1967-05-29

Mr. Auguste Choquetle (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning notice of motion No. 1 on page 17 of the order paper, and standing in the name of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell).
On May 15, 1967, as recorded on page 187 of Hansard, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) asked you to strike from the order paper notice of motion No. 36 standing in my name.
Whereupon you replied:
-There may be arguments in favour of the proposition advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, and if he will allow me to do so I will take that point under consideration and in due course, because I do not think it is a matter of extreme urgency, render a decision as to whether it is in order to allow this type of motion to be on the order paper.
Mr. Speaker, the motion of the hon. member for Carleton seeks to do indirectly what I would do more directly, that is the member for Carleton wants the royal power of dissolution abolished and-I end my question of privilege here-as the motion of the member will be studied today, I maintain I am being discriminated against if his motion is considered in order, because you have given no ruling.
That is why I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Emard):
That notice of Motion No. 1, on the order paper of the house under the name of the member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) be deleted therefrom and be considered invalid until such time as the Speaker has given a ruling on notice of motion No. 36 under my own name.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will remember that when this question was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), I indicated at that time that there was no question of privilege even though a point of order may have been justified. I must make the same ruling in the case of the question of privilege raised by
the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Cho-quette) and suggest that he may raise, if he wishes, a point of order when the notice of motion in the name of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) is called.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege, may I say that each time the member for Lotbiniere rises my heart bleeds for his distinguished father and mother. I do not intend to add to their discomfort.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If this matter is raised again by the hon. member for Lotbiniere as a point of order the hon. member for Carleton may at that time make his comments in respect of any arguments then advanced by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. [DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



DIVORCE


Mr. Bernard Pilon (Chambly-Rouville) moved:: That the members of the House of Commons on the special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons to inquire into and report upon divorce in Canada and the social and legal problems relating thereto be Messrs. Aiken, Baldwin, Brewin, Cameron (High Park), Cantin, Choquette, Fairweather, Forest, Guay, Goyer, Honey, Laflamme, Langlois (Megantic), MacEwan, Mandziuk, McCleave, McQuaid, Otto, Peters, Ryan, Stanbury, Tolmie, Wahn and Woolliams; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


J.-E. Bernard Pilon: That the members of the House of Commons on the special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons to report upon question of lyrics of the national and royal anthems of Canada be Messrs. Forrestall, Gauthier, Hymmen, Johnston, Mandziuk, Martin (Timmins), McCut-cheon, McWilliam, Orange, Prud'homme, Ryan and Tremblay; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
May 29, 1967
Proposed Legislation IMMIGRATION

J.-E. Bernard Pilon: That the members of the House of Commons on the special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons to examine and report upon the white paper on immigration tabled in the House of Commons on October 14. 1966, and the reports on immigration matters made to the government of Canada by Mr. Joseph Sedgwick, Q.C., in 1964 and 1966 be Messrs. Aiken, Badanai, Baldwin. Bell (Carleton), Blouin, Brewin, Chat-wood, Crossman, Dinsdale, Enns, Haidasz, Klein, Laprise, Leblanc (Laurier), Macaluso, Munro, Nasserden, Orlikow, Prud'homme, Regimbal, Roxburgh, Ryan, Skoreyko and Watson (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie); and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Berihier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-119, to amend the Tobacco Restraint Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Antonio Yanakis: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing this bill in order to call to the attention of the government the report which the Department of National Health and Welfare published after a study which lasted 12 years and proved that there is a direct link between excessive cigarette smoking and the mortality rate due to chronic illnesses such as lung cancer, respiratory ailments and heart disease.
In order to warn smokers and the coming generation against that danger, it would be advisable for the government to limit advertising with regard to tobacco and force companies to print on their packages of cigarettes: Warning-Smoking may endanger your health.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDIAN ACT


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-120, to amend the Indian Act (rights guaranteed by treaties).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, up until the present time laws of general application have been detracting from certain Indian rights as guaranteed by treaty.
The purpose of this bill would be to change the legislation so that only by specific enactment could treaty rights be detracted from.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Caouetle: 1.	How many electors who were not Canadian citizens but were British subjects, ordinarily resident in Canada for the 12 months immediately preceding polling day, voted in the last federal election?
2.	Did any persons who were neither Canadian citizens nor British subjects (e.g., French or Italian immigrants ordinarily resident in Canada for the 12 months immediately preceding polling day) vote in the last federal election?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secreiary of State):: I am informed by the Chief Electoral Officer as follows: 1. The Canada Elections Act does not require an elector to specify whether he is a Canadian citizen or other British subject; consequently, the information requested is not available.
2.	According to the Canada Elections Act, a person must be a Canadian citizen or other British subject to be qualified as an elector. No information is available as to any person who voted at the last federal election who was not qualified as an elector as defined in section 14 of the said act.


