to the decision he will be attempting to arrive at between seven and eight o'clock vis-a-vis the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River. The amendment of the hon. member for Peace River is an effort on the part of the Conservative opposition to try to give guide lines to the new transportation commission which will help them make their judicial decisions. It is similar to subclauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause 1.
I should like to read part of the amendment again:
-it is essential to recognize the policy of equalization of freight rates to the fullest possible extent as a means of dealing equitably with all parts of Canada-
In respect of the first part of the amendment concerning the question of equalization,
I have pointed out before and I should like to repeat that there is nothing which has bothered the people of Canada more than the question of equalization. Throughout the years, particularly in the maritimes and in the prairies, the unfairness inherent in the fact that it costs so much more to ship goods on the railways for a certain distance in the prairies and the maritimes than it does to ship them the same distance in the central provinces has been one of the great economic injustices which have divided this country.
This bill is an attempt to bring the railways up to full efficiency by permitting competition in the field of transportation between the railways on the one hand and other modes of transportation on the other. I believe the great majority of the people of Canada are willing to give a try to this policy of competition. On the other hand, since we are realistic we know that railways, truckers, air lines and others forms of transportation have not endeared themselves to the people of Canada in the past by evidence that they were honestly competing. There is too much evidence to the contrary. There is a good reason for this being so. The railways in effect are a type of semimonopoly. When a railway goes through a certain area, in effect it provides the only service in that area. When you have a location in Canada where the competition is very keen, where railways run reasonably close together and where you also have water, air and truck transportation, you can visualize a situation where there is honest and genuine competition. There still are many areas in Canada,
[Mr. Hamilton.!
however, where in reality that guarantee cannot be given.
The phrase, "equalization of freight rates" is a clear direction from parliament and I think gives an axe to the minister and the new transportation commission. In recognition of the way competition works we have included the phrase, "to the fullest possible extent".
I think that phrase gives sufficient leeway that the transportation commission can recognize in some areas that the equalization principle will have to be departed from.
One of the situations of which we all have knowledge is that in respect of the Panama Canal. It is a matter of common knowledge that you can ship goods from Montreal to Vancouver by water in competition with the movement of freight by rail from Montreal to Vancouver. Therefore, in order to give competition in that type of situation between modes of transportation the transportation commission would have to permit a type of freight rate which would allow the railways, one mode of transportation, to compete effectively with another mode, that of water. This, however, does not ease the pain for the people of Regina or Calgary who know that the freight rates they pay for rail transportation are so much higher than they are when the same goods are moved from Montreal to Vancouver. When it is cheaper to ship a particular article from Montreal to Vancouver than from Montreal to Calgary it is natural that the people will raise the cry of discrimination and nonequalization. As the hon. member for Peace River pointed out, royal commissions have tried to tackle this problem but have failed to come up with a precise answer. All we in parliament can do is suggest, as this amendment attempts to do, that the commission wherever possible provide an equalization of freight rates.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
Obviously if there is to be competition between the three, four or five railway companies in Canada the rates cannot be precisely the same. Let me give some examples of what I mean in an attempt to explain possible situations which may still exist following the adoption of the this bill. I have given these examples in general principle on previous occasions.
Clause 68 is very carefully worded so as not to force the railway companies or the transportation commission to provide equalization of freight rates. In clause 68 under the heading "Traffic, Tolls and Tariffs" we find that subsection (1) of new section 381 states:
January 9, 1967

All tolls shall be just and reasonable and shall always, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions with respect to all traffic of the same description carried over the same route, be charged equally to all persons at the same rate.
On first reading that it looks like it provides for equalization of rates, but when you reread it in light of our experience over the last 40 years there is a loophole for discrimination provided by the phrase "carried over the same route". The words that are missing, of course, are "the same distance". We have tried by our amendment to include words which will indicate to the transportation commission that we want to achieve the major objective of this bill, namely, competition, while at the same time eliminate any possibility of discrimination.
Let me provide a hypothetical example. Suppose a particular item is being transported from Winnipeg a distance of 130 miles west to the city of Brandon at a rate which is lower than that applying to the transportation of the same item 130 miles from Winnipeg east to the city of Kenora. That situation could well exist within the terms of this bill but it would be discriminatory against the people of Kenora. Conversely, if the rate were higher to Brandon than to Kenora, it would be discriminatory against the people of Brandon. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River, which is being held in abeyance, was designed to prevent this type of discrimination from occurring by the inclusion of the words "to the fullest possible extent".
Let me propose another example. The majority of development in Canada in the future will take place in the paper and mining industries in our northern areas. At this time 90 per cent of our population live in a narrow strip in the southern part of the country within 10 per cent of our total area. A great majority of our transportation problems in future will relate to various methods of transportation from our newly developed areas. Under clause 68 of this bill it would be possible for railway companies, without in any way infringing upon the principles, to establish different rates for hauling similar ore from different locations over an equal distance.
Let me use Winnipeg again for the purposes of my example. If a mine were developed a specific distance to the northeast of Winnipeg and a similar mine were developed to the north of Winnipeg, provided the product was the same and the distance to the concentrator was the same the same rate should apply.
T ransportation
Similar ore collected at the one mine and carried over the same distance as ore collected from the other mine should be moved for exactly the same rate. Under the provisions of this bill a different rate could be charged. Let me enlarge somewhat on this example. If ore were being transported from a mine in northern Quebec to a concentrator at a higher rate than ore transported from a mine to Winnipeg, to Sault Ste. Marie, Port Arthur or Fort William, provided the distances were the same the people in Quebec would feel they were being discriminated against. On the other hand, if the rate in Quebec was lower the people in Manitoba or Ontario would feel discriminated against.
In view of the realities it is not possible to obtain complete equalization of rates. There may well be competitive factors involved. We have taken this into consideration in drafting our amendment. That is why we suggest there should be equalization of freight rates "to the fullest possible extent".
It is my hope that the minister and his officials will realize that we are not attempting to be obstructive in moving this amendment. What we are attempting to do is to make it clear to the commission that parliament desires equalization of freight rates to the fullest extent possible. We must take into consideration competitive factors, but if those factors are relatively equal there is little reason why the rates cannot be equal.
We have attempted to protect the various modes of transportation in this country. We have done so effectively by stating that no mode of transportation can charge a rate below cost. That provides a basic protection to every mode of transportation. But what have we done to protect the user? Users must realize that there is some body, in this case the national transportation commission, which has been directed by parliament to make sure as fai as possible that similar goods carried a similar distance by a similar transportation system are carried at the same rate.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think I have made my point sufficiently, and I hope fairly enough, to indicate that we are not trying to cause trouble for the minister or the people who will have to redraft this amendment. We are trying to arrive at something that will indicate to the national transportation commission that we are attempting to get over the old bugaboo of d scrimination which has plagued and divided this country for so long. We are doing this to show the committee something they should

January 9, 1967
Transportation
already know, namely, how serious this discrimination has been. Up to the year 1957, I believe, since the war increases in freight rates have been granted by the Governor General in Council amounting to 150 per cent. The whole burden of th:s tremendous increase in freight rates fell on the prairies and the maritimes and those areas apart from the competitive area between Montreal and Toronto. It did not bear on the people in the competitive areas.
I have already said that we cannot get rid of discrimination entirely, but as our country develops more and more in the northern areas this tremendous dissatisfaction will continue unless there is some assurance that the board to which we are giving these tremendous powers is working in the interests of the user. This is why there will be a great deal of trouble in regard to the definition of "public interest". Does "public interest" simply imply that you have competition between the railways regardless of the fairness to the user? If that is the motivation or theory behind this bill, it will cause just as much trouble as previous efforts by parliament to try and get out of this rut. We are trying to be helpful by suggesting what I think is a fairly constructive amendment which does not limit to the fullest extent the power of the new commission to do the right thing. But they should know that parliament is holding them responsible to try to arrive at the maximum amount of equalization possible.
In this bill we are telling the people of Canada that parliament will look after their interests properly and that the national transportation commission will defend those interests. But the public interest must, by the very nature of things, not only be loyal to the principle of competition but loyal to the reality of competition and the fact that in the end result we are trying to serve the user as fairly as possible.
I have one more point to make which is in harmony with what I have said in the house on previous occasions with regard to rationalization. I suggested to the house on second reading that one of our purposes in this b'U should be to give the commission more power, the power to direct, the power to achieve positive purposes. Then at the committee stage I supported another amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River suggesting that this board, with all its powers, should have some controls placed on it. Those two viewpoints are not contradictory. They are, I think, realist'c and practicable.

If we want to run our transportation system efficiently, it seems that we have to turn it over to a highly skilled board that can deal with it. This is the essence of the bill. But if we turn all these powers over to the board, not only should we in the drafting of the bill try to state our aims and objectives in the form of guide lines to the board but we should have some way of touching base with them occasionally. That is why we in the official opposition have suggested that there should be set up by statute some form of institutional framework which would guarantee to the people whose interests we are placing in the hands of this commission that their representatives in parliament will every year have to examine carefully what the board is doing.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, we are turning over more power to the board. I would even give it more power than this bill gives, namely, the power to direct as well as to recommend. At the same time I want to strengthen control over the board in a way which will not interfere with its efficiency in handling our transportation system. This amendment is not as fundamental as the earlier one, but I think it meets the long-standing grievance of the people in those areas which have been most discriminated against, northern Ontario, northern Quebec, the prairies and the maritimes. They will at least feel that we in parliament are giving the board, proper guide lines in this field.
If we try to tie the direction down to dollars and cents and precise details, it will destroy the purpose of the bill. We should set out our aims and objectives in such a way that will direct the board but leave some loophole whereby the railways can adapt themselves to the competitive position of different areas and within reason make the adjustments that are necessary.
We cannot reach the most perfect situation in the world but at least we want the people whom we represent and who have been discriminated against over the years to feel that a case is being made on their behalf. I believe that in this opening clause it would help a little if we included some phraseology that would give the assurance that the board was directed by parliament in an attempt to arrive at our objectives, rather than including such a provision in the section of the bill covering the powers of the board. If we included this amendment at least the people would know that periodically we will see that these things are carried out to the fullest extent possible as far as members of parliament are concerned
January 9, 1967

