1967-01-24

CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, January 12 the hon. member for Skeena raised a question of privilege in connection with notice of motion for the production of papers No. 191.
I have investigated the complaints made by the hon. member on that occasion and again yesterday, and I should like to apologize on behalf of the C.B.C. for the misunderstanding which led the hon. member to raise his question of privilege. The C.B.C. erroneously understood that the motion applied only to correspondence between the C.B.C. and other employers not associated with the corporation. This information was conveyed to the hon. member in perfectly good faith by my colleague the Associate Minister of National Defence on January 11. I regret the confusion this situation created.
As to the notice of motion for the production of papers, the C.B.C. has submitted that it has not been customary to require the corporation to produce such correspondence which is basically related to its detailed management and administration, and for that reason had not considered such correspondence was covered by the motion.
Since I have a ministerial responsibility to report for the C.B.C. I wish to express to the hon. member for Skeena and to the house my regrets for this inadvertent situation which has arisen.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, that statement is quite acceptable, but I do not know whether the apology should be directed to me any more than to this house as a whole. However, I assume a responsibility now falls on me to do something with this motion which I moved on the basis of my earlier information. Before I do so perhaps we could get an indication as to whether the government intends to accept the original motion for the production of correspondence.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As I said, it appears that this involves a matter of internal management, and it has not been the custom in the past to produce such documentation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he now has an opportunity to put the motion again, if he wishes to do so. Insofar as the question of privilege is concerned, in view of the explanation given by the minister it is obvious that there was no intent to mislead the house in any way. Therefore there is no prima facie case of privilege.


Frank Howard: Perhaps I could raise another matter, Mr. Speaker. The situation being as it is, perhaps the notice of motion should automatically be restored to the order paper, since it was withdrawn as the result of a misunderstanding.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid I cannot agree with the suggestion. The hon. member can very easily put this motion again on the order paper.


Frank Howard: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, today is Tuesday and tomorrow is the next opportunity to put notices for papers on the order paper. This does not allow 48 hours in order that we can deal with this motion. In light of the comment by the hon. minister perhaps-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. gentleman's point is quite clear. Perhaps we can solve the problem in this way. With the unanimous consent of the house, and I am sure there will be no difficulty in this regard, the motion can be placed on the order paper without notice. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



DIVORCE


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-264, entitled Divorce Act 1967.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.
12156	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry [DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to substitute a totally new principle as the basis for dissolution of marriage. The bill substitutes for the concept of matrimonial offences the concept of the irretrievable break-up of a marriage. As the house knows, generally speaking adultery is still the sole ground for divorce. There are a number of bills before the joint committee on divorce which would expand the grounds. It is proposed in this bill to substitute a new principle altogether which has been put forward to the committee by the United Church of Canada. The purpose of the bill is to codify this new approach.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the
Prime Minister whether the order in council setting up the task force under the chairmanship of the Minister without Portfolio, the former minister of finance, has been tabled as yet. Is the Prime Minister able to say whether the order of reference will be wide enough to enable this task force to study foreign ownership and foreign investment in Canada, and in particular whether the infringement of sovereignty represented by this government's agreement to the guide lines laid down in Washington will form part of the investigation?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: No order in council has been passed setting up the task force. Indeed, I doubt whether an order in council is required for an inquiry of this type. However, I will look into that. In any event, none has been passed yet.
As to the terms of reference of the proposed inquiry being supervised by the committee of ministers, perhaps I could read the sentence which covers this matter:
As a further measure,-
Following the steps that have been taken in respect of guide lines.
-a committee of ministers has now been set up to examine the structure of Canadian industry, with special reference to foreign ownership and control-
The study will include the significance-both political and economic-of foreign investment in the development of our country, as well as ways

DEBATES	January 24, 1967
to encourage greater Canadian ownership of our industrial resources while retaining a climate favourable to the inflow of foreign investment-
These are the terms of reference which will guide the committee in its work, and the interdepartmental committee has a task force which will be working with it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the press correct in its belief that in this set-up the Minister of Finance will occupy a supernumerary position that he may watch over the former minister of finance, the present Minister without Portfolio? If so, who then is charged with watching the present Minister of Finance.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The right hon. gentleman seems to have a very suspicious mind these days.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: May I ask a supplementary question in two parts, Mr. Speaker. Are there to be any more specific terms of reference for the cabinet committee or task force? Second, does the appointment of this cabinet committee in any way involve any delay in proceeding with legislation to set up the Canada Development Corporation, or can the Prime Minister assure the house it is the intention of the government to proceed with this legislation either at this session or during the new session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the first point, I think the terms of reference are quite adequate for the kind of inquiry the cabinet, through a committee of ministers wishes to make. In answer to the second part of the question, I will be making a statement on motions tomorrow about a program of legislation for the rest of this session and after prorogation for the new session, which will probably go some way to answer my hon. friend's inquiry.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister, first, whether the task force referred to which is to work in turn with an interdepartmental committee of senior civil servants, will be made up of economists from outside the government service, and how soon we may expect a report as to the personnel of this task force. Second, when is the white paper resulting from this investigation likely to be placed before the House of Commons?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the task force, which has not yet been set up but which will be very shortly, will consist of economists from outside the government service, experts
January 24, 1967	COMMONS
in this field, who will be able to give their full time to this inquiry, working with an interdepartmental committee. I have no idea how long they will require for their initial investigations, which will then be submitted to the committee of ministers. However, I hope this will be done with the least possible delay.
I should add, because perhaps my previous answer did not cover the question, that there is nothing in this work which would interfere with any program of legislation we already have in mind, including the item mentioned by my hon. friend.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that it is not customary or in accordance with our practice to announce the personnel of cabinet committees, I should like to ask the Prime Minister why this ordinary practice has been departed from in this case.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the reason is that this is not a cabinet committee, as the statement made clear. This is a committee of ministers. This action has been taken in the past, as distinct from an ad hoc or permanent cabinet committee, in which case the names of the members are not announced.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the hon. member for Davenport is the same individual who headed up a royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, and did he not deal extensively with that situation at that time?



COLUMBIA RIVER-PROPOSED FURTHER DEVELOPMENT BY U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources; I know he is looking forward to it. In view of glowing press statements in Washington with respect to the proposed increase in power at the Grand Coulee dam and of criticism of this unexpected development by hydro engineers in Canada and in various articles in professional magazines, would the minister ask the engineers of the water resources branch to appear before the standing committee on industry, research and energy development for questioning on this subject by members of the committee?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I presume a consultation would have to be had with the chairman of that committee. I hereby promise to do this.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Crossman (Kent (N.B.)):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Could he inform the house if the government has decided to give financial encouragement for the establishment of a new ferry service from southwestern Nova Scotia before improvements have been made in the present service between Digby and Saint John, New Brunswick? I ask this question because of the keen interest in this matter of many people in New Brunswick and the rest of Canada who look forward to the establishment of a true ferry service between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure whether there is real urgency to this question. If there is not, perhaps the hon. member would want to discuss the matter at ten o'clock.


Guy F. Crossman: Ten o'clock, sir.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberi McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister and is a follow-up to one I asked of the right hon. gentleman last Thursday. Is the Prime Minister yet in a position to assure the city of Halifax and other Canadian municipalities that Canadian National Railways will pay the equivalent of municipal taxes at full rates for all of 1967?
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I took this matter up with the Minister of Transport who will be able to deal with it shortly, I hope.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for
January 24, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of National Revenue concerning the Canada Pension Plan. Could the minister inform the house whether the farmers and fishermen of this country are called upon to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan out of their gross income or net income?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again it is difficult for the Chair to decide whether this is a matter of urgency.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Speaker, this is of great concern to the people of Canada. I went to the department last week. One official tells me that it is based on net income and another fellow tells me it is on gross income. I have come to the conclusion that these people do not know the difference between gross and net income, and I should like to have it made clear for the people of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister might say whether he knows.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we have a very comprehensive booklet explaining exactly how the contributions should be calculated. I shall be very pleased to send my hon. friend a copy of it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister and his officials do not know how to interpret their own book, how can the people of Canada know?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I disagree entirely. We know how to interpret what is in it, and I should be pleased to take my hon. friend aside and explain it to him.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous. I want someone to tell the people of Canada about this, and the minister does not seem to know about it himself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question put a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose I said I had intended to give him a copy of the information given to the self-employed with respect to the Canada Pension Plan. However, I have not been able to get a French copy, and I would refer him to section 13 of the Canada

Pension Plan, which makes quite clear that the amount of contribution is determined on the net income exclusive of investment income.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Would the minister clarify that with his department, because one official told me it was net income and a second one told me it was gross income.



INQUIRY AS TO REFUNDS TO EMPLOYERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chaflerton (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue.


An hon. Member:: He has gone to get the
book.


George Louis Chatterton: In that case he can take this question as notice. Has the minister found a way of refunding to employers the excess contributions they are making under the Canada Pension Plan?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: I shall be glad to bring this question to the attention of the minister.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as house leader. Can the hon. minister tell me on how many days the hon. member for Lapointe has sat in the house since being named leader or chairman of the separatist movement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
On the orders of the day:


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of some urgency for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the minister's publicly expressed and commendable interest in urban redevelopment and the building of new cities, is he preparing for an early retirement from the Department of National Defence so that all Canada may benefit?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: No, I was just making plans to prepare a suitable environment for the retirement of my hon. friend.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
January 24, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	12159



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Halifax):: I direct my question to the Secretary of State and ask the hon. lady if she has yet received from the Canadian Youth Council a supplementary report with a recommendation on the holding of a seminar next year. If so, has any action yet been taken, or has any decision been arrived at?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised and disappointed to say that I have not received anything yet. I had promised the hon. member the other day that I would have the ad hoc committee meet as soon as I received anything.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I direct my question to the Secretary of State, who I understand is responsible for the various centennial programs throughout the country and who also replies in the house on behalf of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The question is as follows. Would the minister suggest to those responsible for the public affairs and news programs in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, in view of the fact that a seven day truce is likely to take place soon in the Viet Nam war, that the C.B.C. might likewise declare a seven day truce in the flood of "hate the United States" propaganda that issues forth daily from that organization. I might also suggest that such a seven day remission might be a suitable centennial project as a gesture of good will to our good friends to the south.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should recognize that this is not a question. He is making a submission to the minister.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: My
question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Minister of Finance. I ask the minister if he is
Inquiries of the Ministry aware that on January 13, 1966, the Royal Bank of Canada appointed to its board of directors the minister of finance of the Bahamian government, Sir Stafford Sands. Does the Minister of Finance believe that the appointment to the board of directors of the Royal Bank of the minister of finance of another country is proper?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for an expression of opinion from the minister. This is not the type of question which may be asked at this time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. He may be able to answer the question, or he may have made some research into the matter I raised on January 19. To review my question, it referred to $50,000 of aid to Viet Nam of which 90 per cent was going to North Viet Nam, to the Viet Cong, for purposes other than to assist civilian victims. I said I had seen the report that made this statement. Has the Prime Minister anything to report on the matter now?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the position in respect of the matter referred to by my hon. friend in his question was set out by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on April 19 last in reply to a question by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. In brief, that reply was that there was no obstacle to the transfer of funds to North Viet Nam or similar destinations, provided appropriate arrangements could be made through banking channels. As regards permission for the shipment of medical and other supplies, these come under the provisions of the Export and Import Permits Act. However, as far as medical supplies are concerned the act does not require the issue of a specific licence provided the drugs are of Canadian origin and are being sent in individual dosage form.
As to the second aspect of the question, concerning the use made of supplies or funds sent to North Viet Nam once they have reached their destination, we have no knowledge in that regard and I doubt whether the government of North Viet Nam would regard it as within the responsibilities of our representative on the international commission
12160	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry to seek such information. I understand that the international committee of the Red Cross has endeavoured to obtain this kind of information with respect to its own consignments to North Viet Nam, so far without avail. I understand, however, that a representative of the Canadian Friends service committee was in Hanoi recently and did have an opportunity at that time to talk to representatives of the North Vietnamese Red Cross.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wish to thank the Prime Minister for his answer. But in this case, if he would review the report I gave him, he will see that of the $50,000 raised in Vancouver, 90 per cent of the money was handed over through Dr. Inglis to someone in Moscow for use in North Viet Nam, other than for the purchase of medical supplies and so on. Did the Prime Minister investigate this situation and, if so, what was the result?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We do not know the details of the shipment. I understand it was medical supplies and that 90 per cent of the money used for this purpose did go to North Viet Nam.


Mr. R. W. Priitie (Burnaby-Richmond):: May I direct a related question to the Prime Minister. On January 9 I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the Canadian government had received from the Canadian Quakers a request for aid in the provision of medical supplies to both North and South Viet Nam. Has such a request been received and, if so, what reply has been given?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I can answer that question, since it was addressed to me. I can inform the hon. member that such a request from the general secretary of the Canadian Friends service committee was received last month by an official of the external affairs department and was acknowledged at that time. The matter is now under consideration, and a substantive reply will be made to the general secretary of the committee in the very near future.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs with reference to a previous question

DEBATES	January 24, 1967
I asked him about the drafting of young Canadians in the United States into the United States forces. What will be the position of the government with respect to these young Canadians who are drafted into the United States army if they stay in the United States?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is really possible, unless I misunderstood it, to answer the question in the form in which it has been put. My hon. friend brought a particular case to my attention. We have been in touch with my hon. friend about it, and I am sure he would not want me to discuss that particular case on the floor of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Why not?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Because I think my hon. friend who put the question would not want to embarrass his constituent.


John George Diefenbaker: This is a Canadian who was picked up in the United States and forced into its army.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: My right hon. friend is wrong again.


John George Diefenbaker: This is what the minister denied the other day, and now he is wrong again.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport and relates to a question I asked him two weeks ago in this house concerning the curtailment of certain projects by the Atlantic Development Board because of staff shortages. The minister said at that time he would look into this matter and report. Can he tell us now which projects have in fact been curtailed?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minisler of Transport):: I had a document dealing with this subject and I hoped to use it to refresh my memory. Unfortunately it is in another spot. Perhaps the hon. member would not put me on the spot again until tomorrow.
January 24, 1967



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Industry. In the light of uneasiness in the automobile industry as a result of permanent lay-offs and stoppages of work for stated periods, would the minister consider referring the automobile pact to a standing committee of the House of Commons or to a joint committee of this house and the other place, so as to ascertain whether these lay-offs and cessations of work for stated periods are due to this pact or whether they have been brought about by other circumstances?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: It
has been fairly clearly established that in the current year, as compared with previous years, there has been a decline in the public demand for automobiles. A decline in public demand obviously leads to a decline in production, and a decline in production normally calls for lay-offs. This appears to be the chronology of the present situation, and I do not think any useful purpose would be served by trying to re-explore this particular chronology.
As the hon. member is aware, a comprehensive review of the automobile pact is to be undertaken in the current year, and perhaps that could be a more useful way of proceeding.


Michael Starr: As a supplementary question, when the minister says a comprehensive review will be made may I ask whether it will be done in committee where witnesses could be called?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the review of which I speak and of which the results will be made public will be by the governments of the two countries.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General and I would ask him to take into consideration the fact that there has been very little background exchanged between us in this matter. It is with respect to a councillor in the town of New Waterford who
Inquiries of the Ministry was recently disqualified from taking his seat because of an incident which happened years ago, when he was a juvenile. Would the minister consider a pardon for this gentleman in view of the exemplary life he has led since that time? I am not quite sure whether this could be done, but the people of New Waterford have indicated their decision by electing him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt whether the question can be asked at this time. There may be an aspect of urgency to it that I do not see, but generally speaking that type of question should be placed on the order paper.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is urgency because this young man committed an offence as a prank some ten years ago, and since the particular offence carries with it the possibility of a penitentiary sentence he is now hounded out of public life. I think the minister would want to speak on this, particularly in centennial year when so much is being said about amnesty. Will the government give consideration to providing free pardons to those who, having made mistakes, after a period of years have entirely lived them down, to the end that the detrimental effect of such mistakes on their records will not bar them from those things that good citizens normally can achieve?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I still have some doubt as to the urgency of the particular case raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, but as the minister seems anxious to give a reply to both hon. gentlemen I am sure he should be recognized.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to give immediate attention to the particular case raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, and I would like to assure the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that we are dealing with a considerable number of applications for pardon. There has been a substantial increase in them over the last few months.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to remind the house that there is a certain amount of urgency involved. The citizens of this town feel that they are deprived of representation for which they voted. There is a by-election coming up which would also indicate there is urgency in qualifying this man to hold the office which the people granted him.
January 24, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



SUGGESTED ABOLITION OF SEAL HUNTING IN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders ot the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Does he intend to follow up the recommendations made by the Canadian Humane Society for the protection of animals by abolishing the yearly massacre caused by seal hunting, the season for which is about to open pretty soon; or can he advise of better ways of killing the seals?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker I believe I have made it very clear on many occasions in the past that it is not my intention to recommend the abolition of the sealing operations in the gulf of St. Lawrence. I have said that the regulations were being amended. They have now been amended. I hope they will be enforced, and that all inhumane methods used in this operation will be prevented.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a
question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It is one I would have asked yesterday but neither the minister nor his parliamentary secretary was in the house. In view of the week end report that the Department of Manpower and Immigration is warning prospective immigrants with more than three children and less than $7,500 annual income to stay away from Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor, London and Vancouver because of the acute housing shortage, what plans has the minister to provide such immigrants with jobs in the smaller centres?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I shall have to take this question as notice and inquire into it, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION TO IMPLEMENT WHITE PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, we have not been able to obtain all the information we are seeking on this matter. Meantime I can inform my hon. friend that the World Health Organization has denied charges by the Smith regime in Rhodesia that it had abandoned health projects for the African population in Rhodesia and had failed to pass on warnings of the danger to women of antihistamine drugs. However, we are asking for further information on the matter from WHO.']
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I should like to


ask the minister whether he is now in a position to inform the house when he intends to bring in legislation to give effect to the recommendations and findings outlined in the immigration white paper, particularly with regard to part IV.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, part IV will not be brought before the house separately. Apparently it will have to come with the entire bill. As you know, the white paper is being studied now by the joint committee of the house and Senate. As soon as we have the report of the committee we will prepare the legislation. I hope this will be done this year. It will be done as soon as possible, but I cannot be more precise than that.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is in reference to answers to several questions which I asked last week. Has he had an opportunity to investigate the complaint made by the secretary of health in Rhodesia stating that the World Health Organization had cut off assistance given through that organization's schemes for the benefit of the African population in that country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have not been able to obtain all the information we are seeking on this matter. Meantime I can inform my hon. friend that the World Health Organization has denied charges by the Smith regime in Rhodesia that it had abandoned health projects for the African population in Rhodesia and had failed to pass on warnings of the danger to women of antihistamine drugs. However, we are asking for further information on the matter from WHO.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. Is he in a position to give the house the
January 24, 1967

names of those who will be appointed to sit on the proposed Canadian Livestock Feed Board.


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: No, Mr. Speaker.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is there presently being undertaken or has there just been completed a study by officials in his department, or by someone appointed for that purpose, in conjunction with the province of Quebec or directly through his department, into the question of jurisdiction relating to native Indian people and Eskimos in the province of Quebec?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather happy that the hon. member has raised this question, because I read a press report which spoke of a secret document having been exchanged between or delivered to both the federal government and the government of Quebec. There were other sinister suggestions that an arrangement was going to be made, and I want to assure my hon. friend that there is simply no justification whatever for the inferences included in the report.
At present all this consists of is a working paper which has been delivered to each government as a basis for financial considerations in the transfer to Quebec of those services which are necessary in that part of Quebec due to the very considerable mining and other developments that are proceeding in that part of the province. The work of my officials and that of the officials of the province of Quebec is entirely consistent with the last statement I made in the house on this matter on March 4, 1964, at page 505, where I said provision was made to refer these principles and conditions to a joint committee of federal and provincial officials who are charged with the responsibility of preparing a draft agreement as well as the terms of reference for the commission which will be asked to receive the views and comments of the Eskimos. At that time we discussed-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid I must interrupt the minister. It seems to me the answer he is now giving is rather lengthy and more in the form of a statement which ought to be made on motions. Perhaps he might restrict the remainder of the answer he wishes to give to the hon. member.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in a supplementary way may I ask the minister, because of the extreme importance of the matter and the necessity always of consulting the people affected, whether the minister would make a statement on motions tomorrow or at some reasonable time in the future so we could go into this question in as much detail as is possible.


Arthur Laing: This would be entirely agreeable to me, but I would have to make some study of the question because as yet I have not even seen the paper.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Has the minister received the report which is being prepared by Professor Hawthorn of the University of British Columbia, and if so would he table this in the house?


Arthur Laing: Yes; part 1.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister informed the house that he expected the cabinet today would approve of the reply to the two notes of the United States government in reference to the Mercantile Bank. Would the Prime Minister say whether the reply constitutes acceptance or rejection by Canada of the claim of the United States that the legislation ought not to be passed? Also will the Prime Minister say whether there has been any alteration in the expected nature of the reply to the notes in view of the evidence given by Mr. Rockefeller today, that the letter of intent to purchase the Mercantile Bank from the Dutch interests was given on June 26, 1963, 22 days prior to the warning given by the then minister of finance, the new Minister without Portfolio and chairman of the task force?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the first note was replied to many months ago. The reply to the second note was considered and agreed to by the
12164	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry government this morning and will be delivered to the United States authorities this afternoon. All I can say is that the Canadian government maintains the position which already has been stated in this house. With reference to the hearing before the committee of the house on this matter, I believe it would be quite inappropriate for me to discuss this.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister table the two notes from the United States and the reply by Canada, after securing the permission of the United States government?
I think this is a matter upon which parliament has a right to know the true facts.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the house has taken a decision regarding the tabling of the diplomatic correspondence in respect of this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Why? Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will ask the United States government for permission.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. This diplomatic correspondence will be treated as such.


John George Diefenbaker: You do not want the facts to be elucidated.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, did the Prime Minister inquire into the effect this matter might have on Canadian banks in the United States?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Naturally all factors were taken into consideration before this note was drafted and agreed on.



ENTRY OF UJC. INTO COMMON MARKET-PROTECTION FOR CANADIAN TRADING INTERESTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that Prime Minister Wilson is making a new attempt to gain entry into the European common market, I should like to know whether Canada has been made aware of the terms and conditions and whether there is any protection for our trading interests with the United Kingdom, particularly in respect of agricultural products such as wheat.

DEBATES	January 24, 1967


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slafe for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which primarily concerns the government of Great Britain and the common market countries. At various times, however, Canada has had discussions with members of the present British government with regard to Britain's intentions, and we have likewise noted observations made by common market countries regarding the British desire to participate.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Will the minister tell us, in view of the information Canada has, whether this will create any problem in respect of the trading relations we now have with regard to the export of wheat from Canada to Britain?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slafe for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this is hardly the kind of question which should be asked on the orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am in full agreement with the minister. He rose just a little faster than I did. I think the hon. member for Medicine Hat recognizes the point.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I will pursue the matter at ten o'clock.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that from August to December the price index has risen so that the cost of living now stands at the all time high of 145.9, is the government planning to take any action to cope with the steady increase in the cost of living?