HOUSE CONSTRUCTION UNDER SECTION 35A OF ACT
Mr. Caouette: 1.	How many dwellings have been constructed in each province under section 35a of the National Housing Act?
2.	How much was the federal government required to pay each of the provinces for the said dwellings?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: 


HOUSING PROJECTS APPROVED UNDER THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT, SECT. 35A
[Stage Direction]
Province	Federal-Provincial Rental Housing Projects	Housing Commissions	New	Existing	Total	No. of Projects	No. of Units	Actual Expend. (Federal Share) ($000)	No. of Projects	No. «f Units	Actual Expend. (Federal Share) ($000)	No. of Projects	No. of Units	Actual Expend. (Federal Share) ($000)	No. of Loans	No. of Units	Actual Expend. (Federal Share) ($000)Newfoundland	
7	820	7,591	_	_	826	7,591	-Prince Edward Island	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	13	119	580Nova Scotia	
6	1,013	9,592	1	8	69	7	1,021	9,661	165	1,331	6,187New Brunswick	
7	785	6,677	-	-*	-	7	785	6,677	-	-	-Quebec	
1	796	7,998	-	-	-	1	796	7,998	-	-	-Ontario	
75	6,599	62,493	2	436	2,411	77	7,035	64,904	-	-	-Manitoba	
2	494	1,571	-	-	-	2	494	1,571	-	-	-Saskatchewan	
12	633	5,261	-	-	-	12	633	5,261	9	36	77Alberta	
3	98	640	-	-	-	3	98	640	-	-	-British Columbia	
7	1,400	11,243	-	-	-	7	1,400	11,243	-	-	-CANADA	
120	12,644	113,066	3	444	2,480	123	13,088	115,546	187	1,486	6,844
Note: The federal government's share of expenditures on housing projects approved under Section 35A is given in the above. The titles to federal-provincial rental housing projects are in the name of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on behalf of the federal-provincial partnerships. The federal government, through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, finances the construction of the projects, recovering the 25 per cent provincial share quarterly as construction progresses. Housing constructed for sale under Section 35A in the provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan are financed by loans from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to the provincial housing commissions, under the terms of designation agreements. The housing commissions in turn lend the money to the proponents of the individual projects on the security of blanket mortgages. The purchasers acquire their properties through the equivalent of an agreement for sale, title to the property remaining with the project until the property is fully paid for.
May 29, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	651
Questions
[Stage Direction]
May 29, 1967
Questions

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 9
Mr. Caoueile:: What is the number of parking tickets that have been issued on parliament hill since April 30, 1966, and how much does the total sum of these parking tickets amount to for the same period?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: 3,953 parking tickets were issued of which prosecutions were entered in 1,454 cases, resulting in fines and costs amounting to $4,575.


LOANS FOR PURCHASE OF EXISTING HOUSES
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Since the enactment of amendments to the National Housing Act in November, 1966, how many (a) insured loans have been made by approved N.H.A. lenders (b) direct loans have been made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to persons buying existing housing?
2.	What is the total value of the loans in each of categories (a) and (b) above?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1 and 2. Since the enactment of amendments to the National Housing Act in November, 1966, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has received 1,329 applications for loans from persons wishing to buy existing housing.
(a)	One loan for $10,200 has been made by an approved N.H.A. lender and, (b) 597 loans for 603 units in a total amount of $5.8 million have been made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to persons buying existing housing.


BILINGUAL MEMBERS OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Mr. Bell (Carleton): What are the names of the members of the Public Service Commission who are sufficiently proficient in both the English and French languages as would permit, without the use of an interpreter, effective communication between them and a candidate for appointment to the public service in the language selected by such candidate as the language in which he desires to have any examination, test or interview conducted?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have been given the following information by the public service commission:	Mr. Sylvain Cloutier.


BULK TRANSPORT OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS ON GREAT LAKES
Mr. Barnett: 1.	With regard to the answer to question No. 2,593 of the 1966-67 session, what steps have been taken 
to prevent or combat the possible pollution of the waters of the great lakes by bulk petroleum products being transported by tankers (a) by the Canadian Coast Guard (b) by any other agencies of the federal government (c) by agencies of the government of the United States (d) by agencies of provincial or state governments adjacent to the great lakes?
2.	What national or international authorities are responsible for insuring the safe carriage of bulk petroleum products on the great lakes?
3.	Under the authority of what legislation do such bodies operate and what regulations have been enacted in this connection?
4.	Has the government of Canada instituted any review of its policies or programs in the light of the United Kingdom experience in attempting to combat the outflow of oil from the tanker wrecked at Land's End in British waters?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary fo Minister of Transport):: 1. (a) Masters of Canadian Coast Guard ships have been designated as inspectors for the purposes of the oil pollution prevention regulations.
(b)	The St. Lawrence seaway authority enforces the seaway regulations which prohibit the discharge of oil in waters under the authority's jurisdiction. Steamship inspectors of the marine regulations branch of the Department of Transport enforce the oil pollution prevention regulations.
(c)	The United States is a signatory of the international convention for the prevention of pollution of the sea by oil. We do not, however, have information as to the specific duties of the various U.S. agencies in this connection.
(d)	Shipping is a federal responsibility and the provinces are not involved. We have no information in respect of state governments.
2.	In Canada, the Department of Transport. No international authorities are involved.
3.	(a) Canada Shipping Act; (b) oil pollution prevention regulations; (c) hull construction regulations; (d) hull inspection regulations; (e) machinery construction regulations; (f) machinery inspection regulations; (g) fire detection and extinguishing equipment regulations; (h) dangerous goods shipping regulations; (i) load line rules; (j) rules of the road for the great lakes.
4.	The matter of the Torrey Canyon was recently considered at a special meeting of the intergovernmental maritime consultative organization in London. Canadian representatives attended and will be participating in discussions and meetings as arranged.
May 29, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	653
Questions