in trying to set up legislation and maintain the right of the people to have some control over their masters.
The final point I wish to make deals with positive thinking and positive approaches. I believe in what I call dynamic, positive government. I believe we have an opportunity in this bill, in which we are delegating powers in respect of transportation to a national commission, to try to use this Canadian Transport Commission as part of national policy. I know that for many decades to come things will have to be done in the field of transportation that do not come under the ordinary* rules of competitive private enterprise. I know that by roads, highways, air routes and possibly pipe lines we will have to open up our country by moving transportation into areas where there is no immediate monetary return to the carriers. I know that for periods of years, and perhaps decades, some of these operations will have to run at a loss.
We have agreed with the principle enunciated by the MacPherson Royal Commission that, if we ask any mode of transportation to take on these national functions, any losses wifi be recompensed from the national treasury. What I am trying to say is included in this amendment. I refer to the phrase "equalization of freight rates to the fullest possible extent as a means of dealing equitably with all parts of Canada and as being the method best calculated to facilitate the interchange of commodities between the various parts of the country"-and this is the part I want to emphasize-"as well as the encouragement of industry and agriculture in all regions and the development of export trade."
That last phrase is the positive one. We are there saying that the national transportation commission must have as its guide line in the national interest the developing of exports, our mining industry, our paper industry and even the agricultural industry. Many Canadians have not yet recognized that the last great backstop of all the hungry people of the world will be in northern Canada and northern Russia.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
The great muskegs, with the greatest soil productivity in the world, will be the base from which we will feed the hungry millions. Even if one is accused of looking too far into the future, the Canadian Transport Commission, under this amendment as a guide line, will know that they have the responsibility of looking into the future and of proposing to air lines, pipe line companies, railroads and
Transportation
even water transportation around our coasts, that in the interests of developing our country they can make proposals to the agencies they govern.
I think all this is made possible in the amendment, and I hope that when the minister meets his officials between 7 and 8 p.m. today he and they will recognize that the additional paragraph we have proposed is put forward without any intention to interfere with the principle of competition. It also has the purpose of trying to carry out what I think every Canadian would like to see, namely a maximum equalization of freight rates. I have been very candid in saying that under certain circumstances one cannot provide perfect equalization, but there are so many cases of discrimination that it would be good to know that this transportation commission is actively watching and seeking at all times to end or reduce that discrimination.
Finally I shall repeat a point I have made already, that I would like to see an active, dynamic government which would not interfere with private enterprise. If this transport commission could do a certain amount of projection of the national policy, then the government would have through this commission a way of getting things done-something we have found very difficult in the past.
I know the minister does not wish to re-live that awful debate on the Pine Point railway. That was a classic example where private enterprise, in this case in the form of the Canadian Pacific Railway, did not see the obvious truth that there would be a need for certain mineral products in a short space of time, and refused to build a railway line to its own mining properties. The government of Canada of the day had to put money behind the Canadian National Railways to get this line built. Is it not a wonderful thing that we did it? Certainly we made money for the C P-R., and all those who had invested in the Pine Point mines reaped large benefits. But the main thing was that we saved this country hundreds of thousands of dollars of foreign exchange and we saved it from having to import these minerals at much higher prices.
This was a good policy at that time. The private enterprise did not see the necessity for it, but thank heavens we had a government which believed in this country and believed in taking dynamic action. I hope that the Canadian Transport Commission will be composed of people who will read into the amendment and into the remarks made in the house the meaning which we intend, namely that we hope they have some red corpuscles in their

January 9, 1967
Transportation
blood stream, and some adrenalin to enable them to take the dynamic action we hope such a board will take when national interests are at stake.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to put one question to the hon. gentleman for clarification, if he would permit me to do it. As I understand his interpretation of the purpose of the amendment, in so far as equalization is concerned-I am not talking about the other more visionary aspects which he mentioned in the latter part of his speech-it is not intended in any way to inhibit the railways or any other mode of transport from meeting competition, but is merely intended to say that in areas where there is no competition there should not be discrimination as between one part of the country and another. I do not know whether I made myself clear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think we are in agreement. As you know, rates are set for a certain product in a certain area, and no one ever examines them from year to year. These discriminatory rate structures remain for ever and ever. I was hoping this amendment would make it clear to the Canadian Transport Commission that their job is to try to set rates wherever possible on the basis of equalization, rather than on the basis of phraseology contained in clause 68, which deals with section 381 (1).
The other point I wish to make is that I think it is wrong in principle to worship the theory of competition to such a degree that you give to a private company, whether it is the C.P.R., the C.N.R. or the P.G.E., the right to decide what the freight rate will be for a certain new development as opposed to another new development. This, in the name of competition, gives too much power to the private company. If the Canadian Transport Commission were on the alert for this type of thing, it could be prevented. One can imagine that, with the interlocking directorates, and with the C.P.R. which is engaged in many forms of enterprise, if one of these enterprises belonged to the circle of their companies and another set of enterprises belonged to the competitive company, discrimination could occur.
I do not want to impute bad motives or to suggest that the railway would deliberately set a special rate to help their boys a little bit more than the others, but I would like to believe there was a referee or a judicial court set up to stop this sort of thing, unless there were good reasons for establishing lower rates at one point than at another. The principle

should remain, that similar goods travelling the same distances should be treated in the same way.
In the case of the oil and gas industry, we do not bother with these details in legislation. We simply say to the pipe lines and to the gas distribution companies in the provinces: You are a semi-monopoly, but we watch you by setting the maximum rate of return on the capital which is usually set on the basis of the rate base. We allow these companies to compete and to do what they like pricewise because their competition has to be met in various areas. For example in Ontario there is discrimination in the gas rates, but the government controls them simply by making it very clear in the regulations what their maximum rate of return can be.
We have not set up this system in this bill. If we do not set up a system of maximum returns-which would be too difficult to attempt in the case of the railways-we have to put a finger of control down here and there, and that is what I think this amendment will do. If the transportation commission is aware that as far as possible parliament wishes to get rid of discrimination, then a great cause of disunity and unfairness will be removed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can assure the hon. gentleman that if my enunciation of the proposition was the one he had in mind, that is precisely the objective of the government. We feel that, where there is competition, the railways should be permitted to meet it and to get the business so long as the rates are compensatory; but where there is no competition we do not feel they should be allowed to discriminate between two shippers under similar conditions, even if one is at one end of the country and the other is at the other end. That is what we have sought to do in clause 16, and that is precisely the purpose of the language in that clause. If I can find some language which clearly sets out this principle, at eight o'clock I would be ready to propose that we include it.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
It may be that instead I will have to ask that this amendment stand overnight, because sometimes the draftsmen have to see how the wording is likely to be interpreted. Those of us in here who think that if we were judges we would be able to settle it quickly will find that the lawyers do not always agree with us. If it is not intended to prevent the various modes of transport from trying to be competitive, but is meant to protect areas where there is no competition by making sure that there
January 9, 19G7

will be no discrimination, then I can assure the hon. gentleman that the government is wholly in favour of it. This is what we want to accomplish. I can say right now that I cannot accept the words in exactly the form the hon. member for Peace River has given them to us. However, we will try to devise something which will meet the objective he has in mind.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I make one last observation. I believe the minister is aware that under section 68 to which I referred, all tolls shall be just and reasonable and shall always do certain things. I break off there to say that this language is fixed. The bill provides that for the carriage of goods over the same route the various carriers will have to have the same rate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman realizes that clause does not apply to the railways at all.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The point I am discussing is that I point to this as an example of the type of fixed language we will find it difficult to amend. I believe the provision would be better put in the guide lines section.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I quite agree.


Thomas Miller Bell: I wonder if I could repeat my objection for the minister so that it might be considered during the supper recess? The hon. member for Peace River has put forward this amendment which recommends a recognition of the policy of equalization of freight rates to the fullest extent as a means of developing all parts of Canada. The amendment is akin to the complaint of some of us from the maritimes, that in embarking on this national transportation policy we somehow are putting aside the national policy of using transportation to develop the regions of Canada that have not been as fortunate as others, in so far as competition in transportation is concerned.
One of the objections the minister made to this amendment was that it might not consider the Maritime Freight Rates Act and the statutory protection that the maritimes have. Whether that is true, I do not know. However, perhaps we should place in the legislation, either in this or some other clause, the amendment which I suggested should be seriously considered. On an earlier occasion I felt it was important, but it is taking on a greater significance in my mind now, and I will tell the minister in a minute why that is so.
Transportation
The amendment to which I refer is the one put forward by the Maritime Transportation Commission, when they made their presentation to the committee which considered this bill. That commission suggested that after section 1(b), the following words should be added, "except as may otherwise be necessary for constitutional, statutory or national policy purposes." If those words were in the bill, the objection the minister has to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River might be covered. This amendment also appeals to me because it ties in with the study that has taken place on maritime transportation problems. We have to buy a pig in a poke or pray that something is going to come up in the future.
I suggest that if these words are in the bill, then a future government will have to recognize this protection, whereas if these words are not there an entirely different method could be adopted for dealing with the transportation problems of the maritimes. I am not suggesting future governments would not be aware of this, and I frankly told the minister that I wondered whether we should put a full time order on this freeze. Although I cannot speak for my colleagues, I am quite willing to take a chance that there would be enough pressure from the maritimes to cause the government to act.
If there is not some statement in this bill to the effect that we recognize in this parliament that national policy as a means of providing transportation facilities en an equitable basis for every region is protected, then I am afraid a new government might not consider that aspect and might use something different on an experimental basis. I think the minister has my thought. Perhaps he will be able to work in something that will satisfy himself in connection with the weakness of this amendment and also make many maritimers happy in the knowledge that it has been stated that all will agree with a national policy on transportation as separate from a new national transportation policy.
There are one or two other points which perhaps I could develop at this time. They arise from some of the problems we discussed before the Christmas recess and about which we have had a chance to think further. Some hon. members have paid tribute to the minister's flexibility and good intentions. I did that in the committee. I think we will have to test these statements against the proceedings in the house on the bill. It has been said that we need definite direction, and that words are

January 9, 1967
Transportation
important in a section such as we are considering because the new transport board will be reading these words rather carefully and trying to ascertain exactly what we intended.
We all know that the minister is flexible, is good natured and that certain things are intended. Flour offers a good example of the difficulty of putting these intentions into legislative form. Everybody in the committee agreed that we wanted to provide the same protection for flour as there had been. I am not an expert in the matter, but I understand when the new legislation was brought forward flour was excluded from many of the provisions that affected grain. We were all desirous of at least putting flour in the position it was before. It would seem to me, as a layman, that since the west grows the grain and mills some of the flour and the east benefits from these lucrative flour shipments through eastern ports, everybody should be interested in Canada as a nation milling and shipping as much flour as possible. Two amendments have come forward, and they were put forward fairly. Everybody considered them. I understand now there is some difficulty in connection with the second amendment, in that some flour mills were not included. Unless changes are made, this might drastically affect about 50 per cent of the business that has been going through most of the eastern ports.
I know the minister and his officials are considering the matter, so I do not want my words to be taken as criticism of any departmental or railway officials who may be considering this matter. I just want to use it as an example of the fact that it is not easy to put into legislative form for all time the exact intent in providing a cure for these problems.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Another matter that came to my mind was this question of port parity. I understand we are still going to hear from the minister on this subject. Perhaps on that occasion he will give us a better indication of how that affects Saint John and whether the rates vis-a-vis the United States ports are going to be protected. I read in the paper the other day the industrial port commissioner in Quebec city, who of course is trying to promote business, made the flat statement that it is $14 per ton cheaper to ship newsprint through Quebec than through Saint John. He went on to say that this is an argument each shipper in Quebec should be able to count on, and that therefore winter navigation should be kept open. I see the minister is smiling but he has no need to

worry; I am not going to get into the subject of winter navigation at the moment. I have already put substantial argument on the record over the years in this regard.
If this is true, I do not know whether any agreed charges are involved. I would assume the longshoremen would form a comparable category because they are now on identical rates. If it is true that it is $14 per ton cheaper to ship newsprint through Quebec than through Saint John, then there is something wrong with our freight rate structure. The very reason out province went into confederation, Mr. Chairman, was to get equalized rates so that we could be competitive. If these are taken away from us, then even without winter navigation I do not know what hope there is for us in the future. This thought occurred to me during the holidays when I was trying to be fair minded and was viewing the matter on a broad, national basis.
One other subject on which I think the minister should try to obtain more information concerns the freeze on the maritime freight rates. I am confused about this question, which is looming fairly large. As I stated in my earlier remarks, I think we would do better to put a time limit on this freeze. I have perused some of the records in this connection, and when we come to the particular clause I should like to have an indication of how much of our traffic is affected by this freeze. The departmental officials seemed to minimize it, and I am sorry I do not have before me their exact words. At the same time, in reply to me the other day the minister said that quite a substantial part of our traffic was involved. So I think we should know what we are talking about here.
In view of this I feel that if we were given some statement on national policy everyone would be happier. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle referred to this particular situation, which is of prime concern to the west, and I commend both him and the hon. member for Acadia for their speeches about free enterprise this afternoon. It is heart warming to hear these remarks, as one who comes from a city and a port which owes a great deal to one of our national transportation companies. I hope that these complimentary remarks, Mr. Chairman, will be taken as an indication that we are still interested in them, and we hope that they will be as interested in us in the future as they have been for years past.
In this regard the thought struck me that we were almost bordering upon the chief criticism which was made by the western
January 9, 1967