Hon. Mifchell Sharp (Minisler of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question of a very general nature which I do not think it is appropriate to deal with here. I might just say that the government has been taking measures which have in fact resulted in a smaller increase in prices than otherwise would have taken place, and certainly smaller than would have taken place had we followed the advice of the opposition.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the suggestions made to the minister from time to time, has any progress been made with regard to the setting up of a prices review board? Also, what progress has been made in respect of the income progress study which the Economic Council of Canada has undertaken?
January 24, 1967


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sure the hon. gentleman will recall that in the last annual report of the Economic Council of Canada the council recommended that measures of this kind would not be effective for Canada.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of the deep concern which the hon. lady has in respect of having a competent president of the C.B.C., and in view of her admiration for one of the candidates, could the minister tell us whether the name of Mr. Max Ferguson is still before the cabinet for consideration?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State. Has the minister any reply to the question I asked yesterday with regard to certain C.B.C. programs which now are available to the coastal areas of British Columbia after 11 p.m. and which are denied to the interior of British Columbia?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the question in general, but yesterday the hon. member asked me about the C.B.C. and its coverage of the du Maurier ski championships in British Columbia. I am informed by the C.B.C. that it plans to film a 30 minute program of the highlights of the du Maurier championships and to carry it on CBUT, Vancouver, and its immediate rebroadcasting stations at Courtenay, Comox and Alberni-Chilliwack following the late night news and sports on January 30.
Unfortunately it is not possible, because of technical reasons, to feed this film from Vancouver to C.B.C. outlets in the interior of the province at the same time it is being shown in Vancouver. However, arrangements have been made to have these highlights, featuring members of our national ski team, carried on the night of February 1 on the C.B.C. relay stations at Rossland-Trail, Nelson, Castelgar and Cranbrook-Kimberley. The program also is available at the same time to private affiliates of the C.B.C. in British Columbia on their request.
Transportation
I should like to say in response to the last question that I understand the gentleman in question is quite happy with his position in the C.B.C. I have not at any time, to anybody, publicly or privately, indicated that I am in favour of any candidate for the C.B.C. presidency.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 23, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-231, to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof, and to enact other consequential provisions-Mr. Pickersgill-Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order. An understanding was reached yesterday that the remaining clauses of this bill be considered in the following order: clause 74, with an amendment; clause 16 as amended, and clause 1 as amended.
On clause 74.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, at the conclusion of the sitting yesterday an amendment to clause 74 was brought in and read but has not yet been moved. I rise now on a point of order as to the validity of the amendment to clause 74.
My point of order is put forward on the ground that the Minister of Transport has violated an important rule of the House of Commons, so well understood and known that reference to it is hardly necessary. I might quote the rule at the outset. It is that a matter once dealt with and disposed of by the house cannot be raised again when dealing with the same subject matter in the same bill. I emphasize that rule because it is very important in understanding the point of order upon which Your Honour will have to decide.
What is the matter in question? We had in the bill new section 329 (1) which was voted on by the house in committee of the whole. The vote was negative and the section in question was struck out. In its place the minister is now attempting to move an amendment to clause 74. He is endeavouring to substitute a new clause 74 for section 329 of Bill No. C-231 which was voted on by the House of Commons and struck out of the bill. The vote was a close one, as hon. members know. The minister, I repeat, is substituting clause 74 for section 329.

January 24, 1967
Transportation
An amendment was introduced last night but no motion has been moved in respect of it. The amendment to clause 74 was merely read; and the record, which is to be found at page 12119 of Hansard, will disclose this fact. First of all, I object to the moving of this motion on a procedural basis. I object to this amendment because I question its validity. The minister is trying to deal again with the same matter when it has already been disposed of by the house. In brief, he is trying to take two bites at the same apple, in violation of our rules.
The rule in this regard is very clear. I will read the rule as written in our original procedures in 1953 and as amended in 1958. It is to be found in Beauchesne's third and fourth editions. I shall refer to both rules because there has been an historical development as far as our procedure in this regard is concerned.
I said that in brief the minister is trying to take two bites at the same apple, when the rules say he cannot do this. He is trying to take two cracks at the same cat, when he is entitled to only one. What does the rule say in this regard? It is very clear. It is that a question being put once and carried in the affirmative or negative-in this case it was the negative-cannot be questioned again, but must stand as a judgment of the house, particularly in respect of one bill and more particularly in respect of one clause.
The minister by his amendment to clause 74 is really trying to repeat what was set out in section 329. The principle is identical in these two cases. Before I go into the meat of the amendment and section 329 I should like to refer to the rules. I would refer first of all to the third edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 1943, page 113. I shall read from citation 284:
A resolution may be rescinded and an order of the house discharged, notwithstanding a rule urged-
I have quoted this rule.
-"that a question, being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative cannot be questioned again, but must stand as a judgment of the house."
My first submission on this point of order is that section 329 provided that the Crowsnest pass freight rates be investigated with a view to ascertaining whether the railways were showing a profit or loss in regard to the hauling of grain within the definition of "grain" in Canada. In this respect a decision of the house was arrived at; a vote was taken
[Mr. WoolUams.l
on the section and it was struck out of the
bin.
Last night the minister asked us to consider an amendment to clause 74, wherein is contained the same principle as there was in section 329. All the minister has done is replace the words "Crowsnest pass freight rates" with another term. I should like to quote from the amendment to clause 74. It says in part:
Subject to subsection (3), a railway company under the jurisdiction of parliament may make an application to the commission to investigate the revenues and costs attributable to the carriage of any commodity by the company at a statutory rate or substituted rate.
The statutory rate is the Crowsnest pass freight rate. The amendment to clause 74 deals with the identical matter; it means the same thing in principle. In order that the committee may fully understand my point of order I would read further from the rules. This passage is to be found in our former rules of 1943, at page 113 of Beauchesne's third edition:
To rescind a negative vote, except on the different stages of bills, is a proceeding of greater difficulty-
Beauchesne says that to attempt to do this puts one in great difficulty. You cannot substitute the same principle with similar words. In other words, if the minister wishes to bring in an amendment he will have to bring in a brand new amendment on a brand new principle. He has failed to do this. On these grounds I say that the amendment is not valid and cannot be accepted. The citation from Beauchesne's third edition continues:
The only means, therefore, by which a negative vote can be revoked, is by proposing another question, similar in its general purport to that which has been rejected, but with sufficient variance to constitute a new question-
It will take but a few moments to deal with that matter. There is not sufficient variance in this amendment to constitute a new question. The principle is the same. To permit the minister now to move the amendment to clause 74 would allow him to do through the back door that which he could not do through the front door when he was unable to call into the chamber sufficient hon. members to support the government's position in respect of section 329.
I should like to read further from the rules. I think it is necessary to do so in order that the record be straight. This is a most serious matter, in that the minister is trying to put something over on the people of western Canada. Citation 285 of Beauohesne's third edition says in part:
January 24, 1967

[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
A mere alteration of the words of a question, without any substantial change in its object will not be sufficient to evade the rule-
Let me repeat that statement:
A mere alteration of the words of a question, without any substantial change in its object will not be sufficient to evade the rule-
There has been no substantial change. What the minister is doing by this amendment to clause 74 is merely suggesting that under the old section 329 the commission will look into the Crowsnest pass freight rates within a certain period of time to determine whether the railway companies are making or losing money. That was the object of the old section. What is the object of the new section as set forth in the amendment to clause 74? The object now is that the commission will, on the application of a railway company, look into those costs.
Let me say that section 329 was mandatory and that clause 74 is also mandatory because once a railway company makes an application under clause 74 the commission shall review these freight rates. For that reason the Conservative party voted against the inclusion of new section 329. The object was for the commission to review the Crowsnest pass freight rates and pit the western farmers against the other taxpayers of Canada. The minister is aware of that fact and he has made certain strange statements as reported in the press since that vote was taken.
Last night the minister, with his nice personality and approach, proposed an amendment to clause 74. All he has done or suggested is the substitution of one word. The object is the same, the motives are the same and the result will be the same. For that reason I say at the outset that this amendment is invalid and cannot now be put a second time. The subject of the amendment was voted on and stricken from the bill.
Let us see what the new rules say in this regard. It is my suggestion that they are even stronger. Let me refer to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, 1958, at page 136, citations 162 and 163. In view of the fact this is an important matter regarding validity, I hope the committee will bear with me while I place on the record the citation. Citation 162 states:
A resolution may be rescinded and an order of the house discharged, notwithstanding a rule urged, "that a question, being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative cannot be questioned again, but must stand as a judgment of the house."
Transportation
We have had a judgment of the house. We have said that this cannot be done because the country does not want it and we are the representatives of the country.
The minister, by intellectual trickery, has moved an amendment to clause 74 under the guise of attempting to define grain but what he is actually doing is setting up a committee to look into these freight rates. He is forced to do so because he failed to have a sufficient number of his members left to carry the question in the house. I might add that the hon. member for Medicine Hat abstained during that vote.
It is my suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that in spite of the minister's intellectual trickery this amendment must be ruled out as being invalid. In this connection it is interesting to note what the minister admitted was his fault last night. We do not very often hear a plea of guilty from the Minister of Transport but we did so last night. He knows exactly what happened. Last night he let the cat out of the bag when he attempted to perpetrate his intellectual trickery on the house. After the amendment was moved the hon. member for Macleod stated:
-judging from what the minister has said, in a backhanded way the baby thrown out with the dirty water is back in again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What did the minister then say? He said:
That is right.
What the hon. member for Macleod said in effect was that the nurse washing the baby forgot herself and threw it out with the dirty water but now the baby has been carried back in for another bath by the government.
We have made a decision and we have a judgment. The Conservative party has fought for western Canada so far as the Crowsnest pass rates are concerned. What the minister is now trying to do by his amendment to clause 74 is exactly the same in principle as what he could not do on an earlier occasion. The rules are clear in this regard as pointed out in Beauchesne's third and fourth editions, citations 284 and 285, and 162 and 163.
Let us compare the two suggested sections to see how they differ, if they differ at all. New section 329 made reference to the Crowsnest pass freight rates whereas in the amendment to clause 74 reference is made to statutory rates. In all intellectual honesty I now ask the minister what difference there is between statutory rates and the Crowsnest

January 24, 1967
Transportation
pass freight rates. The Crowsnest pass freight rates by agreement have become law. Therefore the minister must be referring to the Crowsnest pass freight rates when defining statutory rates.
When the minister referred to statutory rates last night he said they included other rates but indicated he did not know what they were because the statutes had been amended. We all know that apart from the Crowsnest pass freight rates, statutory rates represent an infinitesimal amount of railway revenue. The minister's explanation in this regard is nothing but hogwash.
We have suggested to the minister over and over again that he is pitting the western farmer against the other taxpayers of Canada. Surely that will be the result of his attempt to amend this clause. Canada is the only wheat exporting nation in the world which does not subsidize the farmer for his wheat. Parliament has thrown out the section but the minister now wants to give this baby another bath.
I ask the minister to withdraw his amendment at this point. Failing that I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to rule the amendment out of order on the ground that it violates a fundamental rule of the house to the effect that a question having been once moved and carried in the affirmative or negatived cannot be put again but must remain as the judgment of this house.
Let us examine the language of the proposed amendment. It states in part:
-the commission to investigate the revenues and costs attributable to the carriage of any commodity by the company at a statutory rate or substituted rate.
This involves a matter of semantics. It obviously refers to the Crowsnest pass rates. Old section 329 and clause 74 as proposed by the amendment are identical, mean the same thing and would result in the same thing. The investigation would be the same and the decision would be the same. All the minister is really saying is that the defeat of the government in the vote has put him in an embarrassing and difficult position. It is my impression that the minister has made some deal with the railway and as a result of his defeat has let the railways down. He is not sure now how to get off the hook but is attempting to do so by violating a rule. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to rule that this amendment is invalid and unacceptable at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to reply immediately to those parts of the hon. gentleman's remarks which deal with the rules. Those parts of the speech relating to my reputation I will simply ignore until a later time.
There was a considerable debate held in respect of new section 329 during our consideration of clause 50. That debate took place before the vote on that section. As the hon. gentleman quite rightly pointed out, the committee decided that the section should be stricken from the bill. I suppose I could take the technical position, sir, that the question of order should have been raised immediately, but I do not take that position.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: That is not so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was a debate on it, and during the debate the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre indicated quite clearly that in moving the amendment to strike the whole clause he had counted on me to produce other amendments which would repair any damage that might have been done. This, of course, is precisely what I was seeking to do in this amendment. If anyone will fairly examine all the debate, and particularly examine the very learned observations of the learned and hon. member for York South which will be found on pages 11958 and 11959 of Hansard, and examine the arguments of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, the hon. member for Acadia and the hon. member for Peace River, I think it will be found the objection everyone took to proposed section 329 was not to any of the ancillary features such as the inclusion of the definition of types of grain and grain products, which in order to have an adequate bill need to be included somewhere, but to the provision for a mandatory review.
This is what I referred to as "the baby" and what I understood the hon. member for Macleod was referring to as "the baby". I thought what he meant by the "bath water" was what I have not made any attempt to ask the committee to reverse itself upon. My understanding was that the principle in the clause to which hon. members objected was that there was to be a mandatory review of revenues and costs in regard to these rates on grain whether or not anyone asked for it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, no, that is wrong.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was only one objection.
January 24, 1967


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam made that very clear, and I could quote his words. He made an argument which impressed me.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: But not the rest of us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not interrupt the hon. gentleman, and we are talking about a very serious matter. As I understood it, the argument was that by this declaration by parliament that there must be a mandatory review of these rates we were creating the presumption that the rates were not compensatory. Hon. gentlemen opposite said this was not the type of neutral attitude which should be taken.
Most hon. members opposite argued eloquently that the rates were compensatory and there was no need for such a review. I decided, therefore, that I would not ask that these rates be reviewed, and I would not seek unanimous consent or anything else that required the commission to make a review unless there was an application for such a review. This is the first point.
The second point is that I realized there were other rates than the rates on grain which were also statutory.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: List them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, the port parity rates about which we had a considerable discussion yesterday would come into that category; the frozen rates for the Atlantic region would also come into that category. One of the reasons I could not give a more detailed answer yesterday to the hon. member for Saint John-Albert was that there are, I am informed, some 2,700 railway acts of one kind or another that have been passed since confederation. I am sure that perhaps 95 per cent of them do not set any statutory rates, but in order to be certain they all have to be examined.
I decided also that the principle which underlies the whole bill, that if a duty is imposed upon the railways by parliament the railways should be compensated for carrying out that duty if the revenues they receive do not compensate for that purpose, should be followed. This principle runs through the whole bill in reference to branch lines, passenger service and everything else. It seemed to me that to be consistent we should cover all these contingencies in the present bill. In addition, there is a provision that power should be given to the commission to set aside
Transportation
rates and to substitute its own rates. It seemed to me that any such rates which are set, to some degree arbitrarily by the commission, should be capable of being reviewed upon application.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is only an argument. Deal with the question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My point is that the amendment which is before us now is different in principle and in nature from the clause that was taken out. Hon. gentlemen argued that it was not. I have already made three points on which it differs. In the first place, proposed section 329 required the commission to conduct a review whether or not anyone asked for it. This was a duty put upon the commission by parliament. This amendment does not require any review to be made of any of these rates unless an application is made by a railway company. This is a fundamental difference.
The second point is that proposed section 329 applied only to the Crowsnest rates and related grain rates, while this amendment applies to the whole gamut of statutory rates. It does not apply merely to statutory rates. It applies also, at such time as two years may have elapsed after any decision is made by the commission, to any substituted rate. In other words, this provision is part of the permanent scheme of the legislation. Proposed section 329 would have caused an investigation once and then it would have been over. This is a permanent part of the structure of the commission.
In the same way as clause 16 gives the shipper and other interested parties the right to appeal against any carrier on the grounds that the rates are not in the public interest because they give an undue advantage or for any number of reasons, the railways, having imposed on them a duty by parliament, are to be given the opportunity, but not earlier than two years after the bill comes into effect in respect of statutory rates or two years after a substituted rate may come into effect, to ask for an investigation into the revenues and costs so that these revenues and costs can be determined. Now, it seems to me that is a fundamental difference.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
There is one part of the clause that is similar to the proposed amendment, that is to say, that part of the clause which enumerates various categories and kinds of grain and grain products that are not covered strictly

January 24, 1967
Transportation
by statute but to which this bill is designed to continue to give protection.
If the hon. gentleman had concentrated on that part of the amendment I think he might have argued that that part came pretty close to the line, but I was quite sure that everyone wanted those definitions put back in and that there would be no question about putting them back in. I am sure that the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale wants them back in, and so do I and I believe everybody else. However, I gather that is not the point raised by the hon. gentleman.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. gentleman answer a question at this stage?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be glad to.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Under the new amendment when an application is made by a railway for a review of the rates that application must be heard by the commission in the same way that the former section 329 was mandatory in the matter of a review. In this respect both of these sections demand that there be a review. In other words, they are both mandatory. Would the minister not be fair and answer yes to that question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I certainly will not answer yes to that question. In the one case parliament is saying that there must be a review whether anyone asks for it or not. In the other case there will be no review at all unless by the voluntary act of the railway company a review is asked for. This is as different in principle as any two procedures could possibly be. It is one thing to set up a court and to say that certain people may apply to the court for relief; it is another thing to say that the court must look into the situation regardless of whether anybody asks any questions.
As I understood it, hon. gentlemen objected to all the presumptions that they said were involved in the government asking parliament to direct the commission to have a mandatory review. They did not want any conceivable presumptions of that sort created.
I confess that this argument did impress me. Mind you, Mr. Chairman, I did not think that in fact it did create a presumption, but I could see how people might feel that it did. It seemed to me that it was very much better to have a provision that threw the complete onus on the railway of saying that they had a case that they wanted to put. Once that case has been put, of course, the commission hears

it and makes whatever finding the facts justify.
This, Mr. Chairman, is an entirely different thing from creating any kind of presumption whatever. You might just as well say that because a shipper under clause 16 is permitted to go to the commission and allege there is some undue disadvantage or some other factor that is contrary to the public interest, this is creating the presumption that the railways are setting rates which put one person at an undue disadvantage compared with another. All this amendment does, Mr. Chairman, is to provide a remedy in the event that a wrong of this nature is committed. For these reasons I suggest that the amendment is, in its essential nature, quite different from the clause that was stricken out by the vote, and I therefore submit it is in order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, we have no amendment before us, it not having been moved yet. What we are doing in effect is discussing in anticipation an amendment-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman is not wrong. My hon. friend the Minister of Fisheries moved the amendment yesterday afternoon and it is before the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Even though it appears in Hansard that the Minister of Fisheries indicated he moved it, I took it from the minister that in fact it had not been moved. Be that as it may, we have listened to the minister working with Herculean effort to explain the unexplainable. He quite frankly admits he was deeply impressed by the argument made by members of the opposition in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, namely, that what was being done in the original section was in fact to bring about a mandatory declaration that in three years there should be a review. So impressed was he by that argument, Mr. Chairman, which he now admits was effective, that he and every Liberal member voted against the amendment. This indicates either that today he is telling us the facts or that when he voted he was voting against what he believed was proper and fitting.
What concerns me most is that the Crowsnest agreement will indeed be placed in jeopardy by any amendments that can be made thereto. It is very well to say that they are ratified by section 328 as being in effect, but by this process of infiltration and erosion the government is actually asking parliament
January 24, 1987

to place its approval on potential measures that may ultimately spell the extinction of the Crowsnest rates.
All we have before us today is a declaration by parliament that the provisions of the agreement made pursuant to chapter V of the Statutes of Canada, 1897, will remain in effect. I am very concerned about what is taking place here. All through the years the Crowsnest pass rates have been challenged. Looking back to the elections of 1925 and 1926, the stand taken at that time by the leader of the Conservative party, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, was that freight rates ought not to be fixed by parliament, that this was a dangerous step to take, that their revision should be subject to the regular application of recognized principles.
I was a candidate in those elections, and all over western Canada the guiding inspiration of the minister of transport moved from meeting to meeting. I can get the quotations, Mr. Chairman; Right Hon. Mackenzie King in lachrymose words spoke of the danger to the Crowsnest rates. He stood against any interference or intervention with respect to those rates; through the succeeding years the people of western Canada have similarly stood. The rates have remained unchanged. The stand of these people has been that these rates are inviolate and shall so remain. We cannot permit that stand to be challenged.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I am not in any way casting doubts or reflections on the vote that took place on the amendment by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, but the Liberal party today is in the position where it cannot answer the criticism of having opened the door, while pretending not to, to that which ultimately can destroy these rates. In effect that is what that party is asking parliament to do.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has placed before me quotations to be found in Hansard of June 16, 1925, at page 4330. No doubt he will be referring to them when he speaks. The fact is that I know from personal experience, without reading what somebody else said, what the reaction of the people was. And what has happened?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the right hon. gentleman permit me to ask a question?


John George Diefenbaker: No. The hon. gentleman may as soon as I have developed this point. The Minister of Transport comes in with beaming face and gives credit to everybody, even the hon. member for Macleod whose
Transportation
interruption last night debunked the minister's argument. Even that hon. member was the recipient of encomiums which the minister handed out, with his eyes at the same time on the objective of weakening what has been called the Magna Carta of the western economy.
I say to the minister, you will not get away with it. You may succeed in having here those in the Liberal ranks who were absent without leave when the vote took place the other day, but you will not get away with this. This is simply an operation whereby you introduce into the law a recognition by parliament that these rates shall be subject to examination from time to time, though not mandatorily as originally provided for in the legislation.
The minister said, "Don't you see the change I have made? Previously I provided that there should be a mandatory examination but now it is all different. I leave it to the railways to apply." They do not need any mandatory provision. They will be there. After all, the door is open for them. Do you think that at the very first opportunity they will not take advantage of this provision? Why, it is like putting a weasel in a chicken pen and saying, "Be good to the chickens". Here we are providing for a welcome in advance to the railways to make an application to show they are not fairly treated, something they have been claiming for years.
The hon. gentleman is steeped in the classics, but the story of the Trojan horse is nothing compared to what the minister is attempting to do here. He spent a long time explaining what had taken place and the reasons for it. Why have these provisions at all? Why weaken and undermine the Crowsnest pass rates? Those rates were fixed not for one hour, not for one year, but for all time. That was the understanding.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: At the first opportunity after passage of this legislation the railways will rush in. There can be no condemnation of that because they will say, "Parliament gave us the right." The Minister of Transport found he could not do it mandatorily, so the mandatory principle goes out and magnanimously the minister provides for a voluntary initiative by the railway companies. Will they not take advantage of it? The minister shrugs his shoulders.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is ridiculous.

January 24, 1967
Transportation


John George Diefenbaker: The companies are given an invitation: "Come in, the water is fine, provision has been made by parliament." The minister shrugs his shoulders. He cannot believe that the railway companies would ever think of doing that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is his deal.


John George Diefenbaker: This is a preposterous posture on his part. He shrugs his shoulders. This action is dangerous. This is doing what the rules provide shall not be done. I know with what heavy hearts the minister and those associated with him viewed the vote the other night. If that had happened when we were in office they would have howled to high heaven, "Resign". I can just hear the refrain. They are trying to get away from what happened the other night. It was one of the sharpest blows this government has had. Judging from the number of members on the government side now it would seem that it had its beneficial results.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, sir-


John George Diefenbaker: Sir, the ruling is clear. Surely, Mr. Chairman, you will not allow the Minister of Fisheries, by a subterfuge in wording, to do what this committee turned down.
The same argument has been made by the hon. member for Calgary-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Bow River.