CONSULTATIONS RESPECTING METRIC SYSTEM
Mr. Bell (Carlelon): 1.	Have there been any consultations with (a) the government of the United Kingdom (b) the governments of other nations of the Commonwealth, specifying which (c) the government of the United States of America, regarding the adoption of the metric system?
2.	If so, what was the nature of such consultations in each case and what was the result of each?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.


CUSTOMS DUTIES OWED BY AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURER
Mr. McCutcheon: 1.	Did any automobile manufacturers in Canada cease production operations in or about January to April, 1966, and, if so, which ones?
2.	Was any one of said manufacturers indebted to the crown in customs duties, as described in the Auditor General's report for 1966, page 64, such indebtedness having arisen because of the importation into Canada of Volkswagen automobiles?
3.	Was any demand for payment sent by the government to any such manufacturer and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Is any such manufacturer being allowed to retain $4.2 million stated by the Auditor General as being owing to the government of Canada as a result of discussions under the Canadian-American automobile agreement and, if so, on what grounds?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: 1. Yes, Studebaker of Canada Limited, Hamilton.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by 2.
4.	This matter, which involves more than one manufacturer and not the company referred to in 1, is presently receiving attention, and no final decision as to its disposition has as yet been reached.


PAUL GAGNE-EMPLOYMENT AT CANADIAN PAVILION AT EXPO
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1966, was Paul Gagne employed to work at the Canadian pavilion at Expo '67?
2.	If so, was Paul Gagne released from his employment for the reason that he had been charged with an infraction of the Canada Shipping Act as a result of participating in the so-called march on Ottawa while he was a member of the S.I.U.?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. Paul Gagne was never an employee of the Canadian government participation, 1967 exhibition.
2.	Not applicable.


DIRECT HOUSING LOANS TO BUILDERS
Mr. Laprise: Under the C.M.H.C. program providing loans to merchant builders for 20,000 houses (a) how many requests were received from each province (b) how many loans were granted in each province and for what sum?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The program for direct loans for up to 20,000 new dwelling units, announced on January 30, 1967, related to loans under section 40 of the National Housing Act to be made between April 1 and May 31 inclusive. The data following show the volume of activity to May 5.


APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AND LOANS APPROVED FOR NEW HOUSING UNDER THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT, SECTION 40 MARCH 1, TO MAY 6, 1967
[Stage Direction]
Applications Received		Loans Approved	
		No. of	No. of	Amount
				
Province	Units	Loans	Units	($000)Newfoundland	
188	42	232	2,944Prince Edward Island	
5	5	5	5Nova Scotia	
185	84	107	1,476New Brunswick	
97	59	63	869Quebec	
5,324	2,571	2,925	40,240Ontario	
5,939	4,187	4,193	71,182Manitoba	
754	449	480	7,712Saskatchewan	
743	420	475	6,281Alberta	
2,187	1,363	1,425	21,598British Columbia	
2,759	1,647	1,946	28,930North West Territories	
1	1	1	15Yukon Territory	
1	1	1	18Canada	
18,183	10,829	11,853	181,020
May 29, 1967
Questions

Mr. Coales: 1.	What is the estimated number of inmates that will be housed at the young offenders penal institution at Springhill, and on what date will the institution have its expected population?
2.	How many employees will be located at the young offenders penal institution, Springhill, and what will be the estimated payroll?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1.
The young offenders penal institution at Springhill is designed for a maximum of 467 inmates. It is not possible to specify the exact date by which this institution will have its expected population as inmates will be phased in over approximately a two year period commencing with the admission of the first inmates in September of this year.
2.	The estimated number of employees to be located at the young offenders institution, Springhill, when fully phased in, will be 241 and the estimated annual payroll, based on recent salary increases, will be $1,500,000.