provinces, particularly Manitoba, during the committee hearings. I feel that, in spite of the minister trying to drag section 16 into the picture this is one of the major weaknesses of a big section of this bill. We are really considering maximum rate control philosophy. This is one fear the west has. I as a maritimer think that the government, if they are not already aware, should be made very much aware of the fact that, every day, the mari-times is going further behind, in this field of transportation.
The statements that have been made on behalf of private enterprise to the effect that the big bulk shippers should be allowed to negotiate with the railways and to set their own rates sound pretty good, but I go back to what was said in the committee hearings about the wastage of our resources in Canada. Let us take for example the potash industry, which is negotiating with the railways for special rates. In my humble opinion I think these rates could be set very high, and due to the monopoly or near monopoly situation in the industry, particularly in the international market, there will not be an accounting. In spite of all that has been said, the bulk shippers will not come forward and declare themselves; they will simply make up the cost of these high rates by taking it out on the economy in the western provinces, perhaps through labour or through some other means.
I leave with the minister these general observations on the bill. It is a question of watching these rates every day and in every way. Otherwise we will find that the difference in rates will be lost in the economy and that the western provinces will end up as we did in the maritimes. About 50 years from now they will wonder what has happened to them because they have no industry left and their standard of living will be well below the Canadian average.
So I say to my western friends, particularly in view of their appealing speeches on behalf of private enterprise, that while I agree with them in this philosophy they had better be careful of the maximum rate control section of the bill and not listen to the story which is put forward, that this is great and that we should let the big companies and the railways work it out themselves. That is my centennial warning for the new year to the western members: let them watch this section.
May I call it seven o'clock, Mr. Chairman, if it is the intention of the committee to take a recess?
23033-732J
Transportation


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it is. Perhaps I may say again that I intend to give consideration as well to the suggestion made by the hon. gentleman about this other amendment, which I think could be summed up by saying that the hon. gentleman is in favour of equalization if necessary, but not necessarily equalization.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Is it the wish of the committee that I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain), Canadian Pacific-discontinuance of Montreal-Quebec night train service; the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein), admission to Canada of deputy leader of National Democratic Party of West Germany; the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays), Northern Affairs-Grande Hermine -permanent berth for replica.
I understand that there has been agreement that the house will suspend sitting from now until eight o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the house also agree that we come back to committee and begin work at eight o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



TRANSPORTATION


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

January 9, 1967
Transportation SITTING RESUMED
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
The Depuly Chairman: The house is again in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-231.


Mr. Rock:: I rise to speak on clause 1 of this bill, which will create a new national transportation policy for Canada. During our study of this measure in the committee on transport and communications I was interested in the area covered in clause 4, paragraphs
(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), particularly in paragraph (c) which reads:
transport by water to which the Transport Act applies and all other transport by water to which the legislative authority ol the parliament of Canada extends.
I asked the minister in the committee why the seaway authority was not included or mentioned in the bill, and he gave me a satisfactory answer. Nevertheless I believe there is a matter which at present comes under the jurisdiction of the seaway authority but which should, I believe, come directly under the authority of the Department of Transport. I refer to the operation of the second old La-chine canal, which was transferred to the jurisdiction of the seaway authority when the seaway became operative in order that the free toll Lachine canal would not be a competitor for small ships. This canal has been partially closed. No through traffic can use it and only a small western section has been left open for local traffic. This means that very few ships use it.
However, whether this old Lachine canal carries heavy traffic, little traffic, or no traffic has no bearing on the difficulties encountered by vehicular traffic attempting to cross the 6th Avenue bridge between the cities of LaSalle and Lachine. In the course of the past ten years these two municipalities have time and again requested in letters and resolutions that the federal government build a new bridge, or an extra bridge, to solve the traffic problem caused by the present outdated horse and buggy federal bridge. Serious traffic jams occur at present when the canal is closed for winter. From time to time traffic jams extend from this bridge for almost a mile along two arteries to LaFleur street in LaSalle, westward on St. Joseph boulevard for 15 blocks and down 6th avenue to the heart of the main shopping street in Lachine, Notre Dame street.
This problem has existed for many years and each year it becomes increasingly serious. The seaway authority and the Department of
[The Chairman.]
Transport say that responsibility belongs to the municipalities and to the province concerned. The government has no policy with regard to the matter. I would point out however that during my lifetime the federal government has built two bridges over the St. Lawrence river. And as hon. members know, the Champlain bridge was completed only recently. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that a similar federal responsibility exists with regard to the building and modernization of bridges along the Lachine canal. It is my belief that the same degree of responsibility as the federal government assumes in connection with railway crossings should also be assumed with regard to bridge building across federal canals.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The first inhabitants of Lachine came in the year 1666, over 300 years ago. The first canal was built between the years 1821 and 1824, enlarged in the years 1843 to 1848, and again in the years 1877 to 1880. There was a complete reconstruction between 1896 and 1904. The four bridges which cross the two locks and the two water control systems were built between 1922 and 1924. They were built to accept the traffic of that era-the horse and buggy days. In the year 1904, when the reconstruction of the Lachine canal was completed, the population in the immediate area of La Salle and Lachine was around 6,000. At present the estimated population in the area of La Salle and Lachine is around 95,000. The serious traffic situation has been in existence for the past ten years, and therefore I believe that something should be done in this regard by the federal government.
I am aware of the possible closing of the Lachine canal. Personally I feel this canal, the first built in Canada, which enters the heart of the city of Montreal, should remain as an historic achievement. I believe it should be maintained as a harbour for pleasure craft and for Montrealers. The government has a policy for pleasure craft and I believe this canal should be part and parcel of that policy. There should be no more stalling one way or another in the matter of a decision. The Lachine canal should first be transferred from the seaway authority to the Department of Transport. Then a decision should be reached by the department or by the minister, either to close the Lachine canal and build a causeway between the two municipalities, or leave the canal open and build the bridge which has been requested by the two municipalities. I think the minister should study the possibility of creating a bridge fund,
January 9, 1967

in the same manner the grade crossing fund was created. I believe he should give additional power and responsibility in this regard to the new Canadian Transport Commission.
On December 20, when speaking in respect of clause 1, I addressed some remarks to the minister on the subject of railway crossings. I have an amendment which I should like the minister to study. I would hope that this amendment could be accepted by him:
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 renumbering clause 78 on page 65 thereof as subclause (1) of clause 78, and
(b)	by adding, immediately after the renumbered subclause (1) of clause 78 thereof, the following:
(2) Section 265 of the Railway Act is amended by adding thereto immediately after subsection (9) thereof the following subsection:
(10) Where in the opinion of the commission any railway crossings of highways or highway crossings of railways at rail level, (in this section called a "level crossing") constitutes a present hazard to safety and no agreement satisfactory to the commission has been reached between the authorities or bodies concerned and the company for the construction of either such grade separation or such installation of signals as may be required for the removal of the hazard to safety, the commission shall
(a)	publish a statement, in at least one newspaper circulating in the area in which the level crossing is situated, of the action required to remove the hazard to safety at such level crossing, and
(b)	make a full report thereon to the governor m council for whatever action he may wish to take."
I should like the minister to study the possibility of accepting an amendment of this nature.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, at this point perhaps I might assure the hon. member who has just spoken that I will be very glad to give consideration to his amendment. I am afraid it will not be today, because even I, an eternal optimist, do not expect to reach clause 78 today, although I hope we will reach it tomorrow. I will consider it overnight to see what may be possible.
In the meantime may I say that I have given consideration to the suggested amendment that was tabled, although not moved, by the hon. member for Peace River and the suggestions made by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. Of course I already have undertaken to accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Acadia.
I have come to the conclusion that the easiest way to deal with this problem would be to
Transportation
have an amendment moved, if this meets with the general view, to remove present clause 1 altogether and replace it by a new clause. I think in this way it would be much easier for hon. members of the committee to follow, rather than attempt to make two or three amendments by substituting words here and there. The amendment I would ask one of my colleagues to propose, if it meets with the general approval of the committee, I think would incorporate the substance of what hon. gentlemen opposite had in mind in respect of the three points. Perhaps it is not necessary that I read the preamble which is to the effect that the bill be amended and so on. I might just read the part under clause 1, and if I did not have so much competition from some of my colleagues on this side of the house I might be able to make this a little clearer to those who are interested in it.
The new clause would be as follows:
1. It is hereby declared that an economic, efficient and adequate transportation system making the best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest total cost is essential to protect the interests of the users of transportation and to maintain the economic well-being and growth of Canada, and that these objectives are most likely to be achieved when all modes of transport are able to compete under conditions ensuring that having due regard to national policy and to legal and constitutional requirements
(a)	regulation of all modes of transport will not be of such a nature as to restrict the ability of any mode of transport to compete freely with any other modes of transport:
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
(b)	each mode of transport, so far as practicable, bears a fair proportion of the real costs of the resources, facilities and services provided that mode of transport at public expense;
(c)	each mode of transport, so far as practicable, receives compensation for the resources, facilities and services that it is required to provide as an imposed public duty;-
There is no change in that regard.
Paragraph (d) represents a substantial change and perhaps I should send a copy to the hon. member for Peace River, so that he can follow it. It states:
(d)	each mode of transport so far as practicable carries traffic to or from any point in Canada under tolls and conditions that do not constitute
(i)	an unfair disadvantage in respect of any such traffic beyond that disadvantage inherent in the location or volume of the traffic, the scale of operation connected therewith or the type of traffic or service involved, or
(ii)	an undue obstacle to the interchange of commodities between points in Canada or unreasonable discouragement of the development of primary or secondary industries or of export trade in or from any region of Canada-
The rest is the same as before.

January 9, 1967
Transportation
It will be apparent to every hon. member on the other side of the house that I, representing Bonavista-Twillingate, cannot accept the phrase "industry and agriculture" as it appears in the original amendment. Everyone must recognize that the fishing industry is as important as agriculture and a much older industry in Canada. In order to meet that point I have used the expression "primary and secondary industry". This will convey the same impression and include all primary industry.
I think I-or perhaps I should say the draftsman on my behalf-have pretty well covered the second part of the hon. gentleman's amendment. He will note that the first part of his amendment is pretty much in the same language as clause 16. In this regard there are two advantages to my amendment. It makes it very clear that the commission in determining "public interest", must take this point into account so that anyone seeking to establish a prima facie case does not have to prove it, but merely allege it. I think this meets the point raised by the hon. member before Christmas.
I believe this amendment incorporates what the hon. member for Acadia had in mind, and certainly the substance of what the hon. member for Saint John-Albert suggested. I believe it also does what the hon. member for Peace River sought to do in spirit and intent by his amendment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, in so far as I am concerned I think subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (d) suggested by the minister meets the principle I had in mind. When we come to a consideration of this matter perhaps we will see what has happened in respect of clause 16. It would be very simple to remove any obstacle so far as public interest is concerned in respect of clause 1. I think this subparagraph will give a direction to the commission to bear these things in mind when they adjudicate or make orders and directions. Under those circumstances I am prepared to withdraw the amendment which now rests in purgatory.
Amendment (Mr. Baldwin) withdrawn.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, it might be convenient to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs to move this amendment, so it will be before the committee.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I so move.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. Is it understood by the committee that the hon. member for Peace River has withdrawn his amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I expect to have French copies in a very few moments.


Maurice Rinfret: Is the committee ready for the question?