John George Diefenbaker: I beg your pardon. I mean the argument of the hon. member for Bow River. The names of constituencies have been changed so much that it is difficult to know exactly what each constituency is in Alberta and elsewhere.
We challenge the right of the minister by casuistry to do that which the rules deny. I say to the members of the Liberal party that what they are doing in this connection shows their purpose in the original section 329(1) which was turned down. They are trying to put themselves in a position whereby these rates can be challenged not mandatorily but at will.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman would permit me to say something. I know he does not want to mislead. He realizes that the rates cannot be challenged at all, that the investigation provided for has nothing to do with the rates. It has to do with the revenues and costs.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, that is no question. This is another of those dolled up arguments of the hon. gentleman. He is trying to explain something about which he has a bad conscience, and with some reason. If this amendment is carried I say to the government that they will have even greater difficulty in western Canada explaining why they deserve support. Indeed, I would think that that paragon of political perfection-I say that in the most commending way-the premier of Saskatchewan, may again find it necessary to utter words of criticism regarding this government.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
How dangerous this amendment is is shown by the western agricultural conference meeting at the Fort Garry Hotel in Winnipeg at the present time. The annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture will conclude on Thursday, January 26, and I have received a message underlining precisely the point I am trying to make. Ever since his defeat in the committee the minister has been trying to explain. He had some of his departmental officials in Winnipeg explain how beneficial section 329 would be. They had not read it or they would not have been misled. The telegram I have received, and I leave out no portion of it, reads as follows:
Western agricultural conference of CFA in session in Winnipeg disturbed by press reports about parliamentary vote on section 329 of the transport Bill C-231 and urges all parties assure that final draft of the bill provide that statutory freight rates continue to apply on all prairie grains including rapeseed and grain products moving from prairie points to export positions at all terminal locations at Lakehead, Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Churchill at levels which existed on December 31, 1966. Please find opportunity to assure western farmers on this matter before Canadian Federation of Agriculture annual meeting adjourns on Thursday, January 26.
James R. McFall, Secretary, Western Agricultural Conference, Fort Garry Hotel, Winnipeg.
That is what we are trying to do by means of arguments such as those advanced by my hon. friend from Bow River. We are trying to assure the western farmer that this kind of monkey business will not be countenanced. That is the reason I rose today, to point out to you, sir, that if an amendment of this type can be allowed, then all that is necessary, when the government has been defeated on an amendment, is for it to make a few changes and then come back and say, whether it is almost the same or not, we have something new; there are more words in it. However many more words there are may be the danger is still there.
January 24, 1967

Reauchesne's third edition, citation 285 on page 113, states:
A mere alteration of the words of a question, without any substantial change in its object will not be sufficient to evade the rule that no question shall be offered which is substantially the same as one which has already been expressed in the current session.
We have the minister's own admission-I take it from his argument-that no substantial change has been introduced. The citation goes on:
It is possible, however, so far to vary the character of a motion as to withdraw it from the operation of the rule.
That has not been done. The rule is clear. What is being sought by the minister today is an opportunity to repair the damage done to the government as the result of their amendment having been voted down by the substitution of an amendment containing a few extra words but with the same intent, thereby endeavouring to save face in consequence of the inexcusable failure of the membership supporting the government to be present to assist the valiant efforts of the minister. There were times when he stood over there like the boy on the burning deck whence all others had fled. He wants another opportunity to get the boys back so that he can save himself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I don't want the deck to burn.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak in support of the point of order raised initially this afternoon by the hon. member for Bow River. At the outset may I deal briefly with the point which has been mentioned, though admittedly not pressed, to the effect that this point of order was not raised at the earliest possible opportunity, which would have been yesterday. I recognize that the minister did not press the point, but it was mentioned and the Chair might be thinking of it. May I, therefore, draw Your Honour's attention to citation 405(1) on page 285 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. It reads as follows:
If it should appear in the course of discussion that an amendment which has been allowed to be moved and which has not yet been agreed to, is out of order, the Chair directs the committee's attention to the fact and withdraws the amendment from the consideration of the committee.
It seems to me we are in that position. The amendment was moved yesterday, but for the obvious reason that time was needed in order to consider such a lengthy amendment the
Transportation
point of order was not raised until today. There has been some discussion of the amendment but it has not been agreed to and I therefore submit that it is in order to question its validity at this time.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw your attention to a few citations which I believe to be relevant in this case. One or two have already been noted. I have two or three which have not yet been quoted. Having presented to you citations which in my opinion make it crystal clear that one cannot in committee seek to reverse a decision which has already been made, I will deal with the question whether or not the amendment now proposed by the Minister of Fisheries is substantially the same as the proposition which was defeated on Wednesday of last week.
Under the first heading, namely citations which should guide us in our discussion, may I first read from Beauchesne's fourth edition citation 200 (1) which is to be found on page 167.
An old rule of parliament reads: "That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the house." Unless such a rule were in existence, the time of the house might be used in the discussion of motions of the same nature and contradictory decisions would be sometimes arrived at in the course of the same session.
And there is, of course, citation 288 which makes it clear that the rules that apply in the house apply also in committee of the whole house. Therefore the rule I have quoted, though it refers to the house, applies also to the committee of the whole.
But let me go on to quote from citation 402 (2). I ask that particular attention be paid to these words:
A new clause will not be entertained if it is beyond the scope of a bill, inconsistent with clauses agreed to by the committee, or substantially the same as a clause previously negatived.
That is brief, to the point, and as clear as it can be. I believe even the Minister of Transport must realize how clear it is. That citation is to be found on page 284 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. It is one which has not been quoted so far.
A new clause will not be entertained if it is beyond the scope of the bill-
I do not allege that.
-inconsistent with clauses agreed to by the committee-

January 24, 1967
Transportation
I do not think I would allege that either, though one might say it was inconsistent with what was done when we were on clause 50.
-or substantially the same as a clause previously negatived.
That last phrase is clearly applicable. It is our contention that the new clause which the Minister of Fisheries is now seeking to put into the bill is substantially the same as section 329 which was negatived when we were dealing with clause 50.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Let me give you another citation, Mr. Chairman, No. 406 on page 285 of Beau-chesne's fourth edition. There are five parts to this citation but it is part (c) which is appropriate:
Amendments are out of order if they are...
(e) inconsistent with a decision which the committee has given upon a former amendment.
There was an amendment to clause 50 which took out the proposed review of certain statutory rates and it seems to me that this proposition, which brings in by another amendment something that is inconsistent with the decision we took when we were on clause 50, is therefore clearly out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has he considered the point raised by the hon. member for York South that that provision was redundant because the house had already taken a decision on the same point in clause 15? If that is the case, surely it could not be argued that it was inconsistent with a decision taken by the house in one case rather than the other?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister strikes me as a drowning man grasping for a straw in trying to see the problem as between clause 15 and clause 50 as having any relationship to the problem now before us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for York South argued that the clause was quite unnecessary because we had already accepted exactly the same proposition in clause 15.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister is going to rely on that argument-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I just thought the hon. member would try to be consistent with the hon. member for York South.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister is putting that argument forward then he should argue that what he is now proposing in clause 74 is not necessary at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am arguing that what I am proposing is different. That is the precise point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, when I started to speak I said I would divide my remarks under two headings, the first dealing with the citations which lay down the law on this point and the second dealing with the question of whether the new proposal is substantially the same as the one which was rejected the other day.
I would refer hon. members to Bourinot's fourth edition. On page 329 there is a fair amount of material on the question of reversing a former decision. Bourinot says:
But when a question has once been negatived, it is not allowable to propose it again, even if the form and words of the motion are different from those of the previous motion.
A few moments ago the Leader of the Opposition quoted something from Beau-chesne's third edition which is also in the fourth edition. It is citation 63 in the fourth edition. I think it is extremely relevant and it is similar to what I have just quoted from Bourinot. It says:
A mere alteration of the words of a question, without any substantial change in its object, will not be sufficient to evade the rule that no question shall be offered which is substantially the same as one which has already been expressed in the current session.
I want to come back to that language again when I compare the two motions, because I think the word "object" in the citation which the Leader of the Opposition read, and which I have reread, is crucial to the discussion.
Let me go back again to Bourinot and point out that on pages 328, 329 and 330 of this fourth edition he deals with this matter and points out that it is something which comes up very often in committee of the whole on a bill. In other words, these citations deal precisely with the kind of situation in which we now find ourselves. At one point Bourinot says:
The English journals are full of examples of the evasion of the rule which the house has permitted. In all such cases, the character of the motion has been changed sufficiently to enable the member interested to bring it before the house. Such motions, however, must be very carefully considered, in order to guard against a palpable violation of a wholesome rule.
January 24, 1967

Bourinot must have known who was going to be Minister of Transport some day when he used that language, that one has to be very careful "in order to guard against a palpable violation of a wholesome rule."
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I submit for your consideration that there cannot be any argument as to what the citations say is the rule. The rule is that when we are in committee of the whole on a bill and we have negatived a proposition we cannot be asked to vote again on that some proposition by another amendment somewhere else in the bill. This is precisely what the government is asking, and it is clearly out of order.
There may be ways to get around this. There is the device which the opposition frequently uses of an amendment on third reading to refer back to the committee of the whole for reconsideration, and there is the device under which a vote that has been taken can be rescinded. However, the minister does not seem willing to try these devices that are provided in the rules. Rather, he seems to want to try to do something which some of us contend is against the rules.
I said that the first part of my remarks would deal with the citations and I think that those of us who have dealt with this matter, the hon. member for Bow River, the Leader of the Opposition and I, in giving these citations have made it clear that an amendment at another place in the bill to reverse a decision already made, an amendment to put in something that has already been negatived, is clearly out of order. It is perfectly proper, however, to ask whether the amendment now proposed by the Minister of Fisheries is substantially the same as what was thrown out in the 59-58 vote that took place in the committee last Wednesday. I draw Your Honour's attention to all the citations we have read. They all refer to language that is similar, that is substantially the same. They do not just say that an amendment is out of order only if it uses exactly the same words. They say clearly that, even though the words may be changed, if the object is the same then the amendment violates the rule.
What was the object of new section 329 in clause 50? The object was to provide for a review by the Canadian Transportation Commission of the Crowsnest pass rates.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, yes. And what is the object of the proposed amendment to clause
Transportation
74? The object is to make possible a review of the Crowsnest pass rates.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the former case it was compulsory in the sense that parliament was directing the commission to take the action of holding a review. Is there any difference now? Sometimes the more things are different the more they are the same. Now the railways have to ask for a review, but having asked for it the language of the amendment moved yesterday by the Minister of Fisheries makes it clear that an investigation will be held and so the net result is precisely the same.
I suppose it might be argued that there is a slight difference. In the former case a review could not take place until after three years. Now it can take place after two years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman should get his facts right. In the amendment which was thrown out a compulsory review was required within three years.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: I accept the correction. In the former case a review was compulsory within three years. In other words, it was not necessary to have it until two years and 11 months had gone by. Now, it is possible to have it when two years have gone by. So we are arguing about a few months. Surely the net result is precisely the same, namely, a review of the Crowsnest pass rates. The minister says that this is different. He said that the commission could go into all the other statutory regulations and other rates which might be set between now and some future date. If Your Honour will again look at some of the citations you will see that it is in order to bring in an amendment which relates to something which has been before the house previously when it comprises only a part and not the whole of the resolution previously voted on by the house. The minister attempts to say that this is different because there are a lot of other things in it which were not in the previous one, that is, that all the statutory rates are in it and not just the Crowsnest pass rates. But that does not bring it within the exceptions which Bourinot provides. So far as what was there before is concerned it is there again in the amendment which is now before us.
The minister said that what the house was arguing against when section 329 was before us was a presumption that because it was in the act these rates were possibly not compensatory. Yesterday when he was indulging in a

January 24, 1967
Transportation
fine example of Pickersgilliana he told us he was not trying to get the house to reverse itself at all. He said he understood that what the house did not like was the presumption in the legislation that this review should be made because the rates were perhaps not compensatory. I submit that the same fault still pertains. It is in the legislation that the companies can ask for a review. They do not need it in the bill to be able to ask for it. They have been askng for this sort of thing for months. Now, if this amendment is in order and should it go through this-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is an invitation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is an invitation, as the hon. member for Bow River says, for the companies to go before the transportation commission with the blessing of the act behind them and with the guarantee that they can get a hearing.
I submit that all the elements of presumption that were there before are there now. I do not know how anyone can argue that this is a different proposition and therefore that it can get under the wire. In the light of some of the things suggested by Bourinot and Beauchesne this is beyond my capacity to understand. To use the language of the authorities concerning the word "object", the object is the same. The companies wanted this. No doubt this is what they indicated to the government last fall when the railway strike was on. One of the things they wanted was a review of the Crowsnest pass rates. Section 329 was designed to give them that review; it was defeated. Clause 74 which is now before us is asking that that review be given. It is precisely the same thing. Furthermore, the element of presumption is there in that if this motion were to pass it would give to the actions the companies would take all the sanctity of an act of parliament. I submit that in effect the Minister of Transport who spent time in halls of the same institution of learning in which I learned a few-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I taught, but I did not teach the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is the reason the hon. member learned a few things.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I sometimes wonder what he learned there. I submit that the minister was teaching things secular while I was studying things theological. I think the wires got crossed a bit. I believe he learned a few

tricks. The minister found it possible yesterday to stand up in this house and to say with all the charm of which he is capable, to say in his suave convincing way, that he was not asking us to reverse our position. But that is precisely what he is doing. He cannot argue himself out of that. I submit, Your Honour, that you should find that this proposed amendment to clause 74 is substantially the same as the proposition that was negatived when we took the vote on the amendment to clause 50 and that therefore it is in violation of the clearly stated rules which govern the procedures of this house.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Bow River has raised a very important point of order and one that I mentioned briefly at the time the vote was taken. I believe that the Minister of Transport, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre who moved the amendment which deleted section 329, and some other members of the house including the member for Medicine Hat, have some explaining to do. I say that for this reason. In the debate led by the Minister of Transport many of the other members who were involved were led to believe immediately after the vote was taken that the definition of grain and other parts of subsection 2 of section 329 were in effect essential for the continued functioning and operation of the Crowsnest pass rates as they are applied today. Now, after much more careful examination of section 329 which was deleted I am led to believe-if I was somewhat led astray before perhaps it could happen again-that all of the subsequent subsections after subsection 1 are in fact the rules under which subsection 1 shall apply and relate to nothing else at all. It is unnecessary to have those other provisions in the bill for the continued operation of the Crowsnest pass rates. They cover all grain and grain products such as flour and so on.


Mr. Baldwin:: Except rapeseed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member says "except rapeseed". I would think they apply even to rapeseed. If one takes all these subsections together as I have done very carefully, it will be found that subsection 2 of the same section simply says that no action shall be taken under subsection 1 in respect of any railway company that has increased the level of rates prevailing on the 31st day of December, 1966. Then it goes on to spell out the products which can be hauled. It does not say and does
January 24, 1967

not need to say that they are to be hauled at the lowest rate for grain and grain products.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for
Medicine Hat is speaking on a point of order.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The hon. member rose to speak on a point of order but he is not speaking on the point of order. He is giving an alibi for not voting.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not giving any alibi for anything. I am simply pointing out there were some members who based their argument, immediately following and preceding the vote, on the fact that the definitions were required in the new bill. I suggest that all of the subsections which followed subsection 1 in section 329 were in fact the rules and regulations, but that subsection 1 was the operative provision and it was deleted. The reason I say this is that if hon. members are convinced they perhaps voted inadvertently to delete something that they want in the bill, this is dealt with in Beauchesne's fourth edition at page 137. The third paragraph of citation 162 reads:
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Sometimes the house may not be prepared to rescind a resolution, but may be willing to modify its judgment by considering and agreeing to another resolution relating to the same object.
Therefore the committee, if it inadvertently acted to destroy something essential in the bill, under this rule need not necessarily have rescinded the whole section because it wanted to get rid of subsection 1 but could have modified its judgment to retain those provisions essential to the bill and particularly to other sections of the bill. Having carefully considered the whole of section 329, which was deleted and the new clause 74 now before the committee, I find I am in a measure of agreement with the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in saying that the minister is coming back with what is in some ways the same objective that was contained in section 329.
I agree with the minister that there are some differences. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you take these differences into consideration in ascertaining whether in your judgment they are sufficient to justify the amendment of the Minister of Fisheries to clause 74. One thing the amendment does is to change the time, although the discussion between the
Transportation
minister and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not seem to determine that there was any significant change in the time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could put a question to the hon. gentleman? Has he considered the matter of the substituted rates? Surely this is a very substantial difference from anything that was in section 329.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I did consider that matter because, as I said, I have looked at section 329 and the amendment rather carefully since this matter arose. There is no doubt that the substituted rates now included in new clause 74 constitute an addition to what was contained in section 329. There are also some other changes. For example, this amendment includes a provision for a representative of the Crown to attend hearings before the commission. This provision was not contained in section 329. A representative of the Crown may attend hearings before the commission to defend and promote the case for the public interest.
The amendment brings back almost in identical words the definitions of grain products, maintaining related rates, and so on. The minister has also argued that the committee took a decision with respect to clause 15 which provides that the Governor in Council with the new transport commission would in fact have the authority to initiate and undertake an investigation of these very matters. I refer Your Honour and the minister to clause 15 (1) (e) which provides as follows:
In addition to its powers, duties and functions under the Railway Act, the Aeronautics Act and the Transport Act, the commission shall
(e) inquire into and report to the minister upon possible financial measures required for direct assistance to any mode of transport and the method of administration of any measures that may be approved;
I suggest that this clause could be interpreted in a way that would in fact give the minister and the new transport commission the power to do exactly what is proposed in so far as clause 74 is concerned and in so far as section 329 was concerned. There are some minor changes but the difference between clause 74, as I see it, and clause 15 (1) (e) is that if the minister were to invoke the provisions of clause 15 (1) (e) as soon as this legislation is proclaimed he could ask the transport commission to get a study under way. If clause 74-this is the difference in the clause-were passed, the minister and the transport commission would be prevented

January 24, 1967
Transportation
from making any inquiry of this nature for at least two years and the railway companies would be prevented from making application for a hearing for at least two years. Therefore, if we are to have this provision in clause 15 (1) (e) it would perhaps be an improvement if a similar provision were in clause 74 so that the minister and the transport commission could not initiate such an investigation for at least two years.
This does not change the argument that has been advanced by the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, namely, that it would appear that the objective contained in section 329, on which the committee has made its decision, and that contained in clause 74 are so identical that we need to consider very carefully the reintroduction of this principle or we will violate the rule that disallows the reintroduction of essentially the same subject matter in the same session.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Right.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal specifically with the problem before us and the rule which I think is being violated, but may I first make an introductory remark or two. Last week I read what I thought was a very interesting and amusing article by Mr. Charles Lynch in which he mentioned that he was a watcher. He said that in the mornings he watched Mao in China, and in the afternoons he watched Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker and reached conclusions with regard to both gentlemen. He acknowledged the error in his conclusions with regard to both. I am a watcher but I watch, morning, noon and night, the Minister of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have been doing this for years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at night, thank heaven.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have warned my colleagues about this. I find it an interesting occupation. It consumes quite a bit of time. But I have always paid tribute to the Minister of Transport in that he keeps us alert because he is quite sharp. I am not going to say he is tricky; I will not use that word. His movements are rapid and sometimes are concealed from casual view. Therefore we have to be very alert in the House of Commons. We have to examine with care what he puts in front of us. We have to listen carefully to

his words, because sometimes there is an additional meaning that is not noticeable to those who are not following the debate very carefully. Therefore, as I have said before, I shall miss him when he goes to the Senate. He keeps me young here in the house because I am constantly mentally alert watching what he is doing.
We have watched the minister in regard to this matter. Last night when the amendment was introduced we carefully reserved our position and said we would have to study it overnight to see whether it was satisfactory. That is why we did not immediately challenge the amendment. The minister, very kindly-and he can be quite a good parliamentarian on occasion-said: Well, we will stand this matter until tomorrow.
That is the situation in which we find ourselves. We have made our examination, we have studied the rules, and we are approaching the subject today. I hope there will be no complaint, sir, about our spending time on this particular rule. There are people who criticize and say that now and again the house gets involved in procedural wrangles, as they call them. We are dealing today with one of the fundamental rules affecting parliament. I believe that this rule has a history of 350 years. Just because a rule is old it is not necessarily good, but this rule has been renewed and re-emphasized during the last three and a half centuries so there must be some substance to it.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
If you examine it even casually I think you will see that parliament could not operate if a decision reached by the house could be almost immediately reversed on the basis of a slip on the part of a member of one party or another or because additional members were available an hour or two after a vote was taken. If decisions could be reversed easily then parliament would gradually lose a great deal of its importance. I make no apology at all for entering this debate or for asking the committee and the chairman to give this matter careful consideration.
When 1 was explaining yesterday why I moved the amendment in respect of section 329 in short form I indicated that there was complexity involved and that I selected a short form with the expectation that the minister and his officials would bring forward any substitution required. It was my expectation that the substitution to be brought forward by the minister would apply only to section 329, subsection 4, which was the one
January 24, 1967

causing some difficulty. The marginal note refers to the meaning of grain and grain products. At the time I moved the amendment I was not at all certain as to the definition of grain and grain products. I said yesterday that after a considerable search of the statutes I could not find a comprehensive definition of grain or any definition at all of grain products. At the time I moved the amendment I was not in a position to phrase it in such a way that those references would be retained in the bill. That is what I thought the minister and his officials would consider. I did not anticipate that they would attempt to bring back the whole section in a modified form.
In the course of the remarks of those who preceded me attention was drawn to a number of references which I will not repeat. However, I should like to direct your attention, Mr. Chairman, to one or two more references because, in view of the importance attached to this fundamental matter, I think there should be a record in Hansard for the benefit of those who may wish to refer to this debate and the ruling of the Chair.
I direct your attention to Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, page 328, paragraph IX, which is headed "Renewal of a question during a session". It states in part:
It Is, however, an ancient rule of parliament that no question or motion can regularly he offered if it is substantially the same with one on which the judgment of the house has already been expressed during the current session. "The old rule of parliament reads: "That a question being once made, and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again, but must stand as a judgment of the house". Unless such a rule were in existence, the time of the house might be used in the discussion of motions of the same nature and contradictory decisions would be sometimes arrived at in the course of the same session.
On page 329 of Bourinot appears those comments which were referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Another reference appears in Bourinot at page 545. It is headed "A bill, once rejected, not to be again offered in the same session-Exceptions to rule." I hope the chairman will look at this reference. I should like to read one sentence which appears about half way down the page. It reads:
But if an amendment has been rejected in a committee of the whole on a bill, it cannot be proposed again during the pendency of the bill in the committee.
In order that the chairman may have the benefit of any research we on this side of the 23033-770
Transportation
house have been able to carry out, let me place on record a statement from May's fifteenth edition at page 380 under the heading "Matters already decided during the same session". The following is stated:
A motion or an amendment may not be brought forward which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided in the affirmative or negative during the current session. The rule may be fully stated as follows: -No question or bill shall be offered in either house that is substantially the same as one on which its judgment has already been expressed in the current session.
At page 382 there appears a paragraph headed "Repetition of motions which have been negatived". It states:
The most frequent attempt against the rule is to seek to evade it by raising again with verbal alterations the essential portions of motions which have been negatived.
Let me read this paragraph which appears at page 397:
With regard to the whole matter it may be stated generally that the reason why motions for open rescission are so rare and why the rules of procedure carefully guard against the indirect rescission of votes, is that both houses instinctively realize, as a precedent referred to above shows, that parliamentary government requires the majority to abide by a decision regularly come to, however unexpected, and that it is unfair to resort to methods, whether direct or indirect, to reverse such a decision. The practice, resulting from this feeling, is essentially a safeguard for the rights of the minority, and a contrary practice is not normally resorted to, unless in the circumstances of a particular case those rights are in no way threatened.
Those are the references which I draw to the attention of the Chair. In light of those references and the importance which Beau-chesne, Bourinot and May attach to this fundamental question, I hope the chairman will be assisted in reaching his decision.
I will not repeat the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Bow River and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition on the substance of this matter. I will not go into other particulars concerning the debate we had the other day because I think our case in that regard has been presented. I have attempted to deal solely with the rule by presenting supporting authority. It is my belief that the house made a decision in respect of a review of the Crowsnest rates. The minister, by using different words, is attempting indirectly to reverse that decision. The object of his amendment is exactly the same. It is in support of the rule which prohibits that indirect method of reversing a decision of the house that I have presented my argument.
Transportation