SUBSIDY TO TRANSAIR LTD.
Mr. Rapp: 1.	Has the government of Canada agreed or arranged to pay a subsidy to TransAir Ltd. for the purpose of supporting the provision of air services in the prairie provinces?
2.	If so, what routes of TransAir Ltd. are covered by the subsidy?
3.	What is the basis for the computation of the subsidy?
4.	On what date did the payment of subsidy commence?
5.	How much money has been paid to TransAir Ltd., month by month, since the commencement of the subsidy?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Air Transport Board advises as follows: 1. The government of Canada has authorized payment of a subsidy to TransAir Limited on a temporary basis for such time as is required for the Air Transport Board to hold a public hearing and determine the future operation of air services in the prairie provinces.
2.	The routes involved service the points Winnipeg, Brandon, Dauphin, Regina, York-ton, Saskatoon and Prince Albert.
3.	The amount of subsidy is the equivalent of the shortfall between monthly revenues and monthly costs of up to but not exceeding $67,200 per month.
4.	April 16, 1966.

5.	1966-April 16-May 31	$ 57,000
June	35,000
July	39,000
August	41,313
September	25,573
October	32,893
November	24,077
December	27,827
1967-January	$ 24,827
February	24,671
March	23,516


$355,697 COST OF ICEBREAKING OPERATIONS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	How much did ice-breaking operations cost in each of the last five years?
2.	How much of such cost, each year, was spent on ice-breaking (a) on the St. Lawrence river (b) in the gulf of St. Lawrence?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. 1962, $3,492,000; 1963, $4,037,000; 1964, $4,250,000; 1965, $4,371,000; 1966, $4,299,000.
2.	(a) 1962, $545,000; 1963, $922,000; 1964, $1,006,000;	1965, $785,000;	1966, $684,000;
(b)	1962, $1,394,000; 1963, $1,384,000; 1964, $1,608,000; 1965, $1,545,000; 1966, $2,157,000,
The above figures are based on Quebec city being taken as the dividing line between the gulf and the river.


* CULTURAL AGREEMENTS WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many cultural agreements with foreign nations have been signed by the federal government in the last two years?
2.	With which countries were said agreements
made?
3.	Within the same period have any cultural agreements been entered into by provincial governments with other countries and, if so, by which provinces and with what countries?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Two.
2.	France-on November 17, 1965; Belgium -on May 8, 1967.
3.	An exchange of letters between France and Canada, which is included as part of the agreement of November 17, 1965, enables the Canadian provinces to make ententes with
May 29, 1967

France, within the framework provided by the general agreement and the exchange of letters, in accordance with the procedures indicated in those letters. Accordingly the government of Quebec signed a cultural entente with France on November 24, 1965 which was accompanied by an exchange of letters of the same date between the French ambassador in Ottawa and the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


TENDERS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF COAST GUARD WORK BOAT
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Were tenders called by the Department of Transport for the construction of a work boat for the Canadian Coast Guard, open to shipbuilding firms in the Atlantic provinces?
2.	What are the names of the companies who tendered on this 67-foot steel ship and what were the amounts of their bids?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes.
2. Kingston Shipyards, Kingston, Ontario; with Cummins H.R.S. 6M/Twin Disc propulsion, $323,792.00; with Rolls Royce C6NFLM/ Capital propulsion, $321,328.00; with Cummins N.H. 250M/Twin Disc propulsion, $321,094.00; with Cummins N.H. 220M/Twin Disc propulsion, $320,429.00.
Erieau Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. Ltd., Erieau, Ontario; with Cummins N.H. 220M/ Twin Disc propulsion $325,056.46; with Rolls Royce C6NFLM/Capital propulsion, $325,639.98; with Cummins N.H. 250M/Twin Disc propulsion, $326,165.26; with Cummins H.R.S. 6M/Twin Disc propulsion, $328,618.06.
Canadian Dredge & Dock Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ontario; with Cummins N.H. 220 or N.H. 250/ Twin Disc propulsion, $381,920.00; with Cummins H.R.S. 6M/Twin Disc propulsion, $385,280.00; with Caterpillar D333/Twin Disc propulsion, $376,680.00; with Rolls Royce C6NFLM/Capital propulsion, $376,680.00.


REMOVAL OF SALES TAX ON DRUGS
Mr. Enns: Will the government consider immediate steps to withdraw the 12 per cent sales tax on drugs in keeping with one of several recommendations of the special committee on drug costs and prices in its study of the high cost of drugs?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Member of the Administration):: It was stated by the Minister of Finance on April 4, 1967 (Hansard, page 14485) that it would be the intention of
Inquiries of the Ministry the government to proceed to remove the sales tax on drugs as part of an over-all effort to reduce the price of drugs.