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to say a few words at this time regarding this bill in respect of a transportation policy in this country. Surely nothing more important has come before parliament in the past or will come before it in the future than this question of which the committee is now seized. We on this side of the house consider a transportation policy as a national policy. It has been the historic stand of the opposition over the years that a transportation policy is of prime importance. This attitude has developed from the concept expressed by Sir John A. Macdonald and his ministry, which brought about the unity of the provinces in this nation from coast to coast. Although in this year we are faced with a much more complex situation than existed in the past we still have substantially the same challenge before us which faced those pioneers who tried to build a great nation north of the 49th parallel.
It was particularly interesting to me to listen to the lip service given to the benefits which might accrue from competition, but those benefits cannot be used to gloss over the fact that for many years in many places the transportation services now in existence or likely to emerge will represent little more than a monopoly to the people in industry in those areas. A domestic air policy for light aircraft is one of compelling and vital importance today. This is worthy of more consideration than parliament has given it in the past. It is also worthy of consideration from the standpoint of the ultimate development of the manufacture of light aircraft in Canada.
When I listened to the compliments extended to the Minister of Transport I could not help but remember the stand he has taken in a personal way and as a front bench representative regarding suggestions brought forward in years past for the development of this nation. I make reference to this fact because I believe those who will be responsible for administering this act must in the future be concerned with this integral part of national policy. Great areas of this country must be
January 9, 1967

developed, and it is useful to establish guiding principles for those who must administer this act. We must give them direction in the establishment of incentives which will encourage that development and raise the standard of living to a level which will attract to this country the new people so vitally necessary at this time in our history.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I cannot help but think of the Pine Point railway and the attitude taken by hon. members who now serve in this government, and particularly the minister when he sat on this side of the house, as the government of that time sought to lay the foundations for a development that had not taken place in the past. I can only hope that when this bill is passed, its final terms will be such as to encourage development in those many areas of Canada that still require development, and may require it for a number of years in the future.
I think of the potash development in the province of Saskatchewan. I believe that the railways today are in a position to take care of that development. But when I think of the potential iron ore developments in the northern part of the province of Saskatchewan, I cannot help but think of the need for transportation in this regard. This also applies to the other minerals that we believe exist-and there is evidence that they do exist-in those northern areas. There will have to be much more of a pioneering spirit on the part of our railways and other transportation facilities than we have had in the past if this development is to proceed in an orderly and worthwhile way, in keeping with the concepts of this modern day and age.
Looking at transportation policy for Canada, I believe we cannot fail to give consideration to the potential posed by the Hudson Bay system, which generally speaking has been stalemated or at a standstill for so many years. In this connection I believe the provinces as well as the federal government will have to provide some incentives. Perhaps this is the time to suggest it, but I believe some of the provinces will have to provide assistance for warehousing facilities in order that there will be a two-way trade over those routes. This is one solution that might change the picture in some regard.
A while ago in this debate the minister referred to the vision. He did not really make the usual references that he makes when he talks about the vision, as it has been promoted from this side of the house. I believe that those who are responsible for transportation
Transportation
policy in this country must have a great deal of vision if we are to reach the development that our country deserves, and can achieve if we will it so.
If this bill can remove the discrimination that has existed between one portion of the country and another, and one station and another, sometimes within the same province or between neighbouring provinces, it will have removed some of the conditions that in years gone by have subjected our transportation systems to a great deal of criticism. The more I think of the references to competition in this field, the more I think of the railway systems in this country. As I see the situation, they have almost entirely failed-I refer not only to the national railway system but to the other railway system-to live up to the problems associated with those areas of our country which have a great potential for development. I emphasize and repeat that this is one of the cornerstones of a sound transportation policy as part of the national policy of this country.
That of course raises the whole problem of whether there can or should be subsidies to the transportation facilities that are provided, whether they are of rail, air or ocean. Looking back at the history of this country and considering our geography and the undeveloped areas that we still have, I cannot see how in 1967 and in the decade or two ahead we can proceed with the implementation of a national transportation policy that will not have somewhere within its structure those subsidies necessary to provide an equal opportunity to people in all sections of our country, and at the same time provide for the development of those areas that are so vital to the future if this nation is to achieve its real potential.
There will be other opportunities to deal with clauses of the bill as they come forward. I do not intend to make any further remarks at this time in regard to the general objectives that I believe we should be trying to achieve under a national transportation policy. But before I close, Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but say a word or two about rail line abandonment and the alternatives that perhaps should be given consideration. I think people across this country, and even those in areas which may face a problem of rail line abandonment, realize that uneconomic lines cost something to those who ship products, as well as to the other taxpayers of this country. But let us consider the situation in western Canada, where the Crowsnest pass rates were

January 9, 1967
Transportation
almost, and I believe were, a part at confederation itself-I see the parliamentary secretary shaking his head. I have always understood that the Liberal party was first and foremost in holding forth and promoting the idea that the Crowsnest pass rates should always remain inviolate; that they were one of the guarantees to those who live on the prairies, and that they now form, if not a written part of the constitution, indeed one of the unwritten parts which are even more vital than those which have been written in words in our constitution.
When we think of the effects of rail line abandonment in the communities concerned, I hope it will not be forgotten that other modes of transportation should be assured to those people so they will not suffer the personal cost and loss of their rights under the Crowsnest pass rates as they were originally guaranteed to those who went to settle in western Canada.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I have had only a quick glance at the amendment but with respect to the part in which I was interested I think it will go a long way toward satisfying the request that the Maritime Transportation Commission put forward.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Many hon. members may think that it is not necessary to play on words like this, but as we said before supper, when the commission begins its work it will refer to the directions regarding its objectives which are contained in this clause, and this is extremely important. I think that where there is any conflict between the objectives of the new transportation bill and the national policy objectives, by which the Canadian government can deal with the disparities in the rates in different regions, this amendment will have gone a long way toward resolving this conflict. Also this applies not only to the maritime freight rates but it might apply also to the seaway tolls and the Crowsnest pass rates. So that the statement of the protection contained in the amendment regarding national policy will make those in the maritimes who are concerned a lot happier.
The part mentioned by the hon. member for Peace River is good, I think, and his action in bringing it forward is worthy of commendation. I think this should be noted. Also we should keep in mind the flexibility of the government which has gone this far with regard to the amendment. I like the new phrasing
[Mr. Nasserden.l
which allows for the trading of commodities between the different regions, with particular mention of the export trade which is of concern to the eastern parts of Canada. It seems to me, after a quick perusal, to fulfil the objectives that I at least had in mind.


Mr. Korchinski:: I have a few remarks which I should like to address to the Minister of Transport on this occasion. They are of a rather general nature and cannot be dealt with under any particular clause of the bill and therefore perhaps should be considered as an over-all comment.
The minister has been very co-operative up to now. He has paid far more attention to the suggestions which have been put forward than have any other ministers charged with the responsibility of piloting a bill. I think this should be drawn to the attention of the house. However, even though he may be paying attention to those suggestions this does not necessarily mean that he intends to do anything about them. I hope he will give more consideration to the west than just to say that the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who comes from the west, seconds the bill. This seems to be all the consideration the minister gives to the western provinces.
The bill before us is very complicated and far reaching. This being the centennial year of Confederation, this bill will perhaps affect people a hundred years from now. I think that the majority of the members of this house are not fully aware of its ramifications. Neither is the minister himself nor the people in the department. I do not think that the extent to which the bill will affect the lives of people in the future is fully realized.
One thing certain is that those people who are protesting vociferously at present will be affected immediately. One of our greatest concerns in the west is the fact that in the past we have been the ones who have been burdened with the payment of the bill of any transportation policy of the government. Whenever the railways have come around to settling their disputes, regardless of whether it concerns wages or the payment of interest on the capitalization of any of their projects, because of the fact that we in the west are further away from the markets than other parts of Canada we have had to contribute a larger per capita share of the costs than have the other more populated regions of the country. If we were in the position of having a greater proportion of the population in the west we would not be so vociferous but the
January 9, 1967

policy under the bill does not contribute to the increase of industries in the west.
I can well remember the time when the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was the premier of Saskatchewan. On many occasions he trotted out the old Prince Albert pulp mill deal. This was offered to the people at every election. This particular deal was offered as a political bribe and incentive to the people. We thought it was a very good idea, regardless of whether we accepted it or not. Even now the present premier of Saskatchewan has gone so far as to assign to a firm the responsibility of conducting a survey or study of the potentials in the northern area. We know where are the markets for wood and pulp but we do not know how to get around the transportation problem. Has the minister dealt with this problem under the bill now before us? I would suggest that the bill does not offer solutions. The premier of Saskatchewan will not be any happier on the day we pass the bill than he was on the day when he first commissioned that survey, because nothing in the bill will lead anybody to think that there is a possibility of cheaper transportation. We know where the wood is to be found and we know there will be a potential market in the United States but what are we to do to get the people working in this area? Prince Albert has always been suggested as the proper place for the pulp mill. The sum of $60 million should be put into a pulp mill, but what does this bill do for this type of industry?
We already have legislation which is supposed to help the needy areas which the government is going out of its way to assist. And yet nothing is being done about the legislation which we suggest to the people is necessary to overcome the weaknesses in our economy.
When I suggest that transportation is one of the great problems I am referring to the fact that it does not solve our unemployment. Part of the problem is that people are simply moving out of Saskatchewan. We have been trained that way ever since the days when the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was the premier of that province. We simply left this area to go to places where employment was more available, namely in eastern Canada. If eastern Canada is to get the benefit of this legislation, then I suggest that somewhere along the line we have been misinformed. I am not suggesting that subsidies are necessarily the wrong solution. After all, during all the time that I have been in the house I have been hearing of the sacred cow, the C.B.C., receiving $100 million; but the same cannot be
Transportation
granted to the C.N.R. or the C.P.R. or any other transport facility.
I would like to see the people in my area employed to the fullest possible extent, and I would like to see my own people work in my own area because this is in the best interests of the country. Despite the very clever drafting of this bill it accomplishes nothing. A suggestion has been made by the hon. member for Acadia for the inclusion of the word "adequate". The minister has been very cooperative. He said he even agreed. I wish he would agree to it to the point of introducing it in the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for St. Boniface, the Minister of Veterans Affairs- and I emphasize St. Boniface to show that we are not forgetting the west-has already introduced an amendment incorporating that suggestion. He did this a few minutes ago.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Stanley James Korchinski: All I can say is that I wonder why this has not been done before, and why this was not realized sooner, after all the committee meetings that were held. Perhaps the minister thought he could get away with the bill as presented to us. Is this entirely a railway bill or is it a bill for the people of Canada? What have we in mind? Have we in mind the fact that the railways have to show a profit, or have we in mind the fact that legislation should be for the benefit of the people of Canada? What have we in mind? Surely when the government talks about an over-all transport policy they must have in mind something that will benefit the people. This is the purpose in passing legislation. At least my interpretation of the role of every member here is to serve the people of this country, and not to serve the railways of this country.
I am suggesting again that perhaps if the minister had introduced this statement in the first place, then we would not have had to go through all this speechmaking in order to understand exactly what is being done. I do not know whether it is to the advantage of the minister to introduce this program in bits and pieces; I do not know what his reasons really are for doing it in this way. For example, after listening to those speeches which were made before Christmas, and after having his departmental officials digest them, if the minister had said, yes, we will accept these suggestions, then that would have cut down this debate. He says it would not, so I am going to continue.