January 24, 1967
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, in dealing with whether or not the amendment to clause 74 meets the rules of the house some remarks were made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat in which he drew attention to the various items in the new clause 74 which were not a part of the original proposed section 329. I did not hear the hon. member refer specifically to proposed section 472 of clause 74. This particular section is not related to the old section 329 but refers specifically to the matter which I raised in connection with proposed section 328, subsection 2, in respect of domestic grain rates between prairie points and British Columbia.
There was discussion between me and the minister in respect of how the same provision could be maintained in the bill. I wanted to make sure that before the bill passed we had placed in the bill some arrangement whereby the problem facing the farmers of British Columbia could be adequately reviewed and the results of that review drawn to the attention of the cabinet for action.
My only purpose in rising at this moment is to protect the clause I have fought for in interviews with the minister and on the floor of this house, although the provision is not really associated with the Crowsnest rates but with domestic rates on grain into British Columbia. This is a problem which faces the farmers of British Columbia but does not face farmers in other parts of Canada. I simply want to be on record at this moment as indicating that this particular clause is specifically related to proposed section 328(2) which I believe has not been passed yet. I believe it will be voted upon eventually when clause 50 is brought before the committee to be tidied up.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak too long on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Bow River. I did notice with interest the remarks made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat who tried to explain why, a few days after this party had shown him the action that should be taken to defend his people, he had weasled on the appropriate occasion but now wants to defend his action. This did not throw much light on the point of order.
I was amazed at the minister's smooth defence of the significance of the change in wording, since there is not much difference between the amendment and the proposed section we threw out last week. I had hoped the minister would entertain a question from

me but he declined to do so. One of the essential differences the minister mentioned between this amendment and the deleted section was that the deleted section contained an obligatory provision while the amendment does not. In other words, the old section we threw out required a review within three years while the amendment permits a review after two years.
In listening to the minister one might be led to believe that the members of this chamber are not in touch with the realities of life, are not supposed to know of the anxiety of the railways to open up the question of the Crowsnest rates. We are not supposed to know how anxious the railways are to use every device they can to get at these rates. We are not supposed to have listened to the debate on this question last week.
I was going to ask the minister, since there is no one in this house who has any doubt that given the slightest opportunity the railways will immediately make an application to review these rates, what he is suggesting in this amendment that is really new. He is suggesting an inevitable inquiry and therefore is saying that the huge difference between the amendment and the old section is the difference between mandatory and inevitable. I really believe it boils down to that, and if we are to be honest about it the minister's argument amounts to sophistry.
The second point the minister made was that this amendment is wider than the original section because it refers to other rates and not just the Crowsnest rates. It was pointed out earlier in the debate that clause 15, of course, covers other rates. Argument was advanced on whether the deleted section was really necessary in view of clause 15. I cannot, therefore, see much force in the minister's argument that the amendment broadens the old section, especially in view of the presence of clause 15. No one who has listened to the debate or to the minister's remarks could find any essential difference between what he said with reference to this amendment and what he said about the deleted section.
He has said that this provision could not be construed as an attack upon the Crowsnest rates and is only designed to have a look at the revenues and costs. This is precisely the argument he used all last week, that the provision was not an attack on the Crowsnest rates and did not open the door for an attack upon those rates. He was puzzled as to why members of the committee could not seem to understand his argument. He persisted in advancing it as though committee members
January 24, 19G7

were under some misapprehension and did not seem to understand that the commission would just be looking for information on revenues and costs.
The essence of the decision taken by the committee last week, in the light of that argument, was simply that the committee decided that no one should be invited or allowed to look into the question of revenues and costs because that could be interpreted as a springboard from which the Crowsnest rates could be attacked. The decision went that far, Mr. Chairman. Time after time when members on this side of the house advanced that argument, the argument was rejected. Since the minister is using the same argument in favour of the amendment before us today, I submit that the Chair must reject this amendment. There is no difference in his approach to the problem.
The minister is hoping that by changing the wording the committee will accept his version that this amendment is not an attack on the Crowsnest rates and that a review of costs and revenues should be allowed. However, the committee rejected that argument last week by a decisive vote. Once voted upon, that point should be dead. I must confess that I admire the ingenuity of the minister in the manner in which he attempts to introduce this amendment. I admire his ingenious arguments. I admire his effrontery when he tries to convince us that what is not so is so.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
As I have said before in the house, the minister's arguments have convinced me, to use an old Newfoundland saying, that he has, in common with the Minister of National Defence, that trait of character that handles the truth most awkward. I think it would be a very sorry day for our parliamentary rules, especially those governing orderly debate in the house and which state that once a question has been settled it cannot be revived, certainly not by this sort of stratagem, if we ever allowed so blatant a move as this, which merely amounts to a twisting of words, to achieve its objective. If this were the case it would render meaningless from this time on any vote taken in committee. It would mean that by twisting words a little later when the government had all its members present it could reverse a previous decision.
I submit there is nothing more telling against the minister than his own words which he used when debating this matter last week. He said that we should not look at revenues and costs because in doing so it
Transportation
might be used as a springboard to attack the rates. For this reason alone, Mr. Chairman, I ask you to disallow this amendment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I have been sitt.ng here waiting for understanding and comprehension to light up the face of the minister and for him to rise and say that he accepts the very valid arguments that have been advanced from this side of the house, on the assumption that not only would he have been thrilled by their quality but also excited by their quantity. However, I see that that is not the case so I must pursue for a brief period an extension of some of the propositions which have been made. I do so, Mr. Chairman, because this is a tremendously important issue. I think the minister is attempting in a very ingenious way to superimpose upon a previously accepted rule of the house what could be a very grave exception.
I do not propose to go over the statements made by the hon. member for Bow River, the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and others relating to the rules as contained within the four corners of Beauchesne, Bourinot and May. The rules are there and the minister is not quarrelling with them. The issue is the application of those rules to the fairly specific facts of this case. With this in mind, Mr. Chairman, what is the real pith and substance, the core or the root of what the amendment is trying to achieve? I submit we must compare the amendment with what the proposed section 32 which was struck out attempted to do. I believe there are three points to bear in mind. First, what are the subject matters to be dealt with? Second, what are they going to deal with? Third, what will be the results?
I think we can say there have been some additions to the subject matters. But I suggest that if Your Honour holds that this is the basis upon which you can distinguish this present amendment from others, then we are in for a lot of trouble.
Let me put the matter in concrete terms. Let us assume that there was a clause of this bill which provided that the sum of $100 million would be paid to the railway companies for subsidies by reason of their carrying grain at the Crowsnest rates. Let us assume that that clause was put to a vote and defeated in committee of the whole house. This having happened, Mr. Chairman, surely it would be impossible for the minister or the

January 24, 1967
Transportation
government to come back with another clause which proposed to grant $100 million in subsidies to the railways for carrying grain under the Crowsnest rates and a further $20 million in subsidies in regard to some other statutory rates, and for the minister to contend that this proposition was different as a result of the addition of other moneys or the addition of other subject matters involving recipients of the bounty of the people of Canada.
The entire subject matter of this amendment covers in specific terms, as it must, the subject matter dealt with in the proposed section 329 which was rejected. Consequently I submit that it is not a sound argument to say that because the government has added additional subject matters which can be dealt with by the transport commission it has changed in quality and in substance the original subject matter which was before the committee.
As to the third point, what can be achieved, very simply it is that the transport commission may examine and investigate and as a result of its investigation may make a recommendation to the governor in council in terms of money that certain payments be made in respect of the continuing carriage of grain by the railway companies at the Crowsnest rates. That end result, Mr. Chairman, is precisely the same as the end result of the first subject matter which was before the committee, the proposed section 329 which was rejected.
This leaves us, Mr. Chairman, with only the consideration of the third point, namely, the method by which the parties can go before the commission and by which the investigation is carried out. I suggest that whether the review is mandatory or whether it is permissive is immaterial. If this bill dealt exclusively with procedural matters, then the minister's argument would be sound. But it does not; it deals w-ith matters of substance. One of the matters of substance is an investigation by the board of whether or not under certain conditions a recommendation will be made to the governor in council for the payment of certain moneys. That is the pith and substance of that part of clause 74 that we are attacking, as it was the pith and substance of the proposed section 329.
So far as the actual grain is concerned I think there has been some misconception. As the minister realizes, when we talk of statutory rates we mean a number of things. We mean the rates applicable to the carriage of grain that were originally provided for in the

act of 1897 and extended in 1925. We mean the railway lines which were covered by that act and by the orders made by the Board of Transport Commissioners, as well as by subsequent voluntary action by the railway companies themselves for economic purposes in extending the benefits to other lines.
Grain also includes flax, which was interpreted by the Board of Transport Commissioners to be grain-this was a judicial decision as the minister knows-and it also includes rapeseed which was brought in by amendment in 1960 or 1961. So I do not think that there is any question as to the subject matters being identical.
I suggest that this is the point which the Chair must consider most carefully. In making this suggestion I suppose that we on this side are raising arguments which might well be used against us in opposition. After all, in most cases it is the opposition that attempts to introduce amendments and also tries to distinguish the amendments and rules under which they are brought in from other cases which have arisen in the past. I think it is some measure of the independence, integrity and honesty of this opposition that it is prepared to make a case on arguments that may be used against its members at some other time.


An hon. Member:: When we shortly form the next government.


Gerald William Baldwin: As someone suggests, they may be used against us when we shortly form the government. However, Mr. Chairman, this is the point that I ask Your Honour to consider most carefully. If you can make a distinction on a basis of this sort, then it seems to me that with a little ingenuity-and this house is full of ingenuity, as I have found -there will be no stopping the methods by which amendments can be moved despite the fact that at some previous time during the session this house may have come to a contrary decision on the same subject matter. It is on that basis that I ask Your Honour to consider this matter most carefully when making your ruling.
[DOT] 15:20 p.m.)
May I say a word to the minister, not on the point of order but as a suggestion. If the ruling is to the effect that the amendment is not properly made, all the minister has to do is to bring to an end all of clause 50 which includes the repealing of sections 328 and 329 of the old act. We would be back under the old act with respect to the carriage of grain at
January 24, 1967

the Crowsnest rates and all consequent and ancillary provisions would apply.
Under section 38 of the Railway Act the government can direct a reference to the new transport commission envisaged under clause 74. I say this quite sincerely, because I think a proper case can be made out for what I say. The government can direct an inquiry and if the transport commission as a result of the inquiry comes to the conclusion that the rates are not compensatory, that something ought to be done about them, the matter comes back to parliament. This has nothing to do with the point of order but I suggest to the minister that if his amendment is ruled out of order the position is not hopeless. There is a way out and that way I have suggested.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, if I may add a word on the point of order I wish to say something about the amendment to clause 74 proposed by the minister. I will not go into details about the rules as they have already been dealt with by others more able than I am. I say to you, sir, that you will be in difficulty if you accept this amendment as proper. The committee has already voted on the question of a review of the Crowsnest pass rates and has decided not to permit such a review. If the amendment before the committee is accepted as being in order it could mean that an amendment could be proposed to it and the committee once again could vote on the very question it decided last Wednesday. If this happens we can see that on other pieces of legislation there will be amendments to amendments to amendments, and votes on votes. In fact, this would destroy our parliamentary procedure in committee.
If the minister wishes this amendment to be accepted he should alter subsection 2 of section 470, which reads as follows:
Subject to subsection (3), a railway company under the jurisdiction of parliament may make an application to the commission to investigate the revenues and costs attributable to the carriage of any commodity-
After the words "any commodity" he should add "other than grain under the Crowsnest pass rates".


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I agree.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The committee has already ruled on the question before it and it cannot be introduced again. If the minister is worried about other statutory rates all he has to do is include the words "other than grain under the Crowsnest pass rates" after "any commodity" in subsection 2.
Transportation
Surely he knows the difficulty the committee will be in if this amendment is included in the bill. It will make a mockery of procedure. We ruled out by the vote last Wednesday a specific review of a specific statutory rate. The minister now wants to widen the base for a review. Other members have said that there is provision for that under clauses 15 and 38. This amendment is not necessary. It must be ruled out of order or the whole procedure in committees of parliament will be made a mockery. I urge you, sir, to rule the amendment out of order until such time as the minister redrafts it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Two or three points have been made and I feel I ought to say something about them. Perhaps I can deal with the point made by the hon. member for Peace River first. He suggested we might solve all problems by dropping clause 50. The hon. gentleman obviously has not read the last few pages of Hansard for last evening, because clause 50 has been adopted. In the argument he advances today he would ask the committee to reverse a decision already taken.


Gerald William Baldwin: By unanimous consent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We could have the committee by unanimous consent accept my clause, which is as easy as reversing clause 50. I am not the least impressed by the hon. member's point.
Before dealing with anything else I must deal with a point raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat because it has troubled me. The hon. member suggested that because these references to grain were in section 329, or whatever the appropriate section number is, an amendment might not be necessary. To clear that point I might say that the new section 328 adopted yesterday deals with grain and flour, including flaxseed, to Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Fort William and Churchill, and no place else. We have added Churchill to the statutory rates. Under section 371, rapeseed is included, to Vancouver Prince Rupert, Fort William and Churchill.
Under section 471 there are a number of other grain products which are not in the present statutes of Canada at all but are simply determined by orders of the board or decisions of the railway. We want them in the bill; we want them put into the law. They are grain and flour, including flaxseed and rape-seed, to Viotoria, New Westminster and to Armstrong, and grain products to all delivery points specified in all these various categories. I think these are essential and therefore I

January 24, 1967
Transportation
make no apology for asking this committee to put this classification back in. All I meant was that these are really essential. I know that the Chair and nobody else takes seriously this baby and the bath water argument. The sense in which it should be taken seriously is with respect to what I said about grain and grain products.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It does not say that at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman will agree with me that I know what I meant even if I did not say it very well. Perhaps I had better get away from the baby and the bath water.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister made mistakes about babies in Vancouver before, e (5:30 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was Victoria. The hon. gentleman reminds me of my past. I think it would be well to draw a veil over that. I now come to the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and particularly to one observation he made. He said, if I did not mistake his meaning, that the railways could ask for a review at any time. If this is the case, of course, the only real substance in the proposed amendment is the provision that the railways cannot ask for a review until two years after the bill is passed in the case of statutory rates and until two years after a substituted rate may have been put into effect. So what we are doing in this amendment is abridging the general power of review.
The argument put forward by the hon. member for Acadia was, I thought, in some ways, the most ingenious of all. Despite its ingenuity, I still think it is wrong. The weakness of the argument, it seems to me, is this: he suggested that what we voted against was a review of the Crowsnest rates.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not so, of course.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to finish my argument. It is not so if the hon. member for York South was correct in his interpretation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If "ifs and ands were pots and pans."


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could be allowed to continue. The hon. member for York South

said that under clause 25 the governor in council could direct this review anyhow.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He might have been worried about the labour vote.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Whatever his motives were, he is a pretty good lawyer, as the hon. member for Bow River will admit, and he is a good judge of good lawyers. The hon. member for York South argued strongly that section 329 was not necessary because the governor in council could ask the commission to make a review at any time. I said I would not like to rely on that kind of power. Moreover, I did not think there should be any review for two years. I did not think that was a satisfactory way in which to proceed.
To come back to the point, I do not contest all these citations. Indeed, I sometimes wonder whether we could not abridge all these discussions on procedure by simply leaving out reference to the things on which both sides are agreed and confining our arguments to those matters which are in dispute.
I admit that if the amendment moved by my colleague the Minister of Fisheries is the same as the one which was defeated, it is out of order. But I contend that it is not. I contend that it does not deal with precisely the same subject matter inasmuch as it deals with all statutory rates, and all substituted rates which there may be in the future. I contend that it is different because it does not require the commission to carry out a review of a particular set of rates but that instead it gives the commission the faculty of doing so if an application is made to it by the railways. I contend that this is the most important difference of all. Instead of parliament saying that something should be reviewed, a railway company has to apply. Whether or not it will apply is a matter of opinion, though the right hon. gentleman made a lot of that point. Whatever the presumptions in that area may be, they have nothing to do with the pith and substance of an amendment of this kind.
I say there is all the difference in the world between establishing a tribunal before which one party may ask to be heard and establishing a commission which is ordered by parliament to carry out a review. This, I maintain, amounts to a substantial difference of principle between the two amendments and for this reason I suggest that my hon. friend the Minister of Fisheries was quite within the rules in moving the amendment.
January 24, 1967


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will be brief because I spoke fairly extensively when I first rose on this point of order. But with the greatest respect to the minister I say to him now that he is dragging a red herring through the discussion of this subject. The principle at issue is not the way in which a review is to be brought about. The principle at issue is what the subject of the review should be, and the subject of the inquiry is to be the Crowsnest pass freight rate, a statutory rate.
You will have noticed, Mr. Chairman, that while the minister was dragging this red herring across the path in an effort to make something which is bad and invalid appear good, he never once dealt with the arguments which have been advanced from this side of the committee. Let him admit now that 99 per cent of the statutory rates are represented by the Crowsnest pass freight rates. We have almost a billion bushels of wheat this year on the prairies and it is transported by the railways at the Crowsnest freight rates. No other commodity shipped on the railways compares in volume of shipment.
Is the minister trying to tell us that if he has, shall I say, a hair and a body and he fits the hair to the body he has constructed something which is essentially different? The minister has never come to grips with our arguments, especially our contention that this amendment is substantially the same as what was intended in section 329. The review would be the same. The evidence would be the same. The results would be the same. The decision would be the same.
I say to the Chair, with the greatest respect, that I do not see how it is possible to get around this situation. To do so would ruin the rules of the house. We would see the same thing being done day after day and the responsibility for it would rest upon the shoulders of the minister. What is this section all about? The one question it raises is whether the Crowsnest pass rates should be reviewed or not. With his genius, and only he has that kind of genius, the minister has added a reference to the other statutory rates. But when someone asked him last night what those rates were, do you know what the minister said? He replied: "I do not know what they are." Mr. Chairman, they amount to only a hair on that body of which I spoke a few moments ago. Yet the minister says it adds up to a difference in principle.


Mr. Bigg:: I do not like to waste the time of the committee on questions of procedure and rules but it was only on Friday last that the
Transportation
minister reminded me that we might make a little progress by following the rules which we set down for ourselves. I should like to take this wonderful opportunity to throw that observation back at him.


An hon. Member:: Did you catch it, Jack?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: This should not be an occasion for argument. It should be an occasion for guaranteeing to western Canada and the mari-times the historic rights which belong to them and which are required by them in order that they may exist. It is a matter of survival.
I can only reach the conclusion that pressure has not come from the C.N.R., because if the C.N.R. makes a loss we have to pick up the tab. The only possible reason for such an amendment as we now have before us is that the minister is being pressured by other vested interests which wish to see all our rail rates revised and some of them thrown down the drain. The railways have more than been repaid by the generosity of the government in land, mineral rights, rights of way through cities, and monopolies in carrying the mail.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
We all know that when this omnibus bill becomes law those who interpret it will not be able to go behind the statute and say, "This is what the members of parliament wanted and intended." Instead they will read it and take it word for word. This amendment seeks to do through the back door what parliament refused to allow to be done through the front door.
We are not going to buy a pig in a poke. We want this legislation to be specific in as many of the clauses as we can make specific. We do not want a review of the Crowsnest pass rates to the detriment of the people in western Canada and the people in the mari-times. Those rates are the foundation of our survival in the economic life of Canada.
If the minister is bona fide in his intention to have more consideration given to rapeseed, flour and other products which will be shipped through Churchill and other ports, then instead of accusing us of stimying our own farmers why can he not put a provision in the bill, in plain, simple words that everyone can understand, that the Crowsnest pass rates will be honoured forever? There is great wisdom in the suggestion made by the hon. member for Acadia that if the minister does not intend to attack those rates then let it be spelled out in this amendment. There would then be no argument about it.

January 24, 1967
Transportation
The procedural point is clear and plain. That which we ruled on last week we certainly do not have to rule on again this week. If this amendment is to be allowed at all it should contain something very specific, something which any layman can understand, stating that our prerogatives under the Crowsnest pass rates are defended.