PAYMENTS OF INTEREST AND DIVIDENDS BETWEEN CANADA AND U.S.
Mr. Mather: What, in dollars, was the excess of payments of interest and dividends from Canada to the U.S. over receipts of interest and dividends in the years 1960, 1964 and 1966?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The excess in Canadian funds of payments of interest and dividends from Canada to the United States, net of withholding tax, over receipts of interest and dividends, in 1960, 1964 and 1966 were as follows:
(millions of dollars)
1960	 437
1964	 660
1966	 822


UNITED NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before I ask a question I want to say, on a question of privilege, that the report in the Ottawa Journal of this afternoon's date which purports to set out in detail what took place between the Prime Minister and, to speak of myself, the Leader of the Opposition, is not in accordance with the facts.
I now ask the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that there will be a meeting of the security council this afternoon at 3 p.m. at which time the various matters which require to be dealt with in the very perilous world situation of today will be discussed, whether the Prime Minister would give consideration to making it possible, with the consent of the house, to revert to questions after the meeting of the security council. I think it may very well be that as a result of the meeting this afternoon a number of questions that might be asked now could then be clarified, and the answers would not be hypothetical but would be based on actual facts.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: So far the report in the local paper to which my right hon. friend refers has not reached me and I have not seen it, so I do not know

May 29, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry what it is about. However, I can assure him that the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I have regarded our meeting this morning as strictly confidential and have said nothing about it.


John George Diefenbaker: I refused to say anything about that meeting.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I not only refuse to say anything, I have not been asked by anybody to say anything. I believe that extends to the minister for external affairs. There has been no reference of any kind from us, even to the fact that we had a meeting, which should, in itself, be sufficiently innocuous.
The suggestion made by my right hon. friend is, I think, a very constructive one in the circumstances in which we find ourselves at the moment regarding a very dangerous situation. I do not know how long the security council will be in session, but we would be very glad when they finish the session and our ambassador reports to us to revert to questions so the right hon. gentleman and any other member who would like to ask questions about what happened there, or on other matters related to that meeting, can be given answers.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: think it would probably meet the wishes of all members if we could have the question period postponed until later in the day when we may know something about the security council meeting. However, it seems to me if the Prime Minister is prepared to make a statement at this time regarding the position the Canadian representative at the security council is taking, this would probably meet the wishes of hon. members and would be helpful in indicating the attitude we are taking with respect to the Middle Eastern crisis that is now upon us. These are statements which are bound to be public knowledge in the matter of the next few hours anyway, and I think members have a right to know what is the government's position.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not see any reason why it would not be proper at this moment to say that our representative at the security council has been instructed to make a short statement supporting the efforts of the Secretary General to persuade both sides to show moderation and restraint, and to gain time. Naturally I cannot go into the details of his statement, but there will be a short statement along those lines. We hope it will be helpful. I cannot say anything beyond that because the discussion may develop in

such a way that he would have to make a supplementary statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question which the Prime Minister can answer later if he so desires. All of us will agree, no doubt, that the important thing at the moment is to gain time in the hope that cooler heads on both sides will prevail. However, is the government keeping in mind that ultimately the United Nations will have to deal with the question of free access to the gulf of Aqaba, which will really be the nub of the whole question if peace is to be maintained in the Middle East?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There are very important elements in this problem, and my friend has mentioned one, which must be settled if this crisis is to be ended in a way satisfactory to both sides.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Prime Minister, who wishes to avoid questions and answers at this time, in view of the very important meeting of the security council which will take place at the United Nations at three o'clock this afternoon.
Now, as to our own concerns here in Canada, could the Prime Minister confirm or deny the rumour that Kuwait and the United Arab Republic have decided to close their pavilions at Expo in Montreal? Is the Prime Minister aware of this?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have no information which would confirm that rumour, Mr. Speaker, which has not come to me. If that step has been taken, and I hope it will not be taken, I have not received the report. I have had a report that the Sultanate of Kuwait has closed its pavilion, but I have no information whatever of any other government having even considered closing its pavilion at Expo. I can only express the hope that this will not happen. Even in respect of Kuwait the report I have received is not official.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether it was the decision of the house to continue with the question period at this time or return to it.
May 29, 1967	COMMONS
later. If we are going to continue we will participate; otherwise we will withhold our questions until later in the day.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that the question period be delayed and that I call orders of the day at this point?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there may be questions on other subjects which we could deal with now.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Then I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has any information to give the house regarding the critical situation which has developed in Nigeria.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, two important political developments took place in Nigeria over the week end. The consultative assembly of Eastern Nigeria gave its military governor a mandate to declare independence, and the head of the federal military government declared a state of emergency and issued a decree altering the federal structure of the country from four regions to 12 provinces.
The hon. member will appreciate that it would not be appropriate to discuss in detail the domestic difficulties which Nigeria is currently experiencing. I should like to say to him, however, that we continue to watch events in this commonwealth country closely, and we hope the leaders, both military and civilian, of this fellow commonwealth country will succeed in working out a peaceful settlement of their difficulties.



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Registrar General of Canada. In view of the growing fraudulent bankruptcy racket in Canada, and the statement made by Commissioner McClellan of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police some time ago that the underworld is on the verge of controlling all sections of our economy, has the government given consideration to the request by the Canadian Lumbermen's Association and other organizations for a royal commission to investigate all aspects of bankruptcy in Canada?