January 9, 1967
Transportation
This is called a transport bill, but I am suggesting it is a railway bill and that is the way it should be labelled. We talk about air transport. One commission is to be established with jurisdiction over all modes of transport. However, what we are dealing with here really is railway needs. Nobody is concerned about Air Canada not making a profit. Nobody is talking about that. What we are talking about is how to get the railways out of the red. If this is a transport bill, as has been suggested, there has been no mention made of the need of this country for roads. There has been no mention of what the government intends to do about the roads-to-resources program. There has been no suggestion what the government intends to do about providing alternative transport in cases where railway lines are abandoned. Will they assist the provinces? Will they approach the provinces in a meeting and say: Look, we have not got a policy and we cannot interfere with provincial jurisdiction, but we know if this railway line is abandoned some other means of transportation will have to be found. Is the government doing that? They are doing nothing. This pulp mill to which I referred is not going to be served. This lumber, potash, fish, or whatever you may have to bring out of these areas that are still not developed, is not going to be moved by the provisions of this so-called transport bill. The bill does nothing for the development of this country.
All this bill does is to set up a commission which is to be judge and jury; it is to be a court of record, as they say. The commission will be charged with the responsibility of getting all the information, and from whom will they get it? They will get it from the railways. If the railways suggest a certain branch line should be abandoned, they will feed information to the transport commission. The transport commission will ask, does it sound right?
How can the commission really make a finding when nobody contests these things? Nobody will be in a position to really contest these cases. Will there be anybody with the authority to challenge the railways to give all the figures? The transport committee of this house has never been provided with full information.
As a member of parliament I thought we should do whatever is necessary, be sworn to secrecy if necessary, in order to get all the information before the committee so the committee could decide for itself the value of this
[Mr. Korchinski.l
transport policy. Instead of that, what happened? The committee was denied information. How can the committee suggest a policy for the government when even the government itself shies away from mentioning these facts in the house? I do not think I took any oath of secrecy here to the effect that I was not to divulge any information. If the government wishes that type of ceremony, then I suppose it could be arranged. Then, a committee could be set up and sworn to secrecy, and that committee could be provided with this type of information.
We know for example which branch lines will be subject to abandonment in the next few years, and we know which lines have been frozen. Why could not this committee be set up to challenge the right of the railways to abandon these lines? I do not know where the lines are. So far as I know, the railway lines in my area are not the subject of abandonment proceedings. I am afraid that one day, after this legislation is on the statute books, all uneconomic lines will disappear and all the people served by those lines will be asked to move out. Why will this be done? It will be done because someone in the higher echelons of government, if you like, will have suggested that Saskatchewan is the wrong place in which to live. Suggestions have been made in the past that the people should move out of the maritimes.
This is not the right approach to a transportation policy for Canada. Let us face it, this is not a transportation policy for western Canada nor is it a transportation policy for eastern Canada. This may be a transportation policy for the people of Toronto. I have not heard too much objection from the Toronto area. This policy may be ideal for them, because they are right on the waterfront and have ships coming in to move their goods. Who is going to pay for all the combines that may be going out? There is only one person who is going to pay for them, and that is the westerner. Why must they be transported into one area, and then transported back?
Then there is the question of what is going to be done about the Crowsnest pass agreement. Never before has there been a suggestion contained in legislation that we study the Crowsnest pass agreement. We all remember that in 1961 there were rail lines that did not pay for themselves, and the minister knows it. These lines did not pay for themselves for several years because trade was being held back. What happened? The railways could very easily prove that they were losing

January 9, 1967
Transportation money. This has been the talk of the railways: We are losing money on the shipment of grain. Why do we not hear that talk today? Obviously they are making money on the shipment of grain.
I can show the minister several years in succession in which the railways made money, yet the railways only have to produce one year in which they lost money and they say: We will abandon the line. Then everybody has to struggle, without any assistance from the government, to fight the government transportation commission. The railways, organized as they are, have all the facilities at their disposal, and have all the figures that they are going to use. We have to try to disprove those figures. What chance have we got? We do not have very much chance. Yet the minister tells us that this is a transport bill for Canada, that this is going to be good for us, and that this is what we have been waiting for.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
As a matter of fact, we are told the bill must be passed before a certain time because the railways must have it, or else. The railway representatives came before parliament and told parliament to get this transportation bill through. They said the workers were demanding higher wages, and the railways could not pay them. Of course they were; that is common practice nowadays. After all, every other union is doing the same thing. Perhaps these higher wages were deserved; I am not trying to compare one union with another. But the fact is that the railways told parliament to get this bill passed because the legislation was preventing them from dealing with their workers.
That is nonsense, Mr. Chairman. I listened to what the president of the C.N.R. had to say and he impressed upon us exactly what was necessary. In effect, the railways were holding the big stick before the government and were expecting parliament to rush this bill through. The bill was faulty in many respects, and I have mentioned only a few of its weaknesses.
This bill will not do anything for the province of Saskatchewan. I wish the premier of that province had made the presentation of that province before the committee, but unfortunately he was away somewhere else in the beautiful Beechcraft plane he uses for his personal use. Had he appeared before the committee he could have told us how necessary it was to have a new air lines policy, or whatever is necessary.
You would have thought the province would have protested against this bill, because they are unable to put their pulp mill in Prince Albert into service. The bill offers no assistance in this regard. The government of Saskatchewan are in the same position as the former government of the province; they are unable to shift for themselves or to take advantage of companies willing to put up money. We talk of investment in Canada, Mr. Chairman, but Saskatchewan is just waiting for investment of this sort.
The minister is quit familiar with the port of Churchill, but we do not make sufficient use of the railway which was built to that port. For years the port has been shunned. Now that a few facilities have been built at that port the government are still able to find excuses for not using it to full capacity and for shipping out of Hudson Bay. Here we have a small town, every resident of which is willing to do everything in his power to attract industry. Yet they are struggling and are hoping that the province of Saskatchewan, the federal government and the railways will take them seriously. These are serious minded people and they want the railways to carry shipments from the prairies to that port. They have two mills operating there, but apparently the railways do not want their business. The government tells the people of Churchill that they are situated in the wrong area. It admits it is one of the have-not areas and that a little assistance is required, but they get it in dribbles. The government knows they are there if needed.
I have made mention of the lumber industry, but also in this area are silicon deposits which could be utilized by the mining industry. If the government would provide some assistance we would be able to develop industry in this area. Yet what does this bill do? It makes darned sure that the railway gets their share, and industry is told that if it is in the right place at the right time and shines up in the right way it will get some consideration also.
Some of the other comments I wanted to make may take a little more time, Mr. Chairman, so perhaps I can reserve them until we reach the appropriate clauses. But I wish the minister would give some consideration as to how this pulp mill I have mentioned might derive some benefit from this bill. Would he give me some indication what he proposes to do, and why it is necessary that this Crowsnest pass agreement must be very carefully checked. What is to happen after the three years expire? Is that to be the

January 9, 19G7
Transportation
end of it, or will we continue the process until one year we find that it is not a paying proposition? We all remember 1961, though we have had better years since then, but is the present practice going to continue?
Could the minister also tell me why it is not possible to set up a permanent secretariat or, as has been suggested, to have a committee of the house oversee the functions of the transport commission? Surely that commission must listen to the views of the railways to a certain extent; but there must be a double check on the commission, which will undoubtedly try to find an excuse to allow the railways to get away with certain things. This would not be the case with proper supervision.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Chairman, it is with disappointment that I speak tonight on this transportation bill, because I wish the minister had accepted the sincere invitation I extended to him some months ago to take a trip east to find out how the people in my area are served with transporation. Had he done so I am sure that tonight he might have been able to provide some favourable answers to meet the problems we have been facing over a period of years.
It is probably repetitious to say that this long awaited legislation is welcome. For a number of years there has been much confusion in the transportation policies of this country, in the sense that there has been a multiplication of work in the absence of any clear direction our transportation policy should follow. Often additional expense was caused, not to the government but to the one who always pays, the consumer.
I realize that this legislation will bring under one board the matter of transportation policy and the provision of assistance to transportation in Canada. I am sure that the amendment which has just been moved by the Minister of Veterans Affairs will reflect the principles which should be inherent in a national transportation policy. I also hope it will serve to satisfy all regions of the economy which depend on transportation, and more importantly will recognize the regional problems of transportation.
I am sure that were we all to live within the golden mile of Canada we would not have too many transportation problems; that there would be sufficient room for all to operate; that competition would be good and that there would also be a satisfactory cost factor as far as the consuming public were concerned. This has been impossible. We shall never have a
[Mr. Korchinski.l
good national transportation policy unless we take into account those regional problems evident throughout the country.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I heard the hon. member for Mackenzie appealing strongly to the minister for ways and means to be found to increase productivity in the hon. member's province. The hon. member worried also about the increase of population in his province. The problems of our region are similar. Instead of worrying about the increase in population, our people are concerned with being able to live at the same standard as is enjoyed by people in other areas of this land. I am not denigrating this government in particular, but it seems that most governments forget the regional problems of the country. We are preoccupied with urban areas, with highly industrialized areas, and we forget about those hundreds of thousands of people living in the remote areas of this country-those people not living in the heavily populated, industrialized areas.
It is unfortunate that in 1967, in this country, we still have those problems which have been caused by the lack of cohesion between departments of government. There is no cooperation between departments. One department does not understand the problems of another. Although deputy ministers of different departments consult one another, making themselves aware of problems in other departments, it seems evident that what they do is not enough. For example, I can suggest a recent development in the department of the Postmaster General. I am sure the Minister of Transport is not aware of it. This development will deprive the Canadian National of much revenue, having to do with deliveries of mail to various parts of Canada. The mail, with this development, will be delivered a few hours earlier in most parts than is possible now. Had the Postmaster General's department and the Department of Transport consulted one another I am sure that the Canadian National would have found ways and means of delivering mail with the same speed as it is anticipated the mail will be delivered following the development in the department of the Postmaster General. Instead, what happens? We deprive the Canadian National of revenue and we pay out of the federal treasury more money for the transportation of mail.
We waste the Canadian taxpayers' money because we have not taken the time to understand problems, to try to work out some way to provide the service envisaged and save
January 9, 1967

untold dollars. We cannot deprive the Canadian National of all its income and then expect it to give that service we claim from it. This is one instance where we have been small, where we have been negligent. The Prime Minister said that we have looked after the social justice measures in this country. From now on I hope we shall look after those living outside the large areas, those living in the remote areas, and that they also will be considered part of our affluent society.
I can show the minister another instance where possibly we have been negligent with our taxpayers' money. I think of wharf construction, where we have built wharfs which to this date will never be of benefit to the people of this country. We have subsidized their construction, but those subsidies do not help consumers and do not reduce the prices of products brought to their homes.
For this reason I ask that instead of a committee of the house supervising the policy of the Department of Transport we make use of one of our ministers without portfolio. He could co-ordinate the activities of various departments. Such a minister could go into the problems existing between any two departments of government. He could bring his knowledge to bear for the benefit of our Canadian public.
I can also think of the policy this government has of meddling in provincial affairs, of building highways in provinces where we have no business building highways, outside of the Trans-Canada agreement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to seem to pick on the hon. gentleman but I have been very patient indeed in listening to speeches that quite often do not seem to be relevant to any part of my bill. But when we start talking about things which have nothing to do even with my department, much less with the bill before the house, it seems to me it is going a little beyond the scope of the rules of this house. We have had now two or three days of general speeches on clause 1. I wonder if it would not be possible in the course of speeches to glance at the clause once in a while.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Chairman, I sincerely believe that everything I have said has dealt with transportation policy in this country. I have not gone outside the bill as presented. I am suggesting that there should be co-operation and co-ordination between departments to better the national transportation policy of this country.
Transportation
I am deeply concerned about the manufacturing industries of the remote areas of the country. As the minister knows, the costs of production of industries in remote areas are high when compared with urban costs of production. For the products of remote industries to be marketable and competitive, those products must be moved quickly and cheaply to the market. I am sure the minister is also aware that industries in the remote areas require secondary products to be brought in, to help in the manufacturing process.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
This all involves additional expense and it is my contention that if we do not enable all these areas to enjoy the form of transportation which will help make their products competitive, then our national transportation policy has failed. There will be no prosperous Canada until these regional problems are solved. I think now in terms of air transportation, and I ask the minister whether he will consider the request which was made by the chamber of commerce in the town of Gaspe to extend the length of the present airfield there to 7,000 feet. As the minister knows, this area is far removed from the large population centres of eastern Canada, though the presence of a manufacturing industry, a mining industry and a paper industry in addition to the fishing industry makes it important that our people should have adequate means of travel at their disposal-a transportation system which would allow them to move fast and as often as desired. In order to make this possible it is necessary to provide airstrips which can operate in conjunction with a regional airfield. I hope action can be taken in this direction in the near future; I understand that some applications have been pending before the Air Transport Board for as long as a year and a half without decisions being reached. The people who are suffering most in this connection are those who are waiting. I hope a decision will be taken in the very near future to determine which carriers shall operate out of the region.
I am also disturbed about the fight continually taking place between the truckers of this country and the railways which operate trucking systems. It seems to me there is some ill will on both sides; I hope that they can make a pact which would prove beneficial to consumers, based on an arrangement whereby products will be brought into an area by rail and distributed by trucks. The piggyback system appears to be one which would help consumers in remote areas to get the benefit of