Herman Maxwell Batten: If there are no further comments maybe the committee would allow me to make a short statement now. I want to thank members of the committee who have taken part in the discussion on this point of order. It has been an extremely interesting one.
May I read from Beauchesne citation 163 at page 137, which has been referred to by different members of the committee but which for my own purposes I would like to read now.
A mere alteration of the words of a question, without any substantial change in its object will not be sufficient to evade the rule that no question shall be offered which is substantially the same as one which has already been expressed in the current session.
Then the final sentence of that citation states:
It is possible, however, so far to vary the character of a motion as to withdraw it from the operation of the rule.
The question before the Chair is to decide whether or not, if the present amendment were passed, it would be in contradiction to the decision made by the house last Wednesday or, putting it another way, would the amendment be inconsistent with the decision that the committee made on new section 329 in clause 50 last Wednesday?
I think that the point which the Chair has to decide is this: is the amendment proposed by the Minister of Fisheries sufficiently different from new section 329 as to constitute a different question? This is not an easy question to decide. Your Chairman has been in the committee for most of the time when the transport bill has been under discussion, and while I do not profess to know anything about transportation I have followed hon. members' arguments very carefully, particularly on section 329 last week.
I consider the question that is before me an extremely important one not only so far as this particular bill is concerned but also so far as our procedure in this chamber is concerned. I would therefore crave the indulgence of the committee to allow me some time to consider this matter and to bring

back a decision to the committee when I have made one that satisfies me in my own mind.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It now remains for the committee to decide what further action it prefers to take this afternoon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would be profitless to go on discussing the amendment before we know whether it is in order, so in the circumstances may I ask whether we can agree to take clause 16 and dispose of it?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree to stand clause 74 until the Chair is able to present a decision on the question of order and to proceed with discussion of clause 16 as amended?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 74 stands.
On clause 16-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Clause 16 deals with the discriminatory aspects of the legislation. If a person can prove he is being discriminated against by any means of transportation he can appeal to the new commission. One has to study carefully the minister's suggested amendment to this clause to understand its actual meaning in relation to shippers who may be discriminated against by the railways.
Earlier I suggested that in line 32 following the words "may prejudicially affect the public interest" there should be inserted the words "or the business" or "a person's business." Under the clause as it now stands a person must prove that his business is large enough to affect the community in which he lives, or part of the province in which he lives, or possibly the whole of the country.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would allow me to ask him whether he has a copy of clause 16 as it has been twice amended. It was amended a few days ago and again yesterday. It seems to me we ought to be discussing it as amended. I do not seem to have an extra copy at the moment but I could send my own copy over to the hon. gentleman.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would appreciate that.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: I thought the minister said last evening that there would be copies for all of us.
January 24, 19S7


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have had copies made of all these amended clauses but they have not reached me yet. I will have them distributed as soon as possible, but in the meantime the hon. gentleman may use my copy.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In respect of this particular clause it is difficult to ascertain just what the minister meant by this proposed amendment which apparently has been accepted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The amendment has been adopted; it is not proposed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I said "which has been accepted", if the minister would contain himself. In looking at it I still wonder whether the definition of "public interest" is clear and concise enough to include a company, such as a small vegetable oil plant, which is affected only by a specific railway rate which it feels is too high. This company might feel it is being discriminated against and might wish to appeal to the commission. In my interpretation of the amendment the definition of "public interest" is still too broad. It does not seem to aid a small manufacturing plant which employs perhaps six or ten persons if that plant is being discriminated against because of a particular freight rate and wishes to appeal. This really does not give this plant the right to appeal. It must be proven that the rate is discriminatory to such an extent that the public interest is affected.
This is a point to which I think members should pay particular attention because the definition really is not clear enough, in my quick appraisal of it, to suggest that an individual or a company would have any real right to prove that his business is affected. Not too many persons or companies in the area might be affected and therefore he would have difficulty in proving he had the right to appeal and should be heard by the transport commission. I should like the minister to explain briefly whether an individual who felt he was affected and was being discriminated against, although the public interest was not affected to any greater extent than represented by himself or his company, would have the right to appeal under this particular clause as amended.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. The hon. gentleman probably has a set of the clauses now. This involves clause 1 as well as clause 16. If you read paragraph (b) of subclause (1) of clause 16 you will see that the expression "public 23033-771
Transportation
interest" includes, without limiting the generality thereof, public interest as described in clause 1(d) which reads as follows:
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-
Therefore I would say that any shipper who could allege that he was at an unfair disadvantage in comparison to some other shipper under similar circumstances would have a prima facie case and would have the right to be heard. If he convinced the commission, he would then have the right to have his rate changed to a substituted rate.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister has suggested that we consider the amendment to clause 16 in conjunction with the amendment to clause 1 and that a person may have a prima facie case to appear before the commission if he can prove that another party is getting a better rate. For the sake of argument let us suppose that there is no other party engaged in a similar business in a similar location.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think he must be in a similar location. I think this requires only that the general conditions have to be similar. If there should be two shippers shipping over a distance of about 300 miles under the same kind of conditions generally and in the same quantities, then I do not think the one shipper would have to be in the same place as the other.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the minister is saying in effect that an individual will be able to build a prima facie case and appear before the commission if he is subject to a discriminatory rate, then I take it that the minister is accepting a fair interpretation of the words "public interest". What objection would the minister have to the addition, as was suggested in the committee proceedings, after the words "public interest", of the words "or his business"?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think we are just traversing ground which we have traversed before. This is almost precisely the same question that was put to me by the hon. gentleman previously. I have no new answer. The answer I gave previously was to the effect that if any transport costs affect his business I do not see how any tribunal on that basis could

January 24, 1967
Transportation
reach any kind of conclusion at all. Surely if one were to decide that someone is at an undue disadvantage one would have to have somebody else to make a comparison with. If this can be assumed, then it seems to me you are home free.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not accept that.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the weather prevented my presence here yesterday when there was considerable debate on the matter of protection for the maritime provinces. I have, however, had an opportunity to read what the minister said yesterday and to give further study to the statutory law on this subject. Perhaps it is just as well that I was not here, because I have had an opportunity to have a fresh, second look at it. Even with the changes which have been brought about in the committee so far I think there is absolutely no protection for export traffic through any port in Canada or at least in eastern Canada. The argument I am going to make is not confined strictly to Halifax, Saint John or any Atlantic port but will embrace other ports as well, namely, those on the St. Lawrence river and the Great Lakes. I make the indictment of this particular bill, which is supposed to spell out some kind of a national transportation policy, that it is landlubber-minded. Despite the fact that the minister represents a constituency beside the Atlantic ocean, he has followed the landlubberliness of his colleagues in this present government.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
There are four or five sections of various acts, including the present bill, that I should quote in making my argument. With such a wealth of material to choose from one hardly knows where to begin but perhaps I should re-emphasize what has been said by my colleague from Halifax, which really originated with the letter I wrote to the Minister of Transport on October 6 in Which I listed the protection given to Canadian ports in various acts in the past.
Section 42 of the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company in 1903, section 13 of chapter 6 of the acts of 1911 regarding the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company, and chapter 20 of the acts of 1914 regarding the Canadian Northern Railway System provided, I think without a change of wording anywhere along the line, as follows:
-the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports.

I presume that whatever rights were conferred there persist to this day because after reading and re-reading the legislation we have before us I cannot find where those acts are swallowed up. But there is one section which particularly applies to eastern Canada where both the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific have railway lines. I refer to section 14 (2) of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act as set forth in chapter 39 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952. This is what section 14 (2) states:
The board of directors shall so direct, provide and procure that all freight destined for export by sea that is consigned within Canada for carriage to National Railways either at point of origin or between that and the sea shall, unless it has been by its shippers specifically routed otherwise, be exported through Canadian seaports.
In other words, the railways of Canada are told that unless shippers express another preference they have to carry the export shipments of the industry of this country to Canadian seaports. Surely that is a laudable thing and is part of any rational national transportation policy which tries to give as much as possible to all areas of the country. But that provision, sir, is no longer in the law because quite recently this committee passed clause 76 of Bill No. C-231, which provides that the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act is repealed. Therefore section 14 (2) of that act, which I have just read to the committee, will be one with the dodo when parliament has given its approval to Bill No. C-231.
Is there anything else to provide a substitute? The minister has made two attempts to arrive at a solution in this respect, one of which is, I think, quite relevant to this section or I would be ruled out of order. To clause 16 (3) (a) he has added the words "or to the movement of commodities through Canadian ports." I do not know what effect this provision will have on the law. Having read the whole of clause 16, I do not think it is suggested that one could successfully make a case before this commission that one would be aggrieved if the railways, for example, started to transport exports through American seaports.
Whatever the intention of the minister, and I do not fault him for his intention but for the way he is carrying it out, the fact is that in my opinion and in the opinion of others with whom I have talked, including experts on matters of railway freight, this is simply not enough to carry out the laudable purpose embodied in a requirement that goods be
January 24, 1967

shipped through Montreal, Quebec, Halifax, Saint John, or any port you wish to name, if the railways decide otherwise.
The other question about which there was some whoop-de-doo yesterday-I am sorry I was not here to take part in it but the weather prevented my being here-was the new clause 59 presented by the Minister of Transport. The relevant part of it is that the bill be amended by inserting a new clause 59 and that new section 343 of this bill is amended by adding another subsection. The relevant part of the amendment is:
-nothing in this act shall be construed to affect any obligation imposed upon any railway company subject to the jurisdiction of parliament by any other act or any agreement made pursuant thereto requiring the company (b) to route export traffic through Canadian seaports.
That also looks all well and good, but what is its effect? I suggest the effect is that if there is any obligation in the law after Bill No. C-231 is passed that obligation under the law is not altered or changed by the bill. But the rub is that the provisions which gave us protection are repealed by Bill No. C-231. The section of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act which I quoted, for example, goes out the window as soon as Bill No. C-231 takes effect.
I will read the relevant section again. To my mind this is just as vital an issue as the one we have grappled with all afternoon dealing with the Crowsnest pass rates. It is as vital to the maritimes to have something to promote-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could perhaps assist the hon. gentleman a little?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I do not know whether I will be assisted by what the minister has to say but I am perfectly willing to let him speak.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed that the provision with respect to routing which was originally in part I of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act was transferred in 1955 to section 21 of the Canadian National Railways Act and is therefore still in full force and effect.


Robert Jardine McCleave: It may be in full force and effect with regard to Canadian National Railways. I would want to read that section before accepting what the minister has said. I presume that this advice came to the minister from his officials in the gallery. As far as I
23033-771J
Transportation
can see, there is no requirement in the bill we are now considering that imposes an obligation on the other great railway system to use Canadian seaports for its routing of export traffic. I say that Bill No. C-231 is deficient in this aspect. I also fear that by repealing a large chunk of previous legislation in this field there is really no obligation that will exist in any other act once we pass Bill No. C-231, because an act that is dead and gone imposes no obligation whatsoever on anybody. One cannot take an act that has been repealed and single out any particular section and say that somehow or another it is still alive, unless that section is specifically preserved.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
I hope the minister and his advisors, in dealing with the problems involved in the formation of a national transportation policy, will look to the seaports of Canada and particularly those on the east coast which are faced with difficulties that have built up over a period of years to the peak which exists this winter.
The difficulties faced on the Atlantic coast were thoroughly presented by the hon. members for Saint John-Albert and Halifax. They presented figures which show a substantial loss of tonnage in these ports, almost equally matched by a substantial increase in tonnage at the St. Lawrence River ports. This is of concern to us and I do not think any measure such as that embodied in clause 1 of this bill will help much. It is only a pious proclamation of hope rather than a definitive injunction in law against the railways, requiring them to follow a certain course of conduct.
By reading Hansard I have followed closely the arguments presented during the last two or three days in respect of clause 59. I have read and reread that clause. It does not reassure me that something new will be done to assist the maritime transportation situation, particularly the port aspect. I am not satisfied that anything new has been added to give that area protection.
The minister may follow one of two courses of action. I understand that the final report of the study on maritime transportation problems will shortly be on the minister's desk for consideration. Perhaps some "i's" have to be dotted and some "t's" have to be crossed, but if my information is correct that report is about complete. I hope the minister can move quickly in adopting its recommendations so that transportation problems in the maritimes, which have not been touched to any

January 24, 19S7
Transportation
extent by this bill, can be solved during this session or during the next session which one hopes will commence in a month or so.
Perhaps during the dinner recess the minister and his officials can come up with a more effective plan to assist the Atlantic seaports. We are not satisfied with Bill C-231. The seaports of Halifax and Saint John have suffered grievously. The minister has uttered warm words in this regard but warm words cannot provide work for the longshoremen of those cities.
When the government is considering the report on the special maritime transportation study I hope it will remember what has been said here in the last couple of days, and I hope it will not be satisfied that Bill C-231 will provide the assistance the Atlantic area needs to solve its transportation problems.
Finally I should like to make a prediction. A great deal has been said about compensatory rates. Let me suggest in the most Cassandra-like way possible that a transportation policy cannot be based on compensatory rates. If we are to expect development in western Canada and in Atlantic Canada some other method must be devised.


The Deputy Chairman:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised on the adjournment motion tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin), Trade-repercussions of the importation of shoes on the Canadian industry; the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie), House of Commons-inquiry as to use of electronic voting machine; the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), National Parks -use of expropriation to halt court cases.


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. member for Halifax now has me worried, particularly because of his reference to the minister's answer. The minister stated by amendment in 1955 the Canadian National Railways Act now protects what formerly was in the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act in this regard. My obvious question is, what will happen in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway in those areas in the maritimes serviced by the Canadian Pacific? I am particularly anxious to hear the minister's reply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I intend to reply to that question but I will not do so until I have received a little more advice than I have received up to this time.


Thomas Miller Bell: I hope careful consideration will be given to this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not want to argue about it but I do want to have the facts.


Thomas Miller Bell: While we are dealing with clause 16 I should like to intervene for the last time. At the insistence of members on this side there has been an addition to clause 16 in respect of matters that shall be considered by the commission. We appreciate the co-operation which has been shown although we feel it falls short of what we had desired.
I should like to make a few remarks in respect of this clause. Perhaps I will not do any harm by repeating my objections and thoughts. Someone will have to interpret the new phrases and words which appear in this clause in respect of the actions of the commission. We now have a lot of interpretations established over the years and certain words and phrases have taken on certain connotations. Let me point out that the phrase "undue obstacle" represents only a hope, because it will not solve the problem which exists as a result of the geographical location of the eastern provinces. I hope that the commission will give a generous interpretation to the words "undue obstacle", and that it will include our geographic disabilities. If this is done, we will have something more than we had when this provision was first drafted.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
In so far as the last part of the amendment which the minister made last night is concerned, I have looked at it three or four times and I think it is good. It adds something more. I refer to the phrase, "to the movement of commodities through Canadian ports". If this phrase is generously interpreted by the commission, then we will have something which, while not as much as we wanted, will at least give us some hope. This concludes my remarks on clause 16, provided the minister's advice is good.


Mr. Kindt:: I should like to make some remarks in the spirit of trying to be helpful to the minister. In so far as this special appeal and investigation is concerned, the minister and anyone who has had experience with commissions knows that it is far easier for
January 24, 1967

the commission to say no than to say yes to a request for a special investigation. In fact, my experience has been that the weighting is about 75 per cent in favour of no and 25 per cent in favour of yes. In other words, after a certain period of time has passed the commission will develop patterns of thinking and sort of get into a rut. With all due respect to the minister and his desire to give fair treatment to those who may be requesting special investigations or making appeals, I am afraid that those making those requests will be out on a limb, so to speak, without very much opportunity of obtaining any redress.
Perhaps the minister is of the opinion that what he is doing here is the answer for those who wish to have their rates investigated. However, in my view I think the chances of a person accomplishing what he is setting out to accomplish by having a special appeal are thwarted by the way in which the provision has been written into the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. member for Saint John-Albert could pay attention to me now, and I think it would be a good idea if he stayed with the hon. member for Halifax so that they could both hear what I am about to say. I am happy to say I do not seem to have lost all my faculties because I guessed the answer to this question. However, I have it now in black and white. The Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act never applied to Canadian Pacific Railway reroutings but only to the Canadian National. The Canadian Pacific rates have been kept the same because of competitive factors.
Perhaps I should not try to interpret the mind of the late Prime Minister Bennett who introduced this legislation, but I suspect the reason was that while Canadian National has some choice of routes to United States ports the Canadian Pacific does not. The Canadian National could use Canadian National lines in Canada or the Grand Trunk line to Portland. The Canadian National could, therefore, protect Canadian ports in this respect. As I have already indicated, the Canadian Pacific has no choice. They have no line going to any United States port, and if they want to keep the traffic they have to send it over their own line. They do that. In any event, the repeal of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act will take nothing away because the obligation was never imposed on the Canadian Pacific at any time.


Thomas Miller Bell: I appreciate the minister's explanation of these circumstances. Provided the minister's advice that
Transportation
the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act only covered the Canadian National with regard to matter of shipping to Canadian ports, then my fears are unfounded. It might be that I will be ambitious enough to check that and make certain.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As the hon. gentleman knows, I did not check it myself. I would not have too much confidence in the result if I did. I have sought the advice of the draftsmen and law officers, and this is the advice I am given. I feel quite sure it is correct.


Thomas Miller Bell: This is no reason for the minister not putting something in the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that the hon. gentleman has a point there. If as a result of the studies that are now being made we find there would be any practical effect in doing so, then I think it would be a good thing to do. Quite honestly, I nearly answered on impulse when the hon. gentleman was speaking because, having the map pretty well in my own mind, I could see that line to Portland and I could see how the Canadian National could circumvent this provision. However, I could not see how the Canadian Pacific could without losing the traffic altogether to United States railroads. I do not imagine they would want to do that.
If there were some useful purpose to be served, there would be no reason for not doing this, particularly once we accept the principle that if we impose an obligation like this on the railways and it is not compensatory, then they should be compensated. Perhaps I should say that I accept quite cheerfully the admonitions of the senior member for Halifax. He is quite right when he says we should never have a national transportation policy at any foreseeable time in the future in this country if it is based exclusively on compensatory rates. We are not trying to do that. What we are trying to do is to make the various carriers earn their living if they can, but above all to make sure there is adequate transportation for Canadians in every part of Canada. If some part of that transportation system has to be paid for by the taxpayers, then it will not be the first time that has happened in Canada. We would not have confederaion without it.


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not mind saying to the minister that I am still a bit worried about the final effect of the removal

January 24, 1967
Transportation
of the exception in section 334, the compensatory one. I hope we accomplish what we wanted to accomplish when we had it. I close now by saying that I hope hon. members have gained the impression it is not a case of the maritime ports asking for something they did not have. They are in such desperate shape now that they are fighting a rearguard action. They are just trying to hang on to something they had and are not having too much success in doing that.


Mr. Cantelon:: Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I asked for a statement on just what the situation was with respect to the phrase "public interest" in clause 16. I find that the new clause 16 retains this phrase. While I realize that according to clause 16 public interest includes, without limiting the generality thereof, the public interest as described in clause 1, I am still left in some fear that the interpretation of that phrase by the courts may be harmful to private business and certain individuals. For that reason I feel it would be wise if we had a modifying statement with respect to this phrase. The new section very much enlarges the original section 317, and it now includes not only railways, but water carriers, motor vehicle transport, air lines and even commodity pipe lines. However, it is my opinion that even the new section, which I suppose will be the final new section, is almost as unacceptable and objectionable as the original section 317, and the difficulty lies in use of the phrase "public interest", a phrase which the minister stubbornly insists on retaining.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
I really cannot understand this insistence, Mr. Chairman, because this is the first time in the history of rate regulation dating back to 1903 that the government has decided to require the shipper to prove that the rate he is complaining about prejudicially affects the public interests. Nor can I find any attempt that has been made, which in my view is complete, to define the phrase "public interest". There is still difficulty in it, in my view.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the hon. gentleman considered the reference to clause 1 that is in what he calls the new clause 16 which, at the time it was adopted, seemed to satisfy the hon. member for Peace River and most of the other hon. members, and was indeed put in very largely at their suggestion?
[Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert) .1


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: I do not know whether it satisfied the hon. member for Peace River or the other members who were interested in it, but I can say that it does not satisfy me, and it is on that basis that I am speaking. I think there are others who have the same feeling that I have.
Under the sections of the present Railway Act which are being repealed, a shipper was required to prove only that the rate prejudicially affected his own personal interest or the interest of his business. Now, Mr. Chairman, just why should that be changed? This is a long way from the public interest by any definition.
This was the burden of the criticism that we heard in the committee of the original section 317, and in effect of the new clause 16 which was then proposed, though not of course, of this last new clause 16. I believe, as I have already said to the minister, that this criticism is justified, and it is most regrettable that the phrase was not modified. In my opinion an amendment is appropriate here, and this amendment I intend to move later.
In arguing this point it is notable that Alberta's submission, which was made by Mr. Frawley, placed a great deal of emphasis on this particular phrase "public interest" and objected very strongly to it. He argued, if in order to compress them a little, I may be forgiven for paraphrasing his submissions, that the shipper will be complaining about the rate that his business must pay. He must justify his complaint on the ground that the rate affects his interests. How then can he be expected to prove that his complaint is justified on the ground of public interest when the business in his own that is being discriminated against?
I will come back to Mr. Frawley's argument in a moment, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that the phrase "public interest" was introduced as one more concession to the railways. It also seems to me that it is quite obvious that applications by single shippers on this ground will certainly fail because of inability to discharge the quite impossible onus of proving prejudice to public interest, whatever that may be. Nor do I think that clause 1 eliminates this responsibility; it gives too much right of interpretation to the commission and to the law officers. In my view, the result will be confirmation by the commission of rates which prejudicially affect a shipper's own business.
January 24, 1967

The submission of Manitoba was presented by Mr. Mauro, and he did not like the phrase "public interest" either. Mr. Mauro put it this way in reply to a direct question from the hon. member for Medicine Hat, as reported at page 2597 of the proceedings before the transport and communications committee:
We are suggesting the amendment that appears in our submission, because we could find no indication of criteria for determination of injury to the public interest. We could find the negative one, that private interest was not public interest. We can find certain jurisprudence that would indicate that private interest is definitely not public interest. We do not seem to be able to find the positive side of what is public interest, short of what the party who has the authority to determine it decides upon.
That is the exact point I want to make, Mr. Chairman-"short of what the party who has the authority to determine it decides upon". In this case, of course, it would be the commission.
To return to Mr. Frawley's submission on behalf of Alberta, at page 2766 of report No. 39 of the committee proceedings on November 22 one finds a question which Mr. Frawley put to the Minister of Transport with respect to this particular matter, namely the question of public interest. Mr. Frawley asked:
What in the world is the connection between public interest and this man in southern Alberta complaining about his rate?
The minister thought that over and, of course, came out with the usual expert reply-and he does make excellent replies-in these words:
If Mr. Olson would permit me, this is one point I meant to make and forgot. It was never intended, of course, that appeals under section 317-
I interject here to say that section 317 is now, in effect, clause 16.
-should be limited just to shippers. There is no reason why the government of Alberta should not complain that a certain rate was not in the public interest.


Mr. Frawley:: I would expect that the government of Alberta would be taking up the instance of this shipper and that shipper, and it would just be the sum of the part. I do not quite know how we would get away from the obstacle of proving public interest.
Then Mr. Frawley, who is a lawyer and who has been very much concerned with railway matters for quite a few years, said he felt that his question of public interest was not one that a shipper could easily prove. Certainly the minister's suggestion that the government of Alberta should fight his battles for him is a rather strange one, and I am
Transportation
rather surprised that he makes it because usually he does not make strange suggestions. However, it seems to me it confirms the objection that Mr. Frawley was making; that is, that it is going to be very difficult for an individual shipper to prove that his business is in the public interest.
The minister's last minute attempt to equate public interest with the position of a provincial government in freight rates matters is not very convincing. In fact it is almost an admission that the shipper, the one most concerned, would find it impossible to prove that his rate violated the public interest. Is the minister, then, saying that a shipper complaining about unjust discrimination must get his provincial government to take his case to the commission, and if he does not succeed in interesting the province to retain counsel and take up all the individual cases which arise, then this highly praised section 16, the one that the minister puts such faith in, is just a complete failure? In my view, the public interest requirement destroys section 16 completely.
Professor Williams' views on the old section 317, which is almost the same as the new clause 16, are set out at page 2844 of the proceedings of the transport committee for November 24. I will not quote his words because anyone can look them up if he so wishes, but his opinion is that section 317 is unacceptable and objectionable. His opinion is the same with regard to the new clause 16. He is certain that it is no substitute for the present provisions of the law-that is, the present sections 317, 319, 323, etc.-of the existing Railway Act.
The principal reason for Professor Williams' opinion is based on this question of public interest, with which the section deals. He believes it does not deal with the effects of a discriminatory rate adjustment on the business of the individual shipper. Professor Williams, a man of international reputation in transportation economics, is squarely of the opinion that the public interest requirement makes the new section a useless substitute for the existing prohibitions against unjust discrimination in rate making.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
That being so-and I am assured that these gentlemen have not changed their ideas-I feel certain that much difficulty will come about if we leave clause 16 unamended. For that reason I am about to move an amendment seconded by the hon. member for

January 24, 1967
Transportation
Acadia. I am not certain, in quoting, the actual line numbers, and so on, as in the mimeographed part we have no lines. I move:
That clause 16 (2) (b) be amended as follows: In the line "may prejudicially affect the public interest in respect".
After the word "affect" insert the following words "the business of the complainant or". The line would then read: "May prejudicially affect the business of the complainant or the public interest in respect of."
I am sorry I have only one copy of the amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the Chairman puts that amendment I wonder if I might ask a question of the hon. member for Acadia. I wonder whether this was not moved before and rejected by the house. I am not quite sure. Could that be verified, perhaps? I know the hon. member brought up the point and suggested he would move an amendment.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Before the hon. member for Acadia answers, this is the point about which I asked the minister yesterday. I heard no answer. So far as I can see there has been no definite treatment of this amendment, and that is why I have now presented it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure there must be a record at the table. This debate has gone on for so long that I am sure the hon. gentleman will not fault me for not remembering everything. I remember the point being raised by the hon. mmber for Acadia, who suggested he might move an amendment. Quite frankly, I have forgotten whether he moved it. It may be, in the light of the extensive amendments fabricated as the result of the observations of the hon. members for Peace River and Springfield, if I remember correctly, that the hon. member decided not to move his amendment.
While the matter is being looked up I might direct a question to the hon. gentleman about the relationship between clause 16 and clause 1. I would ask him whether he feels that this amendment will add much to the rights the shipper would have. If he looks at clause 16 (1) (b) he will see this:
the expression "public interest" includes, without limiting the generality thereof, the public interest as described in section 1.
If you look at clause 1 (d) you will see where the public interest is described. It says:
.-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-
And so on.