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for having sent me, with his usual
DEBATES	657
Inquiries of the Ministry courtesy, a typewritten notice of his question. While I have read with great interest the very good brief of the Canadian Lumbermen's Association, as indicated about one year ago in the house, there is a three man committee currently studying an over-all revision of the bankruptcy law. We have reinforced the administrative procedures by appointing regional officers at various centres across the country, and the superintendent of bankruptcy has been in touch with certain provincial attorneys general with regard to achieving a stricter enforcement of prosecutions for criminal fraudulent practices.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question. Would the minister inform the house whether the report of this committee dealing with bankruptcy will be referred to an appropriate committee of the house where the organizations particularly interested can also make representations ?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will consider that suggestion, but I take it the hon. member does not believe that the underworld ought to be represented.



ECONOMIC COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Will the announcement that Dr. Deutsch will be assuming the principalship of Queen's University in September, 1968 have any effect on his present position as chairman of the economic council in the meantime?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am just wondering whether this question is of sufficient urgency to be asked at this time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the minister of defence and ask him whether the decision to unveil the green uniform at this time was a cabinet decision, and why was so inappropriate a time selected, when our armed forces engaged in peace keeping operations are being driven out? Why was this time chosen to commit a very provocative action on his part?

May 29, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, the decision to release the information about the uniform was taken, I think, several weeks ago following the passage through this house of the armed forces unification bill. This is a complicated process, because throughout we have tried to give the information to all our troops simultaneously, preferably before that information was released to the news media. That this is difficult to accomplish my right hon. friend is well aware. The distribution of information kits to our units throughout the world was a complicated process and took a number of weeks to accomplish, and a date was chosen by which we thought we could co-ordinate all our actions and make the information available to the news media. By coincidence today's date was chosen.
At the same time I wish to say that our United Nations contingent has served Canada faithfully and well and I regret the slur which my right hon. friend cast on this kind of operation this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege. The statement made is in keeping with the size of the Minister of National Defence. It was a cheap statement from a minister noted in that regard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the house might consider going on to another question.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, some days ago the right hon. Leader of the Opposition asked for details of the recent agreement signed between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the U.S.S.R. council of ministers committee for radio and television broadcasting. I have now received from the corporation a summary of this agreement, and if I might have the permission of the house I shall table copies of that two page summary in English and in French.


John George Diefenbaker: Would it be possible to have that printed as an appendix to the proceedings of the day?


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


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



REPORTED VIOLATION OF ELECTION BROADCASTING REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: My question is for the Secretary of State and deals with the subject of political broadcasts, which under the Canada Elections Act are forbidden during the two days prior to an election. Has the minister been advised that at noon last Saturday the C.B.C. carried a nation's business speech on behalf of one of the national parties, the candidates of which are engaged in today's by-election? If so, has the Secretary of State received from the C.B.C. any explanation for this apparent breach of law and practice?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, Mr. Speaker. This is the first time I have heard of this matter. I should be glad if my hon. friend would permit me to take his question as notice. I am sure that the B.B.G. at least will be interested.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I had intended addressing
my question to the Minister of Finance, but since he has left the chamber I might address it to the Minister without Portfolio. The question is based on a report appearing in a periodical this month to the effect that the owners of the Mercantile Bank of Canada have announced that they will not comply with the law as enacted in the Bank Act. Has the Minister of Finance any comment to make on this?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I shall take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO FREIGHT RATES ON SHIPMENTS TO JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Transport.
May 29, 1967

I hope he can now answer the question respecting coal shipments from the Crowsnest pass to the west coast destined for Japan. When the minister was asked this question last Tuesday he begged to be excused, saying he had had little notice that it would be asked. Is he now able to tell us the freight charges that were agreed on between the Coleman mine in Alberta and the Canadian Pacific? Also, will that agreed freight rate be confined solely to the Coleman mine or will it be applicable to others shipping from the Crowsnest pass?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I wonder if I might answer that question, if it would be convenient, later when we get into my estimates. A detailed explanation is required, and I should be prepared to give it at that time.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister speaks later this afternoon on his estimates could he provide those details that he has been promising me for some weeks about the rail links from Michel, British Columbia, to some point on the Great Northern Railway system in reference to the transportation of coal? May we have a full statement at that time?



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Malher (New Westminster):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. A few days ago he announced that he hoped to make a statement today about the exchanges between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia having to do with the Stellako river log run. Could the minister make that statement today?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister could not do this without unanimous consent to revert to motions. Is that the desire of the house?


An hon. Member:: No.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Slteena):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works. In the light of his government's philosophy of priming the pump to stimulate
Supply-Transport
the economy, would he not consider looking at the situation around Hazelton, British Columbia and doing some pump priming in that area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question, in
another form perhaps, could be placed on the order paper.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there could be an understanding about arrangements for returning to questions later this day. Is the time to be fixed now, or will reasonable notice be given in order that all members may be sure to be here?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is rather difficult to answer the question because these discussions may well go on all day, and it may not be possible to deal with the resolutions of this meeting until the opening of the session tomorrow at the regular question time. If we get any indication that the meeting is over and is not to be resumed later in the day perhaps we could get in touch with the house leaders and with Mr. Speaker and some procedure could be arranged so hon. members may be informed when we go back to questions.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.
1.	Departmental administration, 16.655,700.
The Chairman:: Order, please. House again in committee of supply, Department of Transport, vote No. 1. This vote is to be found on page 504 of the blue book, with the details on page 510. Shall vote No. 1 carry?