January 9. 1967
Transportation
cheap and efficient transportation. I cannot understand why the efforts of both sides could not be directed toward ensuring the cheapest form of transportation to those who live away from the more populous centres.
When I consider that in the lower St. Lawrence region 80 per cent of the products imported are brought in by rail, I also take account of the fact that in one large area some 150 square miles in extent, there is no railroad at all. The people who live in this area are obliged to pay an excessive price for transportation-as much as two or three dollars per unit for products which may cost only two dollars a unit. This is most unfair. Surely there is some means by which the national carrier could take the products as close as possible to the consumer, after which the truckers by land carriers, could distribute them. Surely some reasonable system of distribution could be worked out, even if it involved some subsidization.
Often in this house I have asked the minister questions in connection with railway passenger service, especially that between Ma-tapedia and Gaspe. I have invited the hon. gentleman to visit this area but he has not accepted my invitation. I have spoken to him about the cold buns. I have spoken to him about rail journeys lasting 24 hours without food. I have spoken to him about the toasters which he should have asked the C.N.R. to provide on their trains. Unfortunately I have not received an affirmative reply on any of these matters.
It is true the service has improved of late, but it still does not reach the standard which I think is appropriate. We have white table cloths, now, and we have serviettes of which we were deprived a year ago. When food is available, the quality is improved. However, people have recently been obliged to travel for 36 hours without having even a sandwich to eat. In this year 1967 it is ridiculous to ask people to stay on trains for 36 hours without even a cup of coffee or a sandwich to refresh them.
This happened on three or four occasions during the Christmas holidays. It was not the result of snowstorms. It was brought about directly through the negligence of the C.N.R., when it came to providing favourable service for 200,000 people. Even though the minister sits there laughing I hope he does not one day undertake that trip because I will see to it that he does not get a sandwich, and he will know what it feels like when he arrives at the other end. It is time we took notice of what is

going on in some of these other areas of Canada. These people have been patient. They have waited for years. The minister is still laughing, but the people of these areas where the service is so poor will realize that his policy will do nothing to satisfy them.
We have asked for an interview with the minister so that we might explain some of these things but as yet we have never been able to get a favourable reply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I really think the hon. gentleman is allowing his eloquence to run away with his accuracy. I have no recollection of any requests which the hon. gentleman has made to me for an interview to which I did not accede.


James Russell Keays: I think the minister is correct. I did not make the request, but I have been informed that such a request was made by a member of this house and I have been informed by him that the minister did not find it possible to grant an interview.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the hon. gentleman makes general accusations of that kind it might be a good idea for him to check his source of information, because I know of no occasion when I have refused to see anyone who had any reasonable representations to make to me. It sometimes happens, of course, that even I am busy and cannot arrange these things at a time which suits others. But I always do try to make time available when I can. Only recently I received a large delegation from the hon. member's region and spent the best part of an hour with them discussing an important transport problem. I assure the hon. member there is no one in any part of his district to whose representations I would not be happy to listen.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


James Russell Keays: Mr. Chairman, if I have been carried away to the extent that I have made some statements which the minister considers irresponsible, then I feel very sorry about this. I am however, taking the word of another member of this house, and I have reason to believe those words are reliable. In any event if the minister is disposed to listen to representations from our area, then I trust he will be able to intercede for those people on whose behalf I speak, so that they will be able to have the rail service which they request and will be able to benefit from the same travel advantages which exist between Halifax and Montreal and will be considered
January 9, 1967

Canadians the same as everyone else in this country.
I should also like to ask that the freight service be improved, because our manufacturers and those engaged in private enterprise should not be the ones who always have to take the blow. It is time that we began to think of our manufacturers, so that in relating the taxes they pay to the profits they make they will be able to contribute to social benefits without increased taxation.
I should like also to request that the express service, which we had for 35 years and which now has been removed, be reinstated. Twenty five or 30 years ago we had a 24-hour express service from Montreal. Today it is 48 hours. When an industry is located away from the supply centres and has to wait an additional 24 hours for products I am sure it suffers from increased costs, and a decrease in the end result, which is the profit. For all these reasons I hope the government will consider seriously the problems which exist in all the outer or remote regions of Canada, and give to these areas the same transportation facilities enjoyed by others, so that they will have a system whereby their cost of transportation will compare favourably with that of others who live in the more concentrated areas. In this way these people might at least begin to believe that they belong to this great land of ours.


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Chairman, I think it is a matter of regret that the minister has seen fit to take an unorthodox approach in the drafting of this bill, or in incorporating in the bill a statement that really amounts to a judgment of its value. The wording of clause 1 of bill C-231 is not the kind which one normally would expect to find in the body proper of a piece of legislation. Clearly it is in the nature of a preamble, containing within itself all sorts of value judgments and premises which are highly questionable, and which have the effect of making the debate on clause 1 of this bill virtually open-ended.
Clause 1 refers to competition as the most salutary or most effective basis for a national transportation policy. That kind of assumption certainly is the kind which I for one challenge, and which a good many members on this side of the house, not only in this group but also in the group to my right, challenge. At least some of them have led me to that impression. I know that some hon. members have taken the opportunity to tell the minister that they agree philosophically with the premise that competition ought to be the basis for
Transportation
a national transportation policy, but other members have taken the position, much as I have, that the national economic needs are such that we ought to regard transportation services as more in the nature of a public utility. If one proceeds from that starting point, then he is led logically to the conclusion that we must continue to put considerable emphasis on regulation.
We really do not know what evidence the minister has which prompts him to postulate in the bill that competition shall be the effective basis of a new transportation policy. I certainly do not believe the minister would wish to get up and say he is convinced that today there is a possibility of sufficient price competition within the various transportation modes, such as would serve to protect the interests of the users of the transportation services. On an earlier occasion, before the Christmas recess, I took the time of the house to put my views on record, and I do not wish to abuse my privileges and rights here by repeating many of them. I do wish however to make some reference to the amendment to clause 1 which the minister offered this evening, copies of which were circulated to members on this side. In some respects I believe it can be said that the amending version is an improvement, but this is only in minor respects. In major respects there is a restating of the preambular wording or premise which I said was objectionable-that is, that an economic, efficient and adequate transportation system is most likely to be achieved when all modes of transport are able to compete under conditions ensuring certain things. And then the minister added the qualifier, "having due regard to national policy and to legal and constitutional requirements".
Were I in the position of the person drafting this legislation I would prefer, rather than use the words "able to compete", to rely on the words "co-ordination of transportation services" as being the most likely way in which to protect the interests of the users of transportation and the national interest. I really do not see why the minister should object to this suggested wording, because in clause 14 of the bill, which appears on page 6, the commission is charged with the responsibilities and functions of "co-ordinating and harmonizing the operations of all carriers engaged in transport by railways, water, aircraft, extra-provincial motor vehicle transport and commodity pipe lines". If the commission is to be so charged with the duty to co-ordinate and harmonize the various modes of

January 9, 1967
Transportation
transportation, then this would seem to show that we should postulate as the basis for a most desirable transportation policy that it should be based on the objective of having it co-ordinated and harmonized, rather than allow it to compete. We may not have been provided with sufficient evidence.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Let me say that the minister is being imprudent in relying upon competition as a basis for a good national transportation service in this country. His arguments in this regard are more of a barrage than based on reality. What are the realities in respect of competition in transportation systems in this country today? In large part I would say they are non-existent.
The amendment proposed by the minister to some extent accommodates the suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River who earlier today said that clause 1 should make provision for equalization of rates. The minister has been able to accommodate him on this point by the provisions of his amendment to clause 1 in paragraph (d) subparagraphs (i) and (ii). If one reads the wording of this amendment carefully he will find it contains not one but two or three loopholes which could very well have the effect of voiding the amendment.
Paragraph (d) states:
each mode of transport so far as practicable carries traffic to or from any point in Canada under tolls and conditions that do not constitute-
Subparagraph (i) refers to an unfair disadvantage. That is one loophole. One finds in the last line of the first paragraph of the amendment to clause 1 the following phrase "having due regard to national policy and to legal and constitutional requirements". The amendment then states in paragraph (d);
each mode of transport so far as practicable carries traffic to or from any point in Canada under tolls and conditions that do not constitute
(i) an unfair disadvantage-
When one takes all these things into consideration he finds there are provisions, stipulations, conditions and exceptions to any equalization of rates. The first is that there shall be equalization of rates, provided there are no legal requirements to the contrary. The second is there shall be equalization, provided there are no constitutional requirements to the contrary. The third is there shall be equalization, provided the tolls and conditions are such as not to constitute an unfair disadvantage.

I am wondering what actually will be accomplished by the insertion of paragraph (d) as worded in this amending version, because the way I read clauses 16 and 68 the same kind of provisions are contained. Perhaps it can be argued that no harm is done by repeating a provision two or three times, but if nothing is added or changed is it desirable to clutter up the wording or language of this proposed legislation? I hope the minister will take this into consideration.
Clause 1 makes reference to competition. Certain changes are proposed to make it clear that competition is being relied upon as an ancillary means of protecting the public interest and the national interest. It is true, as the hon. member for Mackenzie said earlier this evening, that the effect of this legislation will probably be felt for generations. It may well be that in time this will have an adverse effect on those regions of the country which are now being developed and which primarily depend on primary production and resources development. No matter how I read this bill I am forced to conclude that its effect will be detrimental to the production of natural resources and primary products in certain regions of the country.
It is my hope that the minister will consider removing from clause 1 what in my opinion is an unnecessary and ill-founded reference to competition which does not in reality exist. Before taking my place let me ask one question: Will the minister give favourable consideration to the request of the Manitoba Branch Lines Association that all applications for branch line abandonment be held in abeyance until the new legislation before us comes into effect, in order that all such applications will be dealt with under the provisions of clause 168? I know the minister is somewhat embarrassed by the assurances he gave which did not materialize, but no one is blaming him for what happened following those assurances. I understand that applications for abandonment are still being received and considered. Is it beyond the minister's ability to undertake that applications for abandonment now before the board will be held in abeyance and dealt with under the provisions of this new legislation? A straight yes or no answer in this connection would serve to clarify this situation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could say a word about this at once. I may be misinformed but I understand that no new applications have been received from the prairies by the Board
January 9, 1967