All a shipper needs to do, it seems to me, is to look at the rate someone else is getting in like circumstances and say that the rate he has been offered constitutes an unfair disadvantage. While the words here are not precisely the same as the word "prejudiced" they are, I think, much more specific and would enable someone to make a much better case. How do you prejudice somebody's business? You could perhaps prejudice somebody's business by charging any tolls at all, if you get a situation-as came up in one suggestion yesterday-where the rate from Ottawa to Halifax and the rate from Ottawa to Montreal would be the same. In that case could not someone in Canada say that his business was being prejudiced because a low rate was given for this longer distance to someone, somewhere else?


J. Michael Forrestall: You are picking on us again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I just picked the first illustration I thought of. Perhaps I should take an illustration from western Canada. Suppose for example the rate from Medicine Hat to Winnipeg was the same as from Brandon to Winnipeg. Would not a businessman in that case be able to say that one rate was giving an undue disadvantage to someone in Medicine Hat over someone in Brandon? It seems to me that the words the hon. member for Peace River suggested should be included as part of the definition of public interest, so that there would be no question of undue disadvantage, except that inherent in different volumes of traffic and all the other things set out here which are almost taken from the Manitoba brief, as the hon. member for Kindersley will undoubtedly recall. I have been filling in time, but I did so to ascertain whether any such amendment was ever moved.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Could we not have copies, so that we may understand it?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister asked a question, and I ought to answer it.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. Shall I read the proposed amendment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I ask Your Honour not to read it until we settle the question of whether it has been moved before.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I suggested something similar to this on January 10, or when this clause was first debated, but I did not move the amendment. I did not move it because the
January 24, 1967

minister late in the evening of January 10 suggested an amendment which I said went a long way towards the objective we wanted in the bill. I wanted to study it, and that is why I did not pursue the question. The next day we went on to study clause 16.
I do not see what harm would be done by the amendment, and I shall have more to say about it when it is moved. Perhaps that has answered the minister's question. I ought to allow someone else, who wishes to, to speak.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since my objection has been removed perhaps the Chairman could put the amendment, if the hon. gentleman wants to persist.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


Maurice Rinfret: May I inform the committee that we have sent the one and only copy of the amendment to be copied, so that copies will be available to hon. members within a few minutes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman could repeat it from memory, because I wish to say a word about it.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: That is quite a burden on my poor memory, but I will do my best. It dealt with clause 16(2)(b) and asked that after the word "affect" in the line "may prejudicially affect the public interests in respect..." the following words should be inserted-"the business of the complainant or", making the line read: "may prejudicially affect the business of the complainant or the public interest in respect of".


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I could put my objection to this amendment in a single phrase. I would think that those words are so wide as to open the door to a whole mass of frivolous complaints and would be bringing in by the back door all the bureaucratic disadvantages of a system of regulated rates as opposed to competitive rates. I believe that the "undue disadvantage" protection which can be invoked in order to get a case before the commission does provide adequate protection for shippers in specific terms.
I very much fear that if shippers were just allowed to allege that something was prejudicially affecting their business the commission would be required to exercise a discretion far beyond the phrase "public interest", unless it was very tough and paid almost no attention to the complaints. For these reasons I am not prepared to accept the amendment.
Transportation


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wish to say at the outset that clause 16 is very different from the clause first introduced. The minister and the members of the standing committee know very well that when we began work on this bill there was no such clause at all. I wanted to say to the minister that what we have here is a substantial improvement.
At the same time I do not see the validity of the hon. gentleman's objection to the amendment which has been moved. The hon. member for Kindersley has inserted the amendment into a paragraph which says that the commission should make an investigation if it is satisfied that a prima facie case has been shown. In other words, the possibility of frivolous complaints being made is removed, since an applicant must establish a prima facie case before the commission is obliged to make any investigation.
I am sure the minister must understand this. I share the concern felt by the hon. member for Kindersley about the removal of the protection which used to be in section 317. I was concerned about this while the bill was before the standing committee and at that time I questioned some of the people I believed to be familiar with freight rates and their application. There have been many cases before the Board of Transport Commissioners in which pleas were made on the basis of discrimination. Such pleas could only be founded on the fact that the rate had an effect prejudicial to the complainant's business. In some of these cases no attempt was made to argue that it had a prejudicial effect on public interest.
Now the safeguarding phrase does not appear. In the light of the protection to which I referred a few moments ago, perhaps the minister will consider restoring the right, or the traditional privilege, which has been removed along with the old clause 317 of the Railway Act. I agree to some extent that if a shipper has reason to believe that a rate established by a carrier does predudicially affect him it will be possible to argue that the public interest also would be affected, since he would have employees and others depending on him whose interests would suffer, and that these circumstances are provided for in the definition of public interest in relation to clause 11.
However, it does not seem to me that any harm would be done by leaving the phrase "the business of the complainant" in the bill. After all, if a shipper had a complaint he would first of all go to the new transport

January 24, 1967
Transportation
commission, either personally or through counsel, and if the commission immediately said to him: "We do not believe there is a prima facie case of prejudice here" then no further action would be taken anyway.
Does the minister not think it would be better to bring this provision a little nearer to individual cases rather than leave room for arguments to develop later as to whether or not the public interest is involved, and having cases which do not affect public interest dismissed out of hand? The counsel for Manitoba, Mr. Morrow, said he could find jurisprundence to the effect that private business is not public business. There is an order in council which I quoted to the minister not long ago in which it is specifically stated that an applicant could not claim that the public interest was affected on the ground that his private business was prejudicially affected.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman will admit, after reading clause 1, that in clause 16 an undue disadvantage is defined as part of the public interest, so there could be no question in that case. I do not know what other kind of prejudice there could be. This is what really puzzles me. I can see that undue disadvantage, discrimination as between one shipper and another, is certainly prejudicial. I do not know what other form of prejudice the hon. gentleman has in mind. If I were given some concrete example I might be able to form some opinion as to what the commission is being invited to do.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I admit that clause 16, read together with clause 1, taking into account the relationship that is now in the wording, is a great improvement on what we had previously. I am not denying that, but I believe there may be another area where a shipper may have reason to believe that he is paying a disproportionately high contribution in the rate above the variable costs.
New section 336 will be all right in some cases dealing with light car loadings up to 30,000 pounds or under 30,000 pounds, but it has no value in the old formula on heavy loadings. There may be cases where no comparison can be made, where no other shipper is shipping nearly the same thing from nearly the same point. In such a case a shipper should be able to go to the commission and declare that he is paying a disproportionately high contribution over and above the variable costs, say 200 per cent or 300 per cent, on the

basis of loadings. He may be able to convince the commission that the rate is high and he may be able to argue that it is prejudicial to the best interests of the region in which he operates.
That is why I say there is another area in which it may be a little difficult to prove public interest, but a shipper may be able to prove that a rate is prejudicial to his business. I am not going to speak on this matter again and, as I say, I think this is an improvement on what we had previously.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, sir, there was a general feeling that we were going to rise at this time until eight o'clock.


Maurice Rinfret: May I inform the committee that the Chair wishes to confirm that the amendment was not moved previously.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I understand a wish has been expressed by the committee that we suspend sittings between now and eight o'clock. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: And is it
agreed that we resume the work of the committee at eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.




[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-231, to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions-Mr. Pickersgill- Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
Maurice Rinfret: Pursuant to the order just made by the house I do now leave the chair.



SITTING SUSPENDED


Maurice Rinfret: Order. House again in committee of the whole to consider Bill C-231. When the committee rose at seven
January 24, 1967

o'clock we were considering an amendment submitted by the hon. member for Kindersley. For the information of the committee perhaps I should read the amendment. The hon. member for Kindersley moved:
That clause 16 (as amended) be amended as follows: In subclause (2)	(b), in the line "may
prejudicially affect the public interest in respect of'', after the word "affect" insert the following words "the business of the complainant or". The line would then read: "May prejudicially affect the business of the complainant or the public interest in respect of".
The hon. member for Acadia.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, as I suggested previously I have a few more words to say in respect of clause 16 and its proposed amendment. Actually there are two major clauses in the bill having to do with the discriminatory aspect of rate setting which this bill allows the railways to be involved in. In respect of new section 336 which was dealt with earlier, we were not able to convince the minister that it should be amended or that a broader definition should be drawn up with regard to the interpretation of "captive shipper" or a captive area. Since we have been unable to convince the minister that there should be an amendment made to section 336, it becomes more evident that clause 16 should at least be strengthened. I should like to say quickly that it certainly is strengthened by the minister's amendment, but the question remains whether it is strengthened enough in view of the fact that we were not able to amend section 336 in any shape or form.
I believe this amendment strengthens clause 16. It gives an individual a right to appear before the board in an effort to establish a prima facie case that the railways are discriminating against his business. This means that he would not have to establish there was discrimination against the public interest or the community in which he lives, or in half the province or in the whole province in which he lives, but merely against his business.
In order to clearly understand this one would have to go back to the old railway act and the principles enunciated in this transportation bill. The old railway act established the Board of Transport Commissioners in, I think, 1903. That board was set up because of a monopolistic atmosphere which prevailed across Canada in respect of the railways in those days. There were a number of specific clauses which outlined what the rail-23033-772J
Transportation
ways could and could not do. The act went on, in effect, to suggest to the railways that they could not increase their rates unless they established a prima facie case that their rates were in need of being increased to assure their remaining in business. The whole onus at that time was on the railways to present arguments to the effect that the rates should be increased, that the rates were not discriminatory and so on.
In this bill the whole onus is placed on the shipper. He must prove he is a captive shipper. In this case he must prove not only that he is being discriminated against by a mode of transportation but also that it is in the public interest that he and his business be not discriminated against. It is not good enough to prove that he himself is being discriminated against by a railway company; he must prove that it is in the public interest that he be not discriminated against.
I think one must look at the whole concept of this bill. In it the railways are being allowed to bring in any rate they like. The minister has suggested that clause 16 offers insurance. Actually it goes quite a bit further than the original bill. In looking at the original bill, I notice that there have been something like 65 or 70 amendments. In the committee hearings we urged the minister to do something about this discriminatory aspect of the matter. He came up with the suggested new clause 16 which took the place of old section 17 in the Railway Act. But once again one must ask oneself what protection is being given to an individual, a captive individual or an individual who is being discriminated against. It is all well and good to give the railways the right to set any rates they like, but we must also remember that the minister admitted there still are some errors where a monopolistic atmosphere exists. In the minutes of proceedings and evidence No. 23 of the committee on transport and communications he stated he had difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the industry would be better off if the railways were allowed to set their own rates. He admitted that he had difficulty in finding areas in which a person would be in a monopolistic position.
We have arrived at the position where the railways are to be given the right to set their own rates. We have also arrived at the position where we realize monopolistic situations exist and that there are areas where the railways may be discriminating against a shipper. We must ask what protection we are giving an individual shipper who finds himself in either a monopolistic position or in a

January 24, 1967
Transportation
position where he is suffering from a discriminatory rate set by a railway. As legislators we must be prepared for this. I suggest earnestly to the minister that his only argument against this amendment is that it will open wide the door to a mass of frivolous complaints. I suggest that the minister reconsider that statement. Surely he knows that a person who appears before the board will have to prove that the rates are discriminatory against his business. In other words he must prove that the freight rates are putting him out of business.
The representative of the mining association appeared before the committee and quite conclusively pointed out that freight rates could and did affect their business, that they accounted for something like 50 per cent of the cost of their final commodity. Dr. Borts, when appearing before the committee, said that the formula instead of being 150 per cent above the variable cost, is something like 350 per cent above the variable cost.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
If one projects the thinking in this regard and reads the committee proceedings, one finds that the mining association said that in a particular case transportation constitutes 70 per cent of the cost of their product. I asked the mining association officials whether they had any protection under this bill, and they said no. I then asked whether it would be conceivable that they could in fact be priced out of business. They assured me that this could very, very easily happen. Their commodities are sold all over the world. As everyone knows, ocean freight rates are far cheaper than rail. As I say, they assured me they could very, very easily be priced out of business by a competitor in another country. The officials of this association told me that if we did not give them some protection, this .could happen.
The minister can talk all he likes about a provision with regard to discrimination being included in this clause. He says there must be two like industries hauling a similar commodity a similar distance, and if one rate is higher than the other, one must be discriminatory. This argument does not hold water. It is not conclusive because in many, many cases there will be only one industry, and the competitor may be in another country and moving goods into this country under ocean freight rates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman has looked at

subclause 3(ii) of the clause we are discussing. It seems to me that this is another ground on which there would be no problem, because this provision is also in clause 1 and is one of the factors connected with the public interest. This part of the clause reads as follows:
an undue obstacle to the interchange of commodities between points in Canada or an unreasonable discouragement to the development of primary or secondary industries or to export trade-
The hon. gentleman was talking about the competitor being in another country and there being no other shipper in Canada. If a shipper could show that the rate the railway was setting was such as to prevent his entry into the export market, he would certainly have a prima facie case to be heard by the commission.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am not particularly worried about whether a person will be able to present a prima facie case. I would like to give him the right to appear and appeal under this clause. He should not have to prove that he has that right; I believe that we as legislators should give him the right. Whether when he appears before the commission he can prove his case is a horse of another colour. But we must give him that right. I am not condemning the whole of clause 16. I think it is good, although it could be better. I believe this amendment would make it a better clause.
The only argument the minister has put forward in saying that he cannot accept the amendment is that it will open the door to a whole mass of frivolous complaints. I do not believe this. I do not believe anyone will prepare a case, hire counsel and go to the expense of coming to Ottawa to appear before this commission in order to put forward a frivolous complaint. Therefore I think the argument advanced by the minister in respect of this amendment is very, very weak indeed.
If the minister says that all these rights are preserved and an individual will, under clause 16, have the opportunity to appear before the commission if he considers the rate to be discriminatory, why not make it clear in the clause? In the committee study of this bill the minister wanted to make a great many other things clear. He wants to nail down the definition of "grain". There has never been in the Crowsnest pass agreement a definition of grain; the definition has been built up over the years and is now accepted by the courts. The minister wants the definition to be clear in the case of grain, but he does not want to state emphatically that if the business of an
January 24, 1967

individual is affected he may appear before the commission to put forward his case. In our opinion he should not have to prove that he has a right to appear.
I wholeheartedly support the amendment after carefully studying clause 16 as put forward by the minister. I urge the minister to put up a better argument than he has up to now with regard to the open-door philosophy and a whole mass of frivolous complaints being brought before the commission. I urge the minister to accept the amendment. I know how congenial he has been in this debate. He should accept the amendment because according to his interpretation everything has already been taken care of in clause 16, and therefore we are really adding very little if we include the amendment. In our interpretation of the clause the amendment will give an individual the inherent right, if he feels he is being discriminated against, to prepare a case, hire counsel if necessary, come to Ottawa and attempt to prove that case. I do not intend to say any more with regard to this amendment. Once again I urge the minister to consider it very carefully, put up a better defence against it or accept it.


Maurice Rinfret: Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Cantelon) negatived.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, you won that one, Jack.


Maurice Rinfret: I declare the amendment lost, on division. Shall clause 16 as amended carry?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, we are agreeable to clause 16 passing. In this respect I think there is agreement on this side of the house. We should like an idea of what we have to accomplish in regard to this bill. I understand that the Chairman's ruling will be made fairly soon this evening. There has been some indication of this, I believe.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could correct the hon. gentleman. I believe some of us have been advised that there will be no ruling this evening. I hope I am correct in saying this. I understand that there will
Transportation
not be this evening any ruling in respect of clause 74. In that event, I believe it would be a very good idea if we could deal with clause 1, which is the only clause left, and conclude some of the general speeches in respect of that clause. After we have dealt with clause 1 perhaps we could take up some other business, because there does not seem to be any prospect of making much progress until we have the ruling in respect of clause 74. I do not see any reason why we should not deal with clause 1, if any hon. member has any general statement to make on it.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall clause 16 as amended carry?
Clause 16 as amended agreed to.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the committee consider clause 1 as amended?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 1-National transportation policy.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Mr. Chairman, there are a few observations I desire to make on clause 1. We have spent a great deal of time on this bill both in committee and in the house. In fact, we spent two months on it before the Christmas recess, and every day since resuming this session. It is an extremely complex bill which had a long involved history before it reached the stage at which it is today-almost passed.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
A royal commission appointed in 1958 submitted its last report in 1961. The first draft,. C-120, was withdrawn in 1964, and this edition, C-231, is unique in having been considered by the transport committee before being given second reading in the house.
The MacPherson report gave us the principle on which the minister has based Bill C-231, namely that the railroads should be free to set competitive rates. As I have said before, I do not agree with this principle, and everything I have heard throughout this debate has not changed that thought.
The first edition of the bill was so roughly handled outside the house in an impromptu committee meeting of the transport committee that the minister withdrew it, and has now had it completely rewritten. Perhaps I should say he has had it rerewritten.
The second edition which came out some two years later had some 70 amendments made to it in committee before reaching the:

January 24, 1967
Transportation
house. I confess that I am not sure just how many amendments have been made to it by the committee of the whole house since, and I doubt if anyone knows how many there were.
One can readily understand why caution should be exercised before attacking this bill, particularly in view of the number of modifications. However, I intend to do so as many others have. My remarks on this occasion will be of a general nature since there have been ample opportunities to make more specific ones as we dealt with the terms of the bill clause by clause.
The bill meets the intent of the minister to let competition between the various modes of transportation-rail, truck, air and ship-set the rates to be charged. Indeed, this was recommended by the MacPherson commission set up for this purpose; a commission of experts who might be expected to know what they were talking about. But are we to accept uncritically the views of these experts? In my view we should certainly not do so, because experts are often wrong.
Richard J. Needham, columnist for the Toronto Globe and Mail, put it much better than I can in this article he wrote for the Canadian Churchman of December 1966.
I've spent some 50 years listening to the experts, and each year my respect for them dwindles. The experts assured me there wouldn't be a second world war. There was. The experts assured me the second world war would be followed by a calamitous depression. It wasn't. For some years now, the experts have been assuring me that the new machine-automation, they called it-would put millions of Canadians out of work. And what's happened? In most parts of Canada, employers are screaming for help. There's a serious shortage of workers, with no letup in sight.
Modern labour has its battalions of experts, so has management, so have governments and their proliferating agencies. These experts all talk at once, they usually say different things, they are wrong much of the time, and how could it be otherwise? For all their charts and graphs and statistics and projections, they are dealing with two immeasurables-a future which is, and always will be known only to God; and that elusive contradictory, unreliable factor, human nature.
However, for those who might consider these views cardinal heresy, I will refer later to some experts whose views are quite different from those of the MacPherson commission.
The minister is deceived if he thinks the rates the railways set will be fair. The railway will charge all it can get. If he carries out his intentions as set out in this bill he will create grave injustices-grave injustices, because all regions of this very large country

will not be fairly treated if we free the railways to charge whatever rate the traffic will bear. The minister apparently believes that clause 16 of the bill, new clause 16, and sections 1 and 336 will provide safeguards to prevent the railways overcharging the shipper. They will not, in my view, nor in the view of many others.
We ought not to delude ourselves that the railways will charge less or that they will even maintain rates. They will certainly raise them. This bill will give them the power to do so and they intend to use it.
The passage of this bill leaves only one safeguard for Canadians. It is the safeguard of adequate competition. Competition the minister hopes can and will exert pressure on the railways so effectively that they will be compelled to charge a rate that is in the national interest, not the rate that is in the railways' interest. In my view this competition does not exist in certain areas of the country today and it will not exist in the near future. Hence my contention that there will be discrimination. Furthermore, for certain products it is not certain that competition will ever be effective to regulate rates.
The minister, because of the objections of the opposition, has rewritten clause 1 and hopes he has eliminated areas of discrimination by the railways. I hope he has too, but I doubt it. I doubt it simply because the competitive principle is supposed to operate, and I do not think it can operate effectively.
I said "national interest" very deliberately. When Sir John A. Macdonald had the first national railway built he did so because without it he knew the western half of Canada would fall by default into the orbit of the United States. The Liberals in those days could not see the truth of this fact. Today I doubt if the Minister of Transport can see any more clearly. Does he not know that the railways are still instruments of national policy and that in this large diverse country we must keep them so?
The minister's main argument is that by freeing the railways to set their own rates the country will escape the $100 million annual subsidy which this country pays to the railways. Perhaps we will, but it will cost the people of this country as a whole much more than that to do it. What is worse, the cost will be so unevenly and inequitably distributed that some sections of the country are going to want to shift their freight to a north-south pattern to escape from the injustice.
January 24, 19G7

There is one thing that might prevent this from happening. That is a tariff policy which is so severe it would be impossible to import goods through the western railways into Canada from the United States at an economic price. It is conceivable that the same directional shift would take place in the maritimes. However, we understand that one of the new facets of Liberal policy is to have an approximation to free trade, this is an argument that has been noticeable in their ranks lately. If this comes about then there will be nothing at all to prevent the north-south pattern from growing apace.
Once this pattern is set up the hurt to the nation will not be restricted to the west and the maritimes, although these regions will feel the immediate effect. It will mean a much lower level of growth for central Canada when that region loses the future business which I say it will inevitably lose. It will mean, too, that this economic handicap, coupled with all the bilingual and bicultural controversy that western Canada has been subjected to, and which, I am sorry to say, I think they are beginning to resent, will foster a tendency to look to the United States as a greater friend than central Canada.
What the end result will be of a policy which will force us to trade with the United States first and eastern Canada second I do not know, but this lies in the future. I am no prophet but, as a Canadian, what I think I see I do not like.
It may be argued that this shifting of trading pattern is a form of competition. Indeed it is, but I hesitate to trust the railways to give up the immediate advantage of a high rate and present profits for the long term advantages of more future business and greater profits in that future. Neither do I think they are so altruistic as to consider the national interest ahead of those of their own railroads. [DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Let us pass from this hypothetical view and get the concrete opinions of those who believe that the idea of freeing the railways to set their own rates can do great harm. The Saskatoon Star Phoenix of November 25 reported the views of Dr. E. W. Williams, Professor of Transportation at Columbia University, who has had extensive experience in the transport field. A few days ago the hon. member for Acadia listed the qualifications of this gentleman and the views he expressed. I merely say that he has testified before many transport committees in the United States as well as before the
Transportation
MacPherson royal commission in this country. Dr. Williams was speaking to the transport committee of this house and giving his views on the effect of competition on our railways. This is what he said:
The bill is without precedent In any country.
Now, what does Dr. Williams mean by that? I think he is saying rather bluntly that we are being stupid. I continue to quote:
The pressures of competition on Canadian railways were limited and in many instances completely ineffective.
Here you have a statement by an expert in the field, a statement that there is no adequate competition in this country to regulate rates. No other country in the world believes that the railways should be free to set their own rates regulated entirely by competition. In no other country in the world, so far as I have been able to find out, is this practice followed. These other countries do not believe adequate competition could ever regulate their railways, so why should we believe it will work in Canada?
The very great danger to our western and maritime regions was pointed out by A. V. Mauro, counsel for the province of Manitoba, who said in his brief to the transport committee that the railways, through rate regulation, could say what areas of the country would be developed. If I may, I should like to quote his own words as reported in the Western Producer of December 1, 1966:
One of the urgent questions in the new era of railway legislation is the danger that the railways, freed of almost all rate control, might begin to dictate through rates the areas of Canada to be developed and the companies that would develop them. That is the chief reason we're here.
I know the bill has been modified to try completely to eliminate this effect of area discrimination. The minister, of course, does not agree that the bill would permit such rate discrimination now, but Mr. Mauro's fear was natural and not to be lightly passed off, even now. The minister stated then that he felt the amendments to be brought in would correct Mr. Mauro's fears. I confess my fears have not been completely eliminated, and from conversations I had with Mr. Mauro in mid December I am reasonably certain he feels as I do, that the amended bill does not do this.
The provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and the maritimes all fear area discrimination. Why is this so? It is so because the bill removes all the old sections and acts which protected these areas against unjust rate discrimination.