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, on Friday I had started talking about air transport in Canada. Without repeating, it is crucial to remember that today in Canada we suffer from poor air service. The Canadian air lines, and particularly Air Canada, grossly underestimated the future volume of air traffic. The service we have in this country can now be roundly criticized, and especially that service provided in the west.

May 29, 1967
Supply-Transport
The main policy objective of the government was to make sure that Air Canada had enough business to finance its operations; that is, to buy good airplanes and provide good service. The determination to strengthen Air Canada, which was the government's main objective, ought not to have been the end at which the policy was aimed. That end ought to have been the provision of adequate services across Canada.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I contend we must provide for more competition throughout the country. When Canadian Pacific Airlines were given certain rights to fly across Canada I felt it was a move in the right direction, but I believe we are still unduly restricting C.P.A. in its operations. I am sure many hon. members are not aware that when Air Canada is given the right to serve a centre it is given the option of choosing the number of flights it will put on, times of departure and so on. Canadian Pacific Airlines, on the other hand, is given only the right to serve a certain city with a certain flight at a certain time; it cannot make any changes without the approval of the Air Transport Board. This is a situation which must be radically changed if we are to have a better air service across Canada.
This whole question will become further complicated as larger aircraft are introduced in the years immediately ahead. Very soon these bigger airplanes will be in service and scheduling will become more difficult; complicated adjustments will need to be made. Next year Air Canada will be receiving numbers of the elongated DC-8's which I understand will hold about 190 passengers. Obviously fewer flights will be needed to handle an equal number of passengers. Very soon the jumbo jets and the large jet-prop airplanes will be coming into service; I believe some of the air lines are already ordering planes which will hold 450 passengers. If we leave provision for air service in Canada in the hands of Air Canada alone it is my belief we shall end up once again with insufficient facilities.
It seems to me that one of the big advantages of competition in the modern world is that those who have invested their money in a business and made a study of it in order to reap a profit are those who will be most willing to work hard, take risks and look into the future as far as possible in a desire to give service to the public. They do this knowing that if they fail they are not likely to make any money.

Up to the present time, as far as competition is concerned, Air Canada has not had much to worry about. An excellent air line has been built up, but very little service has been provided. Let us change the criteria and put service first. I would remind hon. members that when T.W.A. wanted to start an air bus service from Edmonton to Calgary, Air Canada objected on the ground that it would lessen the number of passengers usually carried by them from Calgary and result in lower revenue; they could not stand the financial loss.
The fact remains that this air bus service did provide a facility which Air Canada was not giving and did not wish to give. What happened was that the T.W.A. air bus created new business. Air Canada lost little Edmon-ton-Calgary traffic, but businessmen now enjoy a good service from the centre of Edmonton to Calgary-six flights each way every day-and this has not affected T.C.A., as it then was, in the manner predicted by that company.
Broader competition would not only create new business, it would mean better service to the public as the result of an improved response to the needs of the people. Moreover, I claim it would not cripple Air Canada financially. At the present time Air Canada is making a tremendous profit, yet we in the west cannot get the air service we need. We know from experience that if this responsibility is left to one government agency only, the needs of the public are not put first; the daring and the imagination which are necessary are not displayed.
I believe T.W.A. wishes to start an air bus service from Edmonton to the west coast. I know the people of Edmonton want better service both to the west coast and to eastern Canada. In my opinion C.P.A. should be willing to make Edmonton a stopping point on its trans-Canada route, and should be given the right to do so in order to provide a truly trans-Canadian service on its route from Vancouver to the east coast. Canada is big enough for it, and the business is there.
I referred a few moments ago to plans for the introduction of larger aircraft on most of our commercial routes. I hope the Department of Transport is aware that many of our existing facilities will be outdated when these extra large aircraft come into service. At present the DC-8 carrying 120 passengers is the largest plane that can be handled at all adequately, and even so the service is not always efficient. Next year we expect the DC-9 to be
May 29, 1967