of Transport Commissioners. The board has received applications which, at the request of the government, have been frozen for years. The railways have agreed to withdraw all applications in respect of so-called protected lines as soon as this bill is passed. The Board of Transport Commissioners has also given me an undertaking that there will be no hearing in respect of any of these applications while this legislation is before parliament. I would prefer to wait until we reach the appropriate clauses of the bill before dealing with the question of procedure. At that time I may have one or two suggestions to make to the committee in this respect.
[DOT] (9:50 p.ra.)
It is not possible to answer yes or no, because the hon. gentleman's question was not, I think, phrased in a way that would make such an answer possible. I would again emphasize that to the best of my knowledge no application has been made for years for any abandonment. All that has been done is that some steps have been taken, which I think might better not have been taken-and it may be partly my fault that they were taken-to activate some of these applications that have been pending for years. In fact, no hearings will be held while this legislation is before either house of parliament. When we come to the appropriate clause I would like, as I say, to deal further with the matter.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, just before we pass clause 1, and I am in full agreement with going ahead with it, would the minister say how he envisages the working of this clause with regard to the integration or the co-ordination of our modes of transportation? Does clause 1, paragraphs (a),
(b)	and (c) suggest that there be an integrating of the modes of transportation? The minister's remarks this afternoon led me to believe that this was not envisaged. Perhaps the minister could clear my mind on this particular point. With regard to air policy, I suggested this afternoon that I might move a further amendment. The minister spoke on that suggestion and convinced me that perhaps it would be rather difficult for him to accept my amendment at this time. Rather than put him in a difficult position, I decided not to move the amendment. However, Mr. Chairman, I should like clarification on the impression the minister left me with regard to our air policy.
This afternoon the minister said that some time ago when the previous government was in office they gave greater leeway to certain airlines to bring about a greater degree of
Transportation
competition in the air business generally. The minister said that he was not going to rescind that policy. I was led to believe that he was in favour of it, and was in favour of going one step further in the very near future, and giving perhaps, C.P.A. more landing rights across Canada. I do not know whether that is what the minister had in mind, but that is what I gathered from his remarks. If that is so, I see the fault in his announced policy. In other words, this bill will set up a national transportation policy and a Canadian Transport Commission, but it will not be a national transportation policy with regard to air services, whether it be concerned with the movement of passengers or freight.
I mentioned this afternoon that air freight will boom in the next 10 years, as Mr. Crump, the president of the C.P.R. said. The minister said this afternoon that he will announce from time to time further policy changes with regard to air transportation. Therefore, in a sense this bill may well be setting up a transportation policy but it will not go all the way, The minister is placing himself in the position wherein he will announce a piecemeal air policy. He led me to believe that he will go a step further in the very near future with regard to C.P.A. But what about the other airlines in Canada? What is their position? What about Trans-Air, which many people in Canada used during the air strike and found very helpful? What about Ward Air? What about Mallard Air, Nordair and others? What about the other transportation companies that are in the air business? Where do they stand in the competitive field? Are they big enough to bring political or economic pressure on this minister or succeeding ministers and say, "All right. You have to advance one step further in your air policy and also give us landing rights at X number of cities across Canada".
This bill does not change the Aeronautics Act; it is just a continuance of a piecemeal policy with regard to air transportation. It will not create more competition in the air transportation field or fulfil the hopes and dreams of those people who want to expand in that field. This bill leaves those people with a depressed feeling. They do not know whether they will be able to convince the Minister of Transport at this or any other time that they are big enough to warrant further expansion. They cannot apply to the Air Transport Board. They will be able to apply under this bill for a licence to land in such-and-such a place, but this does not mean they will be granted such a licence. Therefore they will

January 9, 1967
Transportation
not be able to expand their air freight business.
This bill does nothing to change the present air policy with regard to the expansion of freight movement. It is nothing more than a piecemeal, political policy and the Minister of Transport still has on his shoulders the responsibility of expanding this movement from time to time as he sees fit. That is the impression the minister has given me, and I would like to be corrected if I am wrong. I had hoped that in setting up a national transportation policy and a Canadian Transport Commission to cover all modes of transportation, the commission would be the ruling body with regard to modes of transportation. However, the minister stated this afternoon that he hopes to be able to announce in the very near future further steps in connection with such a movement. I envisage this to be the granting to C.P.A. of further landing rights. Would the minister comment on what he envisages with regard to the integrating and co-ordinating of our modes of transportation? I should like him to correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is a piecemeal air policy and this bill will do nothing to expand our nationwide transportation policy, which takes in the whole scope of air movement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think that perhaps in two minutes I can deal with this question, not in a full but a summary manner. In the middle of 1964, I think it was, after I had been minister for several months, I announced three general principles that were to be applied to air policy; one relating to services outside Canada, one relating to regional carriers, and one relating to what I might call main line, transcontinental transportation. Since that time I have laid down the general guide lines for the services outside Canada, the worldwide services, the international services of the two air lines after agreement had been reached between the two of them on the division of those worldwide services. It is under that policy that the Air Transport Board is now operating, as far as international services are concerned, and it seems to be operating very satisfactorily both from the point of view of the airlines and the public.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Last October I announced a regional carrier policy just before I went out to Vancouver to the meeting of the Air Transport Association. I must say that I was deeply gratified to find that the regional carriers seemed to feel that this policy would enable them to develop in a way in which they have not been able to

develop until now. Up to now I have had nothing but expressions of satisfaction from the regional carriers and from the regions in which the regional carriers operate. All I did was to lay down the guide lines which the Air Transport Board will follow and which the commission, if this bill passes, will also follow.
It is true that I have not yet completed the third phase, that is to lay down guide lines for the Air Transport Board with respect to the main line transcontinental service. The main reason that I have not done so-I confess it quite frankly-is that I have been trying very hard to get this legislation through. This is another important subject which I have to discuss with my colleagues and it is just not possible to do everything at once. However, I hope that quite soon after this legislation is completed in the house I will be able to do that and to announce it in the house. We will then have laid down the national air policy in all these three fields, along the lines of the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, and the commission will be expected to operate within the limits of that national policy. I think it will be found that the two aspects with which we have already dealt have given real satisfaction, and I hope the third one will also.
As to integration I think, the main reason for having one commission to deal with all forms of transport is to see that in those areas where competition itself is not an effective regulator we will not be spending money subsidizing two kinds of service when one would do the job, that when it is a question of providing a service of the kind suggested by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, such as developmental services or services in areas where there is a monopoly or a quasi-monopoly, that we will provide, whether or not it requires public funds to help to provide the best kind of service, one that will meet the needs of the community best at the lowest cost.
It seems to me that the hon. gentleman's suggestion that the service must be adequate

which I have included in this amendment-does complete the three descriptions. Economic, efficient and adequate is much better than just economic and efficient, because the latter did perhaps suggest a rather scrimping attitude before the hon. member made his suggestion. I think that where you can get competition and where it does work effectively it is not desirable to have a whole lot of regulations. Here I cannot be expected to agree entirely with the hon. member for
January 9, 1967

Springfield because I think we start from a different ideological base. However, I do think that where there is no competition and services are essential it is important to have a body which can regulate efficiently to ensure an adequate service, to see that it is economic and, as far as possible, efficient. In that sense both integration and co-ordination are the objectives of the bill in which clause 1, as it is proposed now to be amended will give guidance to the commission. I hope, therefore, that the committee will see fit to accept the amendment and the amended clause.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to call it ten o'clock, so that I may study what the minister really means by integration. I leave this question with him: Will we not then be putting the transport commission into the same trouble the Interstate Commerce Commission in the United States got, as outlined so clearly by Dr. Bandeen when he appeared before the committee?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am going to make the suggestion to the committee that we carry clause 1 because there are clauses related to the commission, and this subject can be thoroughly threshed out and would be quite relevant to those clauses. This would give the impression that we were making a little progress with the bill. If it would be agreeable to the hon. gentleman, he could reserve what he has to say about that until we come to the clauses setting up the commission and his remarks would then be relevant at that stage.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have only one comment to make. The minister is suggesting that we pass clause 1 and that we debate this particular subject on another clause. In previous speeches I have made I have limited my remarks on integration and co-ordination to clause 1, because I think that is the only clause on which we can discuss the subject. If the minister is suggesting that I deal with the matter on some other clause, then I warn him that he is suggesting we have a wide open debate on some other clause. I would rather deal with the matter on clause 1. I may be only three minutes tomorrow, after studying his remarks, or I may accept his statements. If the minister so desires, I will agree to passing clause 1 because he has promised I may deal with these questions of integration and coordination under another clause. I have suggested the subject falls under clause 1.
Transportation


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would agree to that. I think the remarks would be particularly appropriate under the clause setting up the commission.


Thomas Miller Bell: We have two or three speakers who have remarks to make on clause 1. I do not believe they will be lengthy. We want to be co-operative because there has been flexibility and co-operation.
Having said that, I think we should recognize that many of these matters come under different parts of the bill, and some of them have been discussed on the first clause. For example the subject of abandonment has been discussed. Some members have said they want to speak on that, but without opening up all aspects of this big subject. I think when we get to the abandonment section-I believe it is section 314-a debate should be permitted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that would be well within the rules. We all know there is a tendency at ten o'clock for someone to say he will only talk for three minutes. If we start another day, we very often find the debate takes the whole day. We have had quite a number of days of debate on clause 1. If hon. gentlemen opposite would agree to deal with these subjects later, I do not believe any hon. member would be unduly restricted. I would crave the indulgence of the committee in this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could we not agree that clause 1 stand and then clause 2, since it is the title, would have to stand as well? We could then deal with clause 3 tomorrow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the hon. gentleman is giving a remarkable interpretation of the rules when he suggests that we should have two more general debates at the end of the committee's proceedings. I do not believe clause 2 should stand if clause 1 stands.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not draft the bill and put two general clauses into it. I would be willing that clause 2 should carry, since it is only the title. There are one or two members of this group who would like to say something on clause 1, but we would be quite happy to have those remarks made at a later stage.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think this would not be disagreeable to me, because there are one or two hon. members of the official opposition who took a great part in the work of the committee and who are not here today. I would not like to think they were deprived of a chance of making some general observations
January 9, 19G7
11582	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion if they felt they desired to do so. If the committee would agree to pass the amendment so that we have before us the clause as amended,
I would then ask that clause 1 stand until we have dealt with all the other clauses of the bill, and then if anyone has anything to say at the end he would be given the chance to do so.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Mr. Starr:: Agreed.


Mr. Clancy:: May I ask the minister what he means by guide lines, Mr. Chairman? Would he define that phrase? It has a familiar ring; I think I heard it used by the United States 18 months ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I would define guide lines as lines for the guidance of the commission, in this case. I do not think I can do better than that.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the proposed amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause stands.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Maurice Rinfret: Shall clause 3
carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: I should like to ask the government house leader whether it is the intention of the government to carry on with the debate on this bill tomorrow, and whether he can tell us what are the plans of the government for Wednesday.