January 24, 1967
Transportation
Mr. Mauro of Manitoba, Mr. Frawley of Alberta and Mr. Dickson for the maritimes made their fears very clear. Professors Williams and Borts re-emphasized these fears. If you wonder where Saskatchewan stands, I can only point out that their brief, as presented to the transport committee, was an innocuous compendium which indicated that the Liberals in Saskatchewan hesitated to tread on Liberal toes in Ottawa. Quite a different attitude was taken by the official opposition in Saskatchewan and by Saskatchewan members of parliament in Ottawa who do not like this bill and do not share the views of the Liberal government in Saskatchewan.
The clause which provided for a study of the Crowsnest pass rates, which was to be made within three years, of course has been eliminated. However, we are faced with a new clause 74 which brings in through the back door what went out through the front door. Since we have not had the ruling of Mr. Speaker on this amendment, I feel I should not comment on it further. It is odd, however, that in the years when the railroads move large volumes of grain their profit picture is better than in the years when the movement is lower. Since the railroads claim that they lose money on moving grain, one would logically suppose that the more grain they move the larger their losses would be. If the minister is so certain that there is adequate competition now in transportation in our country, why is it necessary to make this notable exception in his policy of freeing the railroads to set their own rates? It is very strange indeed, although perhaps not quite so strange when we realize the attitude of the west toward these Crowsnest pass rates.
The bill sets up, in part I, a transport commission which is to carry out the intent of the bill and regulate the various modes of transport to which the bill refers. To do so, the commission is given very broad powers. These powers are so broad that parliament will have very little if any control, except through the annual report the commission will make. While it may be that the commission will discharge its duties properly and well, there is a possibility that it will not.
If the appointments to the commission are good and the minister exercises firm control, this scheme may work well. However, if the appointments are not good, parliament and the country will be in for trouble. If the appointments are good, even a good board may be perverted through time. It may have some strong personalities who-and this is a
[Mr. Cantelon.l
common fault-believe that they know more about what policies should be followed then either the minister or parliament. With an uninformed or weak minister,-and perhaps ten years from now the present minister will be gone,-no one can tell what mistakes may be made. I consider the present transport committee in parliament will be quite incapable of fully evaluating the action this large transport commission may take. It has neither the staff nor the expertise to be able to evaluate the actions of the transport commission. Some steps must be taken to control this many-headed monster or parliament or the country may regret it.
However, this minister and his party have refused our suggestions and I suppose we will have to live with the control of the commission. Provision is made in the bill for attention to be given to research. I think this is something we have needed for a long time, particularly in respect of rail lines. There is no doubt the railways have been content to slog along in the same old way, on the same old track and, I might say, in the same old cars. I suggest to the minister that he set up a chair of transportation in one of the universities. We would then develop some Dr. Williams and Dr. Borts of our own, men who thoroughly understand the operations of transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was he not just as much impressed by Dr. Armstrong of McGill as with either of these gentlemen who came from another country?


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: I was indeed, and I probably should have mentioned his name. However, I think we have too few of these experts. I would hope that the action I suggested would enable us to have many more experts in the field of transport. What I was trying to point out more specifically was that if we had a chair of transportation there would be direct research and a direct developmental policy that would be to the advantage of the whole country. Is such a chair were set up, it should be given adequate money so that it might carry out research into all phases of transport, not the least of which might be the economics of rate setting.
I am compelled to this interest in transportion research because of the feeling I have that we are rapidly falling behind in the way
January 24, 1967

in which we handle our grain today. When we began to market large quantities of grain over 50 years ago, we had the most modern system in the world for handling it. Today this once modern system is not keeping abreast of progress. We are moving much larger quantities of grain, so I think we need research to investigate all the phases of grain handling from the standpoint of the railway, and not only from the standpoint of the railway but from the standpoint of the elevator and the terminal.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
A transportation research chair set up in one of the universities, and provided with adequate funds, could investigate fully the ways in which the railways are operating today and I am sure could come up with more modern, more efficient and economical ways of getting our products, and particularly our grain products, to the markets of the world. I strongly commend the bill for the opportunity it provides for such research to be done. I sincerely hope the fullest opportunity will be taken to implement this provision in the bill, and especially that sufficient funds are made available so research can be vigorously pursued.
Rail line abandonments have been a subject which has aroused a great deal of concern in my area of the country, and in particular in my constituency. When the original abandonments were proposed I believe there were more miles of track to be abandoned in the constituency of Kindersley than in any other constituency in the Dominion of Canada. The interest of the people of my constituency is, then, understandable and so of course is my interest. As these abandonments began to be listed in large numbers there was great satisfaction when the previous Conservative ministry, in January 1962, put a stop to the processing of all abandonments until a thorough investigation had taken place.
It is notable that the present government has continued this freeze and that no abandonments have been proceeded with since that date. A great many abandonments have been listed and now there is a quite comprehensive map which shows the abandonments or suggested abandonments.
When Bill No. C-120 was proposed in September 1964 there were provisions for abandonment in the bill which were extremely unsatisfactory. Those of you who are familiar with it will remember that a rationalization authority was proposed, and that this
Transportation
rationalization authority actually had no authority. If a line were proved to be uneconomic, and so said to be by the Board of Transport Commissioners, all that the so-called authority could do was to say when the line was to be abandoned within a time period of five years. The only discretionary power it had was to set a date for abandonment. We fought this very strongly in the informal meetings that were held in the fall of 1964 and the minister withdrew the bill. He must have considered seriously our representations.
In the new Bill No. C-231 the rationalization authority has been eliminated. Instead the new Transport Commission has power to consider the rationalization proposals, and after thorough investigation may order abandonment, but only if the line is uneconomic. It has very wide powers to consider not only the report of the railway company on the profit-making position of the branch line, but also the effect the abandonment will have on the community. So there is a quite notable improvement in the bill in this respect.
The minister on several occasions, in answer to my question whether funds will be provided, has clearly indicated that moneys will be available under certain conditions to assist the provinces to build roads which might take the place of lines which are abandoned. This has been done already in one instance.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that I have succeeded in making the following points: First of all, that a railway is an instrument of national policy; second, that in my view a railway is still a monopoly, and this demands control of rail rates; third, that a railroad might practise area discrimination; fourth, that there must be a way to evaluate the work of the new transport commission; fifth, that research is needed and that funds must be sufficient to do a good job and sixth, that assistance for road building must be provided where a rail line is abandoned.
I do not suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this to any degree exhausts what can be said about this bill and the policies of the minister with respect to it. The minister and the government have been fortunate in that the opposition has vigorously opposed the suggested railway legislation. It may have taken two and a half years to get this legislation through, but in consequence of our opposition I feel that some bad faults have been corrected. The minister has now come up with an over-all policy for transportation. Rail line abandonment policy has been radically changed and the rights of communities are, I hope, now to

January 24, 1967
Transportation
be more fully considered. But-and it is a large "but"-the basic principle of competition is going to cause great damage to many areas of this country, I very much fear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest for a goodly number of days to the very interesting and constructive debate we have had on this very important bill, which I know has received a great deal of consideration by the committee. I do want to compliment the minister. In all my 21 years in this house never have I seen him exercise such flexibility of approach, have such patience, or respond on occasion with such spontaneous humour. I think he has excelled himself on the occasion of this very important bill.
I have listened to the arguments which have been put forward, particularly by the representatives of the prairie provinces, knowing what a great deal this transportation policy means to them, even though on occasion it may have been somewhat tiring to hear arguments repeated even as many as three times-and I think that is quite a modest estimate. I also think that all members of the opposition have taken a very constructive approach to this bill, in moving their amendments, and so on.
Before we conclude the study of this bill in the committee stage, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words on behalf on my constituents. I want to emphasize that in speaking for my constituents on this question I do so regardless of party. I also speak on behalf of practically all the organizations of any consequence and size in the constituency of Kootenay West. I am taking a particularly non-partisan approach to this question.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, during the consideration of the proposed section 314J (1) (c), which reads
-"uneconomic service" means a passenger-train service that has been determined to be uneconomic by the commission under section 3141-
-I was called out of the house rather hurriedly and when I returned this section had been passed. Therefore I have to take the opportunity which is provided on clause 1 to say what I wish to say.
I think that clause 1 does provide this opportunity, Mr. Chairman. The first paragraph reads:
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,

and that these objectives are most likely to be achieved when all modes of transport are able to compete under conditions-
-that are stated in succeeding clauses.
I know that the hon. member for Kootenay East, the minister's parliamentary secretary, is interested in this question because he took a very active part in the original fight for the retention of passenger service on the Kettle Valley railway. There may be some new members of the house who have not heard of this railway before. I think it is quite truthful to say that I speak with some spirit of conviction on this matter. I should also like to make mention of the Minister without Portfolio.


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am referring to the younger and better looking one from Montreal. He was born in my constituency and I am sure that he is with me in spirit in what I have to say this evening, though he is not here at the moment. As I say, I am sure we have his sympathy.
In passing, Mr. Chairman, I should like to mention that I am very pleased to know that some airport development is taking place in the constituency of Kootenay East. I understand this is being undertaken this year and that in the near future it will be the second best airport, next to Castlegar, in the Kootenays. I am sure everyone is pleased to see an airport being developed in the hon. gentleman's constituency. The airport at Castlegar has developed over a period of ten years as a result of grants by the federal government, which everyone in the district appreciates.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
While passenger services were abandoned on the Kettle Valley Railway by the Canadian Pacific in 1964, I have been asked by my constituents to make another plea for the reconsideration of this important question. Numbers of people have spoken to me about this, because their attention has been attracted by all this talk on the transportation bill. I say, without hesitation, at all, that I speak for a vast majority of people I have the honour to represent, regardless of party.
Many people, Mr. Chairman, do not realize that at the present time about 150,000 people in southeastern British Columbia are denied passenger service because the Canadian Pacific refuses to accept its responsibilities to these people, and to this great wealth producing area from where large quantities of minerals are shipped. There are large shipments of
January 24, 1967

[DOT]coal, forest products, fertilizers and other commodities from the smelter, pulp products and other things produced in this district.
I know the hon. member for Kootenay East has been interested in this question for some time, because I have read the reports of the committees. In minutes of proceedings of evidence of Tuesday, March 8, No. 4, of the standing committee on transport and communications I noticed the hon. gentleman showed his interest by the questions he asked. At page 170 I see the following:


Mr. Byrne:: Some years ago-two years I believe, to be exact-the Canadian Pacific Railway abandoned, if I may use the term loosely-
I am not clear what that means
-the passenger service on what is known as the Crowsnest-Kettle valley railway line. I am particularly interested in this because it runs to the East Kootenay and, incidentally, the West Kootenay-


Mr. Sinclair:: Yes, I know exactly where those are. I know why you put in "incidentally" in regard to the West Kootenay.
I should like to know what Mr. Sinclair means by that. Continuing:


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: At that time there was, of course, great consternation: but again we heard the charge that the Canadian Pacific Railway was given large mineral, land and forest grants to provide the building of the famous Crowsnest railway.


Ian David Sinclair: Yes.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: And we heard that for that reason they should continue to give railway passenger service until perhaps the end of time or until there was some indication that there was absolutely no requirement whatsoever.
Later in the same hearing I read this:


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: X am quite in agreement with that. My purpose in asking the question is and was to identify this story that I and many others in politics had to contend with at the time of the abandonment of the railway.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Of what, Mr. Byrne?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Passenger service on the now famous Kettle valley and Crowsnest line. I think it is important that we hear both sides of the story. I have not been able to get these figures straight in the past and I am glad to have them on the record.


Ian David Sinclair: There was no obligation, Mr. Byrne, by statute; there was no obligation by any agreement to provide passenger service. That line, like all other lines, became a part of the Canadian Pacific Railway and became subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Transport Commissioners when it was formulated in the early 1900's. I think the first board was set up in 1903. Therefore, before passenger service could be withdrawn in the Kootenay it required the approval of the Board of Transport Commissioners and that was secured and received after hearings held in the Kootenays and elsewhere before the service was discontinued. If I may go on for one moment, Mr. Chairman, the service was discontinued and I have been in the
Transportation
Kootenays. I have not seen, as I said earlier, any withering on the vine of such places as Cranbrook, Castlegar, Nelson.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The members are withering.


Ian David Sinclair: The members are withering?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The members of parliament.


Ian David Sinclair: They are maturing.
I wonder what Mr. Sinclair means by that. By maturing, does he mean that hon. members accept the policy of the Canadian Pacific?
On page 173 we find the following:


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: One final question, sir. How much land does the railway still maintain under the original grant, not any new acquisition?


Ian David Sinclair: Well, Mr. Byrne, there are some townsite lands which have never been sold; some of them have come back on our hands; I would suggest about 600,000 acres, including what is being referred to by some people unkindly as moose pastures.
I now want to quote briefly from a brief. This is from the brief presented at the hearings when the question of the abandonment of the line was being considered by the Board of Transport Commissioners, and I quote this to show what the public attitude was, Mr. Chairman. As I said before over 150,000 people are denied passenger service over this line which runs from Vancouver, in effect, to Medicine Hat. These are the people who appeared: F. C. Hislop for Fernie and District Chamber of Commerce; J. H. Ward, aider-man, city of Cranbrook; Lloyd J. Hoole, representing Cranbrook Chamber of Commerce; C. W. Sims, representing the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; W. H. Towey, representing the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; E. B. Ferguson, Industrial Co-ordinator, city of Lethbridge; S. Cimolini, representing the village of Natal; H. C. McKay, M.L.A., Fernie; L. M. McBride, Q.C., for the Nelson Chamber of Commerce; Leo Gansner, for the city of Nelson; J. G. Flanagan, representing Local 480 of International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers; Mrs. Mae Johnston, representing Tye, B.C.; Rev. Ernest Hanson, representing Kootenay Lake Bible Camp; C. W. Brazier, Q.C., representing the government of British Columbia, and F. H. Herbert, for the city of Penticton.
That shows the interest there was in this problem at that time. The representations made before the Board of Transport Commissioners were on a very wide scale indeed.

serious as it sounded. I spoke to some of them on occasions. I asked them how they reconciled blowing up a railway track with their philosophy of life. They told me: "Mr. Her-ridge, we wait until the train goes by and then we blow up the tracks". However, these incidents were seized on at once by the C.P.R. as one of the reasons for discontinuing the service, though at the same time freight trains were moving every day from our district to coastal ports. I cannot see any great difference between running passenger trains and running freight trains.
Then the train service was split at Penticton. Passengers had to lie there overnight before going on with their journey the next day. This discouraged passengers and in my opinion that timetable was set by the company in order to lower its passenger receipts. This is also the opinion of a great many people with whom I have discussed this question in the constituency I have the honour to represent.
There are good reasons for the maintenance of passenger service here. The people are not asking much. They would like a daily passenger service between Vancouver and Medicine Hat. All that is required to give that service is an engine, a day coach and a cafe sleeper car. I am sure that if the service were resumed and if people knew they could travel from Vancouver to Medicine Hat or vice versa in one day, the line would soon receive patronage.
What are the reasons for requiring this passenger service in addition to those which have been mentioned? First, there are the severe weather conditions experienced in this area in the winter. We have heavy snowfalls in British Columbia, and certain portions of the road are unsafe for travel, particularly along the Salmo-Creston cut-off and the Hope-Princeton highway. These portions are often closed to traffic because they are unsafe. The road from Princeton to Hope is extremely dangerous at certain times of the winter. Then again, air travel from Castlegar and other points in the interior is uncertain in wintertime.
Our people-and I am sure I am speaking for many of those who live in Kootenay East-have asked me to draw these matters to the attention of the committee and to urge that there should be due consideration of this question by the Board of Transport Commissioners and by those who are responsible for transport policy. I urge that this question be reconsidered in order that the passenger service of the Kettle Valley railway may be
Transportation
resumed and the company persuaded to accept its responsibility to the 150,000 people in southeastern British Columbia who at the present time are denied the benefit of a passenger service because of the ruling of the Board of Transport Commissioners. This is the ruling:
The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, on or after the 16th day of January, 1964, is authorized to discontinue operations of trains 45 and 46 between Lethbridge, Alberta, and Spence's Bridge, British Columbia, upon sixty days' prior notice filed with the board and posted in each railway station served by the said trains.
The said notice shall also be published in one issue of a newspaper published or having general circulation in each of Fernie, Cranbrook, Creston, Nelson, Trail, Penticton, Princeton and Merritt.



H. H. GRIFFIN,

[Stage Direction]
Assistant Chief Commissioner,
The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada.
The district which I have the honour to represent is in strong opposition to this order for the discontinuance of passenger service of the Kettle Valley railway, and the people who live there trust that this important matter will receive the consideration of those who are responsible for the administration of transport policy in Canada.
© (9:10 p.m.)
Mr. Hugh:: Has the line been completely abandoned for passenger service? There are no passenger trains running through Penticton now, nor have there been for some time. Can the hon. member give the date of the last Kettle Valley train to run in his area?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think it was some time in the spring of 1964.


Mr. Webb:: May I ask the hon. member whether the C.B.C. covers the entire area he represents?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I really wonder what this has to do with the transport bill.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: In reply to the minister I would just say that the railways are heavily subsidized by the taxpayers, as is the C.B.C., and I was just wondering if it would be fair to give both services to that area.


Mr. Ballard:: When this bill was being discussed in the standing committee, one term that was used over and ever again was rationalization of the modes of transport in Canada. It was the avowed interest of everybody concerned that we should make transportation a rational thing, and I must compliment the minister on fairly well achieving

January 24, 1967
Transportation
a rationality of transportation. I also have to congratulate him on his method of piloting this bill through the house, but he has received, as 1 am sure he admits, a lot of help from members of the opposition in making it a viable and acceptable piece of legislation.
I believe that rationalization means that the railways should be recompensed for all of the services they give, and also that they should be put in a position to pay for all the services they buy. Clause 1 emphasizes this fact when it states 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 wellbeing and growth of Canada.
As I say, I think the minister has pretty well achieved this objective. He has made sure that under this bill the railways and other means of transportation will be adequately recompensed for the services that they offer and be put in a position to be able to pay for the services they get. But the one exception to this is the oversight on the minister's part in not requiring the Canadian Pacific Railway to pay municipal taxes to the municipalities of both western and maritime Canada,
As a result of this oversight I propose to move an amendment later on which will read:
That clause 1 be amended by re-numbering (b) of clause 1 as clause 1(b)(1) and Inserting a new sub-clause (11) as follows:
(11) each mode of transport, so far as practicable and without prejudice to any single mode, bears a fair proportion of the costs of local government services in those municipalities in which the mode of transport operates; and
This would provide that the Canadian Pacific Railway would pay normal municipal taxes to all of the municipalities through which that line passes. The minister has recognized that this type of thing should be done because back in September last year, when speaking of the C.N.R., the government owned railway, he said, as recorded at page 8210 of Hansard for September 8:
It has been the custom in the case of government owned railways, as distinguished from other parts of the Canadian National system, for the Canadian National to make some grants in lieu of taxes. It will be the intention of the government when this legislation has been passed, as a contribution toward the process of rationalization and equal treatment for all parts of Canada, to instruct the Canadian National Railways to make payments to
[Mr. Ballard.1
these municipalities as though they were taxable. We have the power to do that without express legislation.
The minister has acknowledged the responsibility of the government owned railway, and by accepting my amendment I hope he will acknowledge that the same responsibility rests on the C.P.R. to pay taxes to the municipalities through which it passes.
The exemption of the C.P.R. from municipal taxes goes back to the 1881 agreement between the federal government and the C.P.R. The provinces of western Canada had no part in the signing of that agreement. It was inherited by the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan from the federal government when the Northwest Territories were divided into the two provinces in 1905. As a result the municipalities are stuck with a situation over which they have no control.
A study made by the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities has calculated that the city of Moncton, New Brunswick, which is served by the C.N.R., is short changed in taxes paid by the C.N.R. by some $115,249. That is the difference between what the C.N.R. will be paying in taxes after this bill has been passed as compared with the grants it made in the past. The city of Saint John is short changed $97,058, Sydney, Nova Scotia, $18,516, Halifax $311,210, and the situation is not much different in cities through which the Canadian Pacific Railway passes.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I might say in connection with my home city of Calgary that if the C.P.R. were to pay normal taxes-that is, the taxes any other taxpayer in the city of Calgary would pay-they would pay approximately $739,000. In other words, with the grants in lieu of taxes amounting to $49,000 the city of Calgary loses a total tax collection from the railway of $690,000. If this amendment should pass, it is estimated that across the western provinces the taxes to be collected from the Canadian Pacific Railway alone will amount to between two and a half million and three million dollars. This will have a tremendous effect on some of these municipalities. I might say that Calgary forgoes a greater amount in taxes than any other municipality which would be affected by this amendment. Not only are we concerned with the number of dollars we have been losing since 1881 but also the lack of any incentive to force the railways to develop their property in a manner becoming to the city through which the railway passes.
January 24, 1967

The situation is that these areas contiguous to the railway property now are the areas of the city which are subject to blight. In many of these cities these are the areas where the land value is at a minimum in comparison to the other districts. They also are the areas which will be subject to urban renewal. They are the areas in respect of which there will be demands made upon the government for tremendous amounts of money for the financing of urban renewal programs.
I realize the Minister of Transport received a letter from the president of the C.P.R. in which the president agreed that possibly the C.P.R. had some responsibility to the municipalities through which the railway passed. He accepted the suggestion that possibly the C.P.R. should try to be a good citizen in these municipalities. He agreed that if the government, through this transportation bill, should rationalize the freight rates they would condescend to make some sort of deal whereby they would pay taxes.
I should like to quote part of the letter from Ian D. Sinclair, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway. This letter is dated August 29, 1966. It was tabled in the House of Commons, appears at page 8210 of Hansard for Thursday, September 8, 1966, and reads in part as follows:
The company is prepared to forgo voluntarily perpetual exemption from taxation by the local authorities on our main line in the prairie provinces in three equal stages: one third for the year commencing January 1 after legislation is enacted modernizing and rationalizing existing legislation and taking into account, among other things, the effective changed conditions on freight rates otherwise fixed; a further one third in the succeeding year; the balance in the third year from the commencement of the period as stated.
There are two or three things wrong with this offer which is being made by the president of the C.P.R. There are conditions even in this offer which he has made. He says that the offer stands, provided the legislation is enacted to modernize and rationalize the existing legislation. In no place in his letter does he say what he means by "modernizing and rationalizing existing legislation". If some portion of this legislation should not convey the meaning which the president of the C.P.R. had in mind when he made this offer, I wonder whether his offer would be withdrawn. He mentions also "the effective changed conditions on freight rates otherwise fixed".
When he mentions fixed freight rates does he include the Crowsnest pass rates, for example? In other words, since August 29, 1966 have we changed the transportation bill to
Transportation
such an extent that this offer no longer stands? This is the reason I believe it is essential that if we are to have an act that is fully rational this amendment must be considered by the Minister of Transport and must be accepted by the house.
I might say that ample provision has been made in the bill to take care of any increase in taxes that the C.P.R. must pay. According to this letter the C.P.R would not have to pay taxes for the year 1967. It would not have to start paying taxes until January 1, 1968. In my humble opinion this means that if this legislation is not passed it is quite possible that we will be giving the C.P.R. a free ride for another year so far as taxes are concerned. When we speak of rationalization I understand this to mean that the modes of transportation shall be given a fair enough schedule of freight rates that they will be in a position to make a reasonable profit, but also that they will have to shoulder the responsibility of paying their way. Surely municipal taxes are something the railways must pay in order to pay their way. I should like to move therefore, that clause 1 be amended by renumbering subclause (b) of clause 1 as clause 1(b) (i) and inserting a new subclause (ii) as follows:
each mode of transport, so far as practicable and without prejudice to any single mode, bears a fair proportion of the costs of local government services in those municipalities in which the mode of transport operates; and-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words in respect of this amendment. I hope you will not put the question this evening because I should like to reserve the right to present an argument concerning whether or not it is in order. I have been taken somewhat by surprise and I should like an opportunity to examine this suggested amendment. I suspect it is out of order. I think also that it is ultra vires. I am not sure, however, about these things, because this is in respect of a declaratory part of the bill which may have no real consequence, except to declare a broad general principle. I should like to reserve the right to argue this matter when we next come back to the bill.
I understand there has been consultation among hon. members on both sides and that there is general agreement that we would make more progress if I were to move that we rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house, so that we might get on with some other business pending the decision of the Chair which has

January 24, 19G7
Judges Act Amendment been reserved. If I am correct in this understanding, I so move.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I think the
hon. member for Roberval wishes to speak on clause 1.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member for Roberval was told about this agreement. I said that I thought there was an understanding among all groups that the committee would rise at this time, without dealing with this amendment, passing the clause or doing anything further in connection with the bill, so we could get on with some other business. I believe my understanding is correct. I have made a motion in this regard. I do not want to be disrespectful in any way to the hon. gentleman, but I wonder whether it would suit him equally well to speak to clause 1 when we come back to the bill tomorrow. I believe this course would be more convenient for the house generally.


Maurice Rinfret: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
{Translation]


Mr. Gauthier:: Agreed, Mr. Chairman.

Progress reported.



JUDGES ACT AMENDMENT


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-262, to amend the Judges Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 1.
Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether he can tell us what areas are concerned in the appointment of judges. I know the areas are in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia, but what particular districts in those provinces are concerned?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer this question, but I was only acting in the absence of the Minister of Justice, who is now in the chamber, and I feel the question should be directed to him.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, with respect to Ontario the appointment now being considered is judge at large, otherwise known as a roving judge. In British Columbia it is for the appointment of a judge in the county of Westminster.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I shall not take very many minutes in speaking to this bill. No one has any desire to hold up its passage, because judges are necessary in this country. The judge whom it is proposed to appoint to the county court in British Columbia will be appointed to an area that is in my riding. I am surprised that more judges are not included in this bill. I realize they are necessary in some other provinces, but I know the provinces have to make a request before the appointment of judges can be included in a bill.
I did rise to speak on this matter when the Speaker was in the chair. My remarks will be general but I can assure the committee that they will be very brief. When the Judges Act is before the house for amendment the debate is almost predictable. Someone in the New Democratic Party will rise and say we should not have the appointment of judges in the field of political patronage, and someone else will rise and defend the judiciary. Very often it is the hon. member for Carleton. The hon. member adopted this approach when we were discussing a similar amendment on March 30, 1966, and again on January 13 this year, just over a week ago. He said that the statement had to be made on every occasion that amendments to this act are before the house, namely that we have in Canada a very fine judiciary.
I should like to say that there is something else that has to be said again and again. The element of politics comes into the appointment of our judges, and some day we will have to change this approach. Let me say again that I think we all recognize the fact that we have good judges in this country, and that because a man has had a political career or political affiliations is no reason at all why he should be disqualified from becoming a member of the bench. Having said that, I think it is also fair to say that many appointments to the bench of this country have not been of the best. If this were not the case we would not now have on the order paper an item which deals with a joint committee of the house and Senate in respect of Mr. Justice Landreville.
I am not going into the details of that case; I merely point out that such a thing exists. I point out, too, that other members of the
January 24, 1967

bench of Canada have been under a cloud in very recent years. It someone says that these are exceptions, I would say there should be no exceptions. There are in all the provinces of Canada sufficient lawyers, outstanding in their profession and recognized so by their colleagues, respected by the public, to fill these vacancies. These people could be appointed and there would never be any question about our judiciary.
This sort of criticism has been valid too frequently in the past. The Solicitor General said on January 13, as reported at page 11798 of Hansard, that in this connection there are unofficial consultations with the law societies of each province. This may well be so; I do not know. But I would suggest they are of a negative character and that the federal officials may go to the law societies and say: Have you any complaints about this man? I say this because it seems that after these consultations the result is nearly always the same: When a Liberal government is in power, Liberals become judges; when a Conservative government is in power, Conservatives become judges, regardless of any consultation with the law societies. This does not need to be the case.
I said that on almost every occasion when we had this type of debate a member of the New Democratic Party makes a complaint; but I am pleased to say that other hon. members have similar doubts. There is on the order paper a bill presented by the hon. member for York-Scarborough, Bill No. C-236, which calls for consultation with the Canadian Bar Association when judges are to be appointed. In this regard I have been procrastinating for a year; I intended to introduce such a bill. However, I am very glad the hon. member for York-Scarborough has done so. I should like to refer to his bill for a moment and point out the kind of reform it proposes. The bill says:
Before proceeding to the appointment of any judge, the Governor General shall consult the judiciary committee of the Canadian Bar Association.
In the explanatory notes we see the following:
At its 1966 annual meeting the Canadian Bar Association passed a resolution calling for the appointment of a committee of the association to assist the Minister of Justice in the exercise of his authority and responsibility to make appointments to the judiciary.
Accordingly it appears desirable before any appointment is made to the bench that the federal authorities consult a committee of the Canadian Bar Association so that they may have the benefit of the opinion of the legal profession on the
Judges Act Amendment
suitability and qualifications of persons being considered for judicial appointment.
This proposition does not take away the prerogative of appointment which, under our constitution, is vested in the Governor General.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The purpose of this bill is to give effect to the proposal of the Canadian Bar Association.
This bill is a step in the right direction. I would go even further and say that the appointment of judges is too important to be left entirely to lawyers. I like the suggestion made by Professor William Angus of the law faculty of the University of Alberta, that lay persons be involved in these selections.
To conclude my remarks in respect of this clause of the bill I should like to read a few words from the paper which Professor William Angus delivered to the Association of Canadian Law Teachers at Sherbrooke, Quebec, on June 10 last year. In this paper, which is lengthy, he dealt with the methods of appointment in the United Kingdom and Canada and gave a history of appointments. I will read his last few words about how we might change our system, where he said:
A practical solution might well take the form of an independent committee in each province, similar to the electoral boundaries commissions recently established for redistribution of parliamentary seats. Broad representation from various segments of the legal community and the inclusion of a few lay persons on the committee would ensure public confidence in the fairness of the selection procedure. When a vacancy on the Bench occurs, the committee could consider potential appointees and present a list of qualified persons to the Minister of Justice. The minister could then either recommend one of the qualified nominees from the list to the cabinet, or if he wishes to consider other prospects, submit their names to the committee for an appraisal of their qualifications. When the committee's view has been returned, the minister would then be in a position to make his recommendation and the cabinet to exercise its choice. If questioned in parliament, the minister could be required to disclose the committee's evaluation of the appointee and to defend the appointment. A plan of this nature clearly falls within the boundaries of our present constitutional framework and has much to recommend it.
Some encouraging signs have appeared recently. A little over a year ago, the then minister of justice stated "that it would be a valuable step if various provincial bar associations would voluntarily send in regular panels of names of lawyers who would make good judges, regardless of political affiliation." Earlier this year, the Ontario section of the Canadian Bar Association at its annual mid-winter meeting held an enlightening panel discussion on judicial selection during which the need for some check on the qualifications of prospective appointees was generally acknowledged. Only a couple of months ago, the issue was debated once again in the House of Commons where both

January 24, 1967
Judges Act Amendment the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General expressed a sympathetic attitude towards the problem.
Every major Commonwealth country except Canada now selects judges on the basis of merit. Surely the time has come for Canada to follow suit.
That is all I have to say tonight in that respect. Let me assure the government that this matter will come up again and again for consideration.
I am pleased to see that an hon. member of another party, the hon. member for York-Scarborough, has shown some interest in this subject. I hope that before too long we will see someone in the Conservative party present a bill on this subject. This would indicate that members on all sides of the house are interested in seeing a change made in our system of selecting judges.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Chairman, just a few words to tell the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that I do not entirely agree with him when he says that in most cases politicians should not be appointed judges.
Experience has proven, I think, that even if the legal knowledge of the persons to be appointed has to be taken into account, certain other social factors must also enter into the picture. As a matter of fact, those selected must be very human and have a great deal of knowledge of both men and things. I think the method used for the appointment of judges guarantees against serious mistakes. I am happy to say that former governments have appointed as judges persons who were able to perform their duties and assume their responsibilities. In fact, once appointed, they proved beyond doubt that they were impartial.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) has, of course, raised a point that his political party has been advocating for a few years in its election platform. I do feel, however, that it is not entirely well-founded and before changing our system, I would ask the Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. Cardin) to look fully into it.
I should also like to point out, as I already did when the bill was introduced in the house, that the rolls of our superior courts are very heavy, which in many cases causes serious prejudice to the people under our jurisdiction.
[Mr. Prittie.1
It has happened, even in my private practice, that some cases entered on the rolls had to wait four years before coming before the court. Now, it often happens that during those four years of waiting, one or two witnesses for the defence or for the prosecution disappear, thus depriving a taxpayer of some evidence he could have brought before the court.
It is a fact that the Superior Court rolls are very heavy.
I recently pleaded, before the Court of Appeal, a case that had been entered in 1958. I pleaded the case in 1966. After five, seven or eight years, the memory of a lawyer, or his case, may not be as clear as it would have been had he pleaded the case within two years after it was entered.
I know that the number of judges is set by the provincial authorities and that the federal government has no responsibility in this regard. But I would ask the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to bring some pressure on the various provincial governments to let the federal government appoint a sufficient number of judges to satisfy the requirements of the taxpayers.
The minister, I think, also received last year a brief from the conference of Quebec judges which emphasized the importance of a revision of the salaries of Superior Court judges which are now pitiful. Although a judge may live a more solitary life after being sworn in, he is often called upon to represent his colleagues and give lectures on cultural matters, on a social basis. He is also called upon to travel and he should be given security and protection from all financial worries.
There are judges in the province of Quebec who can hardly make both ends meet with the salary they are getting at present. Those people find themselves in a difficult position, as they have to limit their social activities and I believe that the fact their salary is not increased lowers their prestige and dignity.
The brief makes a comparison with the deputy ministers of the various federal departments. On looking at the scale of salaries of deputy ministers, we find that some of them earn $25,000 per year, whereas we still have judges who earn $21,000 per year. If we allow for the income tax paid by those judges, we realize that they finally get about only $1,100 per month. How can a judge carry out his responsibilities and fulfil his duties with such remuneration, especially in 1967?
January 24, 1867

In concluding my remarks, this is what I ask the hon. minister. He obviously received this brief; perhaps his officials have considered it and he has studied it himself. I should like to know when the conference of judges that submitted the brief to the hon. Minister of Justice can expect to receive comments from him concerning the salary of our Superior Court judges?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the question put by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin), I may say that I have received representations not only from the conference of judges, but also from the chief justice of the province of Quebec who, in fact, was spokesman for all the judges in Canada, with respect to the salary increase. These representations were made at the end of last summer and, as a matter of fact, a very detailed study has been made in regard to the salaries of judges; I believe legislation will be introduced before the house in a not too distant future.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I will be very brief indeed, Mr. Chairman. I see the house leader has a rather strange look on his face. For a number of years I have been interested in this question. I have discussed with judges I have known and lawyers throughout the district the matter of the appointment of judges. I find there is no agreement amongst the lawyers. Many lawyers do not agree with the recommendations of the law societies on this matter. I must say that, on the whole, our experience in Canada has been very fortunate indeed in so far as these appointments are concerned.
However, I do want to support the suggestions made by the hon. member for Burna-by-Richmond to the effect that a committee could be appointed on a provincial basis including members of the legal fraternity and lay persons. I should like to suggest that if lay persons are included then farmers, that good, honest breed, should be included in the committee as well as some representation from the working people. We must remember that judges are human. It does not matter what scheme is devised to make certain they do not err; they are human like other people. Even in countries which have other systems of appointment for judges, such as Great Britain and Australia, judges err on occasion
Canada Elections Act
to the discomfort of the government (hat appointed them.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, December 6, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-299, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system for the period from the 1st day of January, 1965 to the 30th day of June, 1967, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company-Mr. Sharp-Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
Maurice Rinfret: Shall clause 3 carry?
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 13 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Bill reported.
Maurice Rinfret: When shall the said bill be read a third time, now?


Michael Starr: By leave, now.


Mr. Mcllraith (for Mr. Sharp) moved: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


George James McIlraith: That the report of the committee on election expenses tabled October 11 last be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
January 24, 1967
Business of the House REFERENCE OF ACT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
George James McIlraith: That the standing committee on privileges and elections be empowered to study the Canada Elections Act and to report to the house such proposals as the committee may deem advisable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George James McIlraith: Item No. 84 on today's order paper was not indicated as business for today, but it is a bill we propose to refer to the justice committee. If the house were agreeable, we would go on with second reading now, but I would not press the matter if anyone wishes to debate it.


Michael Starr: We have not looked at that bill, Mr. Speaker. It is now ten o'clock. We would have been prepared to pass item No. 120, Bill S-55, but since it is ten o'clock I think we have done very well today.


George James McIlraith: Tomorrow we propose to continue consideration of the transport bill. After the completion of it, we propose to call item 62 on today's order paper; item 84; item 120; item 124 and item 125. Depending on the time available, I might vary the order of calling any of these measures, but that variation would take place only after discussion with the house leaders of the other parties.


Michael Starr: If I understand the house leader correctly, if we finish the transport bill, then for the balance of the day we will take these items. However, this does not necessarily mean we will continue taking these items on Thursday?


George James McIlraith: No, we would not propose to continue them into Thursday. We would propose for Thursday consideration of item 107, which is the armed forces unification bill.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 16 last I asked the hon.

Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) if he was aware of the difficult situation in which the Canadian shoe manufacturers found themselves, due to excessive imports of these products. The minister's answer, appearing on page 11824 of Hansard, read as follows:
-this matter has been brought to my attention before and it is under consideration. It is a fact that imports of shoes have increased, but domestic production has substantially increased too.
In making such a statement, the minister proved one of two things: either he was taking advantage of his position to mislead the public, or he did not have enough information.
I chose to believe that the minister was not well informed. That is why, on January 19 last I mentioned to the house the brief which the manufacturers association of that industry had sent every member of parliament.
Allow me, at this point, to quote a few paragraphs of the covering letter.
Dear Sir,
Enclosed herewith please find copy of a brief we have sent the Canadian committee on tariffs and trade to acquaint its members with the serious situation of the shoe industry.
The brief is the fifth we have sent the committee since May 15, 1964 and, as you will note, shoe imports are still increasing at an alarming rate.
And the brief contains a table based on. Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures.
In 1951, for instance, we find that Canada, with a population of 14 million people, produced 48 million pair of shoes as compared to imports of 2 million pairs.
In 1956, with 16 million people, our production had increased to 56 million, with imports reaching 6 million.
In 1966, with nearly 20 million people, we produced 66 million pairs of shoes, as compared to imports of 31 million pairs.
In short, Canada's population increased by 42 per cent from 1951 to 1966, while the production of shoes in Canada went up by only 35 per cent and imports soared to 1,048 per cent. That means that 1966 imports represent 47 per cent of the Canadian production, which is more than needed to bring about the closing of several factories.
In fact, the brief precisely contains the list of manufacturers who have disappeared from the commercial scene in Canada since 1963. They number 26, 13 in Ontario and 13 in Quebec. The city of Montreal has lost four
January 24, 1967	COMMONS
of its plants while the city of Quebec and suburbs have lost six.
Surprisingly, among the lost plants, some were founded or established at such various times as 1914, 1907, 1961, 1940, and 1912.
There must surely be professionals among those people, I imagine, cultivated persons who are experts in their profession.
The brief further states:
Since our delegation appeared for the first time before the committee on tariffs and trade in June 1964, our manufacturers have shown growing concern at the shoe imports from socialist countries of central Europe, in particular.
Some shoe manufacturers of those countries bring out lines designed especially for export.
Mr. Speaker, last summer I had the opportunity to spend two weeks in a socialist republic. In that country a suit cost between $50 and $70; shoes cost from $10 to $15, depending on quality. All that while the carpenters and welders working in one of the world's biggest shipyards earned only $35 a month and an engineer, a university professor earned only $75 a month.
Since those workers do not earn enough money to buy their own production, it is obvious that the governments of those countries must look toward the export market if they want to keep their policy of full employment going.
As concerns the Asian countries, it has been well known for a long time that their shoe factories belong to foreign financiers. For the last few years, these gentlemen seem to have chosen Canada as a dumping ground for their products of dubious quality.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, for the Canadian government to allow the entry of commodities from the Asian countries is to bow before the financiers who are hiding in Europe and particularly in England. To allow the importation of shoes from communist countries is to encourage slavery, and to tolerate the present volume of imports is to create unemployment in our country.
In many small towns and communities, the shoe industry is the main source of employment of the local workers.
According to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, this industry provides direct employment for 10,000 persons in Ontario and 14,000 in Quebec, while another 15,000 are employed in allied industries.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
All those people are quite concerned about the increased imports and rightly feel that their future is in danger.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, could we be informed now as to what action the department intends to take to correct this deplorable situation which affects directly or indirectly about 150,000 Canadian citizens.


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Surely, the hon. member is not implying that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) intended to deceive anyone.
Such a statement would be contrary to facts, especially since the minister wants very much to protect this Canadian industry.
The brief submitted to the Canadian committee on tariffs and trade by the Canadian Shoe Manufacturers Association was given careful consideration by officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
Then it was referred to the Canadian delegation at the GATT conference on tariffs; negotiations are presently under way at Geneva.
This shows the minister's efforts to find a solution to the plight of our shoe manufacturers.



HOUSE OF COMMONS-INQUIRY AS TO THE USE OF ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINE

Mr. Heaih Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, we in this house are given to expressing concern over our procedures. Indeed some of the longest arguments I have heard in this chamber have been about time saving and improving our procedures. This of course is not unusual in deliberative bodies. But we have noted of late a public expression of concern about what is fashionably called our image. I have noted the speeches of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his expressed desire that procedurally we move into the twentieth century.
When one considers that it is now over one year since this session began on January 18, 1966 we are faced with a situation where the calendar year is not long enough for the parliamentary year, if I may express it that way, and there is some reason for concern. I do not worship the goddess of ultra efficiency. We must never make any change which would diminish by one jot or tittle the democratic ingredients of this chamber in the interests of speed, smoothness or efficiency. Some of our
12216	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion procedures are traditional and old fashioned and some think them not functional. Many traditional procedures are valuable, and indeed essential.
Little can be said in defence of our voting procedure, and much can be said against it. The charge of time wasting is often heard. The government accuses the opposition of wasting time, and I suppose many people who have spoken think that the other fellow who is speaking is wasting time. That is the usual attitude.
I think, however, that our voting procedure here is a complete anachronism. The observer of our chamber hears Mr. Speaker use the time worn expression "call in the members", and he watches the members leave the chamber. What happens in the interval? The members wait, and wait, and wait until a vote is taken. This voting process is laborious and difficult for the officials of the house, and time consuming in the extreme.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I have been watching during the few years I have been here-now close to ten-the number of hours which have been spent in waiting for votes to be called and taken. In the twenty third parliament we spent five hours and 40 minutes. In the fourth session of the twenty fourth parliament we spent 24 hours sitting, waiting, and waiting. I have calculated that since I came to this house we have spent the equivalent of 30 sitting days waiting for votes and having the votes counted. This is a serious factor, and one which should be considered by those who are anxious to improve our procedures.
Lovers of tradition may say we should not lay careless hands on matters of this kind. But our method of voting here is not part of the procedure at Westminster, the mother of parliaments. There, they literally divide the house and their voting process is much quicker than ours. Of course, we tend to wait for members to come in. An example of the ludicrous nature of that procedure occurred not long ago when one ambulance arrived bearing a member of the opposition and another brought a supporter of the government, and both men were carried in to cast their votes. It would have been much better had they obeyed their doctors' orders and stayed in bed.
An electronic device would make possible the instant recording, counting and revealing of the votes of all members. It would be a great time saver. It would be a magnificent aid to making the time we spend here more
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
DEBATES	January 24, 1967
useful and valuable. If such device were installed, I believe that one of the rights available should be a right which would allow for an abstention. Abstentions have taken place for many years in the British parliament. Though it is hard to believe that any Irishman would not take part in a discussion or an argument, the Irishmen under Parnell abstained from time to time. Certainly in a house where there are several parties there should be a means by which a member could register his presence but indicate that he supported neither the amendment, say, nor the motion which was before the chamber.
So, in the words which the Secretary of State is said to have used in connection with the new Member of the Administration (Mr. Gordon), I would ask the leader of the house to "get with it", and move in the direction I am suggesting. If he cannot take steps to introduce an electronic voting machine now, then at least let him place before the committee on procedure, which I hope the house will soon set up, sample machines whose efficiency may be studied in the interest of their adoption and the improvement of our technique, so that all of us here may spend our time better than in waiting and waiting for a vote to be taken.


Mr. J. B. Slewart (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: The hon.
member for Queens is urging that electronic voting machines be installed for the purpose of recording votes in this chamber. He is concerned mainly about the time consumed by our practice of calling in the members and then having the members rise in their places to be recognized and counted. I must say that this may seem ponderous and a waste of time in an era when party loyalty normally leads all members of all parties to follow their leaders. It is not easy to see how the installation of electronic voting machines would overcome the principal time-consuming phase of this process-the phase in which the members are being called in. The machine could speed up the actual counting of members, but that would save only a small part of the total time now taken.
Moreover, sir, I think the hon. member would agree that if we were to resort immediately to the use of electronic voting machines we would hardly be beginning the modernization of our procedure. I doubt that we shall achieve a genuine improvement in our procedure in the house until most members have cause to feel that they are damaging themselves or their party, or both, by long, rambling and repetitious speeches. If the
January 24, 1967	COMMONS
notion got abroad that such speeches, no matter from what quarter of the chamber they originate, are an affront to the electorate, a spirit that would inspire and energize genuine reform might develop.
Since January 11, 1967, the government has had a motion on the order paper for the establishment of a special committee on procedure. We were told at ten o'clock this evening that if the house moves expeditiously tomorrow, that item of business may be called.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion The government hopes that it will pass tomorrow. That motion will give a special committee wide power to recommend procedural improvements to the house; and I am sure the committee would not want to overlook the arguments in favour of electronic voting machines, even though I suspect that such machines would not work a very great improvement in time saving in this chamber.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.18 p.m.



END OF VOLUME XI