George James McIlraith: Tomorrow we will continue the discussion of the legislation which has been before the house today. On Wednesday I propose to indicate a series of other bills or motions for discussion. On Thursday we will return to the transport bill if it is not completed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, I asked the Minister of Transport whether he would agree to lend his good offices to the population of the heartland of Quebec and more particularly to the population of the riding I represent, to prevail upon the Canadian Pacific Railway to restore the night service which was in existence a few years ago when a train for Quebec left Montreal at midnight and when another train also departed from Quebec at midnight for Montreal.
A few years ago, the Canadian Pacific discontinued that service, claiming it was unprofitable. We do not admit this, because we say-and we are ready to prove it-that if the service was unprofitable, it is because the Canadian Pacific arranged for a few years to give such deficient service that it could not be profitable and passengers were kept away. First, the train was cumbersome and very slow; leaving Montreal at midnight, arrival was at three, half past three and sometimes four o'clock. That is surely prohibitive.
We believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian Pacific is obligated to serve the population, even if it is not profitable. But we deny that it is unprofitable and we are ready to prove it. Within the next few days, the municipal councils in my region, the Chambers of Commerce and all intermediate organizations interested in the economy of the Trois-Rivieres and the St. Maurice regions and the heartland of Quebec will redouble their efforts with the Board of Transport Commissioners and that is why we ask for the support of the Minister of Transport, in order that the Canadian Pacific may grant us this essential service once and for all.
The people in my riding are 85 miles away from Montreal and 85 miles away from Quebec city. It must be realized that we have to deal with Montreal and Quebec city firms. One also likes to remain in Montreal once in a while, to watch some sports event, a play, a recital or simply to spend the evening with friends or relatives, and the midnight train is very convenient for the return trip. It is the same thing for Quebec city.
Mr. Speaker, there is also one particular reason for making the request this year, and this is because of Expo, which will make for a very large increase in the number of travellers. If the Canadian Pacific Railways say they are operating at a loss, we will show

January 9, 1967
them that they themselves have already found a formula enabling them to make a profit. In fact, over the past few years, namely since this service has been discontinued, we have what we call a little train. In English, it is called "Rail Diesel train", and I believe its trademark is Budd. In French, it is called "le train autorail". This little train gets us home from Montreal in two hours. The personnel on board being very limited, it is quite economical. It could very easily be put into night operation to accommodate travellers from our area wishing to spend the evening in Montreal or Quebec city and those living in Montreal or Quebec city wishing to come and spend the evening in our area.
I repeat that we, our chambers of commerce and our municipal councils, are in a position to prove to the Canadian Pacific Railways that if they improved their service along these lines, they would make a profit. At any rate, even if it did operate at a loss, we feel this service should be restored for the duration of Expo.
Moreover, I repeat that our chambers of commerce and municipal councils have been making this request for years.
The hon. minister of trade and labour in the present Quebec provincial government, the Hon. Maurice Bellemare, made such a request himself, on numerous occasions, and so have a number of other public personalities in the area.
I ask the hon. minister, not only on my behalf, but on behalf of the municipal councils in my riding and my area, the chambers of commerce, the workers associations, on behalf of all the intermediate bodies concerned with the economy of the area, to support the request which will be made in a few weeks, and to make use of the considerable influence and persuasive powers which he usually displays when he decides to support a cause to be won.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres is always too flattering to me. I cannot help thinking that if he is as persuasive when he talks to the Canadian Pacific as he is when he talks to me that he will have more effect, with his representations, than I could have with mine.
Before Christmas I drew to the attention of the railway company the question the hon. gentleman had put down for discussion tonight. I regret to say that I was not in this
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion part of Canada very much during the recess of parliament. After a few days of refreshment at Antigua-I can assure the hon. gentleman I was not with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-I then went to Newfoundland-perhaps I should say, to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I came back only on Saturday evening and I have not yet had word from the Canadian Pacific. I am glad I have not because they will now have the advantage of reading what the hon. gentleman said this evening.
If the company had not been convinced before, I am sure that they will be wavering, after reading what the hon. gentleman has said. I can assure him that I shall add my blandishments, whatever they may be worth, to his.



IMMIGRATION-ADMISSION OF DEPUTY LEADER OF GERMAN NEO-NAZI PARTY

Milton L. Klein: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I asked whether admission to Adolf Von Thadden, deputy leader of the neonazi National Democratic party of West Germany in his announced visit to Canada, would be refused on the same grounds that his American counterpart, Rockwell, is excluded from Canada.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I wish to make a distinction between nazis and Germans. I use the cliche that there are good and bad in every nationality and race. But there is no such thing as a good nazi. The National Democratic party of Germany is a neo-nazi party and in my opinion a neo-nazi is far worse than a nazi. The person who joined the nazi party in 1933 had no means of foreseeing the extremity of cruelty which that party would represent, but the neo-nazi, the nazi of today, knows precisely what extremity of cruelty was reached. Thus a man who joins the neo-nazi party today is, I say, far worse than the man who joined the nazi party in 1933.
Some people may say we cannot exclude Von Thadden because he is the deputy leader of a party, the National Democratic party. Well, the National Democratic party is not a political party; it is a criminal conspiracy. I am not speaking now about anti-semitism; there are simply not enough Jews left in Germany against whom anti-semitism could be practised. I have in mind one of the sadder aspects of the aftermath of the second world war-the fact that we speak always of the six million Jews who were executed. Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
11584	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Speaker, there were six million Catholics and Protestants who were also executed by the nazis in the crematoria-Poles, Czechoslovaks, Hungarians. I think we should keep in mind that those who died in Belsen and Auschwitz were people of other than one national group.
We do not allow people who are affiliated with Murder Incorporated to come to this country; yet compared with naziism Murder Incorporated is in a minor league. By allowing neo-nazis to come here we are giving stature to a party, to an ideology, against which the whole free world fought only 20 years ago. We did not admit Rockwell. It has been said we cannot refuse entry to Von Thadden because West Germany is a member of the O.E.C.D. and because Von Thadden is a citizen of a friendly country. Well, Rockwell is a citizen of the United States, a very friendly country which is also a member of the O.E.C.D.
The minister of the interior of West Germany-his name is Dr. Paul Luecke-has stated that the National Democratic party of West Germany is neo-nazi. I do not know what steps the security officers take in Canada to determine whether a person is acceptable here or not, but it would seem to me that one of the logical steps would be to get in touch with Dr. Luecke and find out more about the neo-nazi party and its background. There are more then one million Germans and people of German descent in Canada today, and there are also the survivors of some of these infamous concentration camps, and I would say that the overwhelming majority of these million Germans in Canada, and of these survivors, would be desperately opposed to the admission of Adolf Von Thadden into Canada. They ran away from the very thing this man is trying to reimpose in Germany.
In conclusion, I would say that the most vital area in the world today, the area which is virtually an armed camp, is the area where East Germany and West Germany meet, and that the ultra nationalism of this National Democratic party might very well set the stage for a third world war, possibly by storming the wall which separates east Berlin from west Berlin, or by a similar act of that kind. I believe Canada should go on record as being opposed to any neo-nazi movement and make it clear that a person who belongs to a neo-nazi movement is not welcome here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the unavoidable absence of my colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), let me say that this

DEBATES	January 9, 1967
afternoon I believe the hon. member was given the only answer the government could give at the moment to this question, namely that the most earnest consideration is being given to this problem. I really cannot add very much to that.
Of course, as the hon. gentleman knows there are very few members of this house who have much more reason than I, personally, to feel that we do not want any one who is a nazi in this country on any terms whatever.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS-&quot;GRANDE HERMINE&quot;- PERMANENT BERTH FOR REPLICA

James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, today in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I addressed a question to the Prime Minister concerning a statement made in Quebec city on December 28 last before the Richelieu Club. The heading in Le Soleil of December 29 contains these words "La 'Grande Hermine' doit aller a Gaspe". This subject has been raised many times in this house on previous occasions. It has been raised because those of us who live in the Gaspe area take great pride in the fact that Canada was born in Gaspe on July 24, 1534 when Jacques Cartier planted there the cross in the name of the king of France. We are very proud of this and therefore do not like to see a distortion of history or historical fact. We are perturbed by the fact that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has stated there is a policy that the replica of Grande Hermine, which now rests at Expo '67, finally will have its berth at the Cartier Brebeuf park in Quebec city.
The controversy has been going on for many months. The two files which I have in front of me here contain extracts from newspapers. These files are voluminous, and the extracts all have regard to the same subject. I have yet to find an article which supports the suggestion that the Grande Hermine should go to the Cartier Brebeuf park in Quebec city. Mayor Jean Drapeau of Montreal mentioned that this is a national rather than municipal matter. He invited the mayor of Quebec city, Mr. Lamontagne, to come to Gaspe and tell1 the people of Gaspe that they could have the Grande Hermine because it is their right to have such a ship. The mayor of Montreal made an offer to the mayor of Quebec city that if they would give the Grande Hermine to Gaspe he would endeavour to see that another ship was given to Quebec. He said! that he would ask the municipal government.
January 9, 1967	COMMONS
to offer some guarantee that another ship would go to Quebec.
It is important to note that the mayor of Quebec city found the statement made by Mayor Drapeau very interesting, said that it deserved some substantial study and that he had an open mind on the subject. When Mayor Drapeau spoke I consider he was representing a population of 2 million people. In order to put on record the number of people in the province of Quebec who favour Gaspe as the final berthing for the Grande Hcrmine,
I should like to state the following. More than 500 municipalities in the province of Quebec have endorsed the petition of Gaspe in requesting that the Grande Hermine find its final berthing place at Gaspe-500 municipalities, plus the cities of Quebec, Asbestos, Chicoutimi, Charlesbourg, Granby, Hauterive, Joliette, Rimouski, Ville Saint-Michel, Verdun, Sept-lies, Lachute, Riviere-du-Loup, Matane, Port Cartier, Saint-Georges-de-Beauce, and Sorel. In this area there is a population of over 1,300,000 people, whereas there is a population of 2,500,000 people in Montreal.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
Among those who are in favour of berthing the Grande Hermine in Gaspe are the Lawrence Land Foundation for Historical Research at the University of McGill, many other historical societies and le chanoine, Lionel Groulx, and the curator of the Jacques Cartier Historical Museum at Saint-Malo in France. We have 15,000 signatures as well as many signatures of members of parliament who are in favour of Gaspe as the final resting place for this ship. There are 73 chambers of commerce in the province of Quebec also in favour of this site including the regional board of trade of Gaspe and the north shore, the board of trade of the Mauricie and the junior chamber of commerce of the city of Quebec. Among those also in favour of the Gaspe as the final resting site are the associations of hotel keepers of Gaspe and Bas-Saint-Laurent and the Press in the province of Quebec, notably Le Soleil, l'Action, La Presse, and the Montreal Star.
If the will of the majority is to be heard the government will have to reverse its decision in respect of the request of the people of Quebec for historical justice. By doing so it can help this economically depressed area to rebuild its tourist industry. I hope the final resting place of the Grande Hermine will be Gaspe.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the hon. member for Gaspe that the remarks he has just made will be brought to the minister's attention as soon as he returns to the house. At the same time I should like to emphasize that other members of this house including the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard) and the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) and others have expressed their interest in the historical importance of the Gaspe and the final berthing place of the Grande Hermine.
Let me direct the hon. members attention to the fact that it was not only the decision of the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing), but also a decision of the previous administration that the Grande Hermine should be a focal point of interest featured at Cartier-Brebeuf Park where Cartier wintered during his second voyage of 1535.
We fully realize the hon. member's position when faced with many requests from his constituents and others to suitably honour Cartier's association with Gasp6. But we are also aware of the expert opinion of historians as well as those who are serving our country on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board. In particular let me direct the hon. member's attention to an interesting article, by Andre Vachon of the University of Laval, which appeared in La Presse on November 23, 1966. This article states:

According to Cartier's writings, the Grande Hermine was unable to cast anchor at Gaspe.

[DOT] (10:35 p.m.)
Avoiding carefully to be carried away by passionate emotions and thought associations, he states in one of the paragraphs in this article as follows:

The conclusion is obvious: the Grande Hermine never went to Gaspe, Cartier did not return there after July 24, 1534. On the other hand, she spent the winter of 1535-36 at Quebec city.

However, Mr. Speaker, we continue to ask ourselves what should be Canada's contribution to the continuing memory of Gaspe's
11586	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion place in our history. May I assure the hon. member that the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, a body established to give expert and independent advice on Canada's historical events, their importance and commemoration, should be in a position
DEBATES	January 9, 1967
at its next meeting to make a further study of Gaspe's historical potential. After the board produces its report the minister will be able to consider its recommendations.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.38 p.m.

Tuesday, January 10, 1967


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.