introduced, and it will not be long before the air lines are using planes capable of discharging a trainload of passengers at one time.
I trust the department will respond to the difficulty which this will create, and that airport managements are in consultation with the air lines to prepare the necessary facilities and methods of handling which must be introduced if the new aircraft are to be feasible. Time is short. In another two or three years the super jets should be here.
When there are jet planes capable of flying from Edmonton to Toronto in a little more than three hours I cannot understand why it should be necessary for passengers to wait half an hour to get their baggage. To say the least it must be frustrating to the air lines, which have provided fast airplanes to get passengers more quickly to their destinations.
I suggest that the concept of transportation from office to office or home to home should replace the existing concept based on time spent between one airport and another. Passengers must be conveyed not from city to city but from their homes or offices to their destinations, and this involves the prompt handling of baggage and the solution of local traffic problems.
I hope the department is giving consideration to this aspect of air travel. We have not heard a word about it so far, and perhaps the minister can tell us whether there is any special study group within his department currently looking into these questions.
I hope too, the minister will tell us whether there is any possibility of further competition on these air routes. I point out that this centennial year is one in which our shortage of airplanes shows up most clearly because of the pressure of Expo in Montreal. It is virtually impossible to get reservations for Montreal unless one makes them many weeks in advance. This is precisely the impetus which private carriers need so they may begin operations with a chance of showing a profit large enough to justify heavy expenditures in the future. I hope a decision to increase the amount of competition will be made now. It makes sense to take this step right away rather than wait until a peak year has gone by. I hope the minister will give his approval to this suggestion when he comes to reply.


Mr. McIntosh:: May 29, 1967
Supply-Transport
*airstrips for private planes, that form of transportation is limited. Without making a formal request I should like to ask the minister whether he would prevail upon his board to reconsider this and other similar applications which have been turned down. It has been pointed out that in the case of small communities our friends across the border have taken a longer view than has been taken by [DOT]our Department of Transport with regard to these municipalities which wish to maintain their own airstrips.
With regard to air service generally I do not wish to go over the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona when he spoke on this issue on Friday, but I should like to point out to the minister that his arguments appeared quite valid. He deplored the decision the government made in respect of the application of another carrier-C.P.A., I believe-for landing rights at certain air fields and the privilege of picking up passengers. The reason, put forward by the government, and possibly by some members on this side at that time, for the monopoly for Air Canada was that it did not want the balance sheet to show in the red.
So far as this type of transportation is concerned, I feel more stress should be put on the service end than on the profit end of a crown corporation. I should like to draw the minister's attention to an article in the Ottawa Journal of Saturday May 27. The heading is "Ottawa Flights-Air Canada Booked Heavily for Summer". The article starts out in this way:
If you're planning a business or pleasure trip with Air Canada, don't start packing your flight bag too quickly.
The tourist season hasn't officially started and many flights to and from the capital already are booked solid until September.
It continues in part as follows:
-unless passengers have reservations well in *advance, the possibility of getting a seat on any flight is "slim".
Many members have found this to be correct. The article continues:
Air Canadas advice is: if you are planning a trip in July or August call now for a reservation.
I cannot see the sense in that. Why would one call now for a reservation in July or August if they are booked solidly until September.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Some of the reservations may be cancelled.


John (Jack) McIntosh: It says:
Even the short-run flights between Ottawa and Montreal and Toronto have been carrying capacity loads. Traffic to Toronto, in particular, has been "very, very heavy", according to Air Canada's reservations manager.
I know that just today some other members as well as myself tried to get a return flight from our constituency back to Ottawa. We got as far as Toronto and were stranded there.


Mr. Smith:: Couldn't be stranded in a better place.


John (Jack) McIntosh: This shows the consideration some Ontario members have for those who come from distances. I am sorry to say that the hon. member who made the interjection appears to be of my party. This has been his attitude for a very long time. Therefore all the blame cannot be put on the minister. However, other members have the same complaint.
As the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona pointed out, it is the government's own fault. I should like to repeat some of the things he said. He blamed the present government for allowing the air service to get into the condition it is in. I think the crux of the problem is that the government has not caught up with what is happening in respect of air service. So far as the government is concerned I believe the forward planning has been nil.
With the advent of Expo I can understand that reservations may have been heavier than would normally be expected. However, disregarding the extra loads or extra reservations required because of Expo, I believe the air policy of the present government is not up to date. With the possibility of the house closing at the end of June I know many members here, not from Ontario and Quebec, will have difficulty in getting home and getting their families home. The minister is smiling. I know he does not have that problem, because he can always order a Department of Transport plane to get where he wants to go.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman
would allow me to interrupt, I might say that if he and some of his friends would like to make a reservation with my air line I might be able to help them a bit.


John (Jack) McIntosh: As I said when I started out, my particular complaint is not on my own behalf. I am using these arguments to further my point. So far as the Department of Transport is concerned I think the air policy should start at the bottom in respect of these
May 29, 1967

small airstrips, which are necessary to feed the other carriers and Air Canada. They are necessities. I know the minister has said that we have a policy to assist these small airstrips, but what good is it if it is not to be implemented, and if we receive foolish replies such as the fact that there is insufficient -utilization. We cannot argue with that; the statement is correct. The airstrip is not being utilized because it cannot be used. It is dangerous to use it. That was the original reason for the application. I am not sure that this is the regular bureaucratic answer, but so far as I am concerned it is a stupid one. The whole question of air services should be reviewed by the minister. He should also pay attention to the request put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Air Canada now has more passenger traffic than it can handle. As the hon. member for Timmins suggested, we cannot complain about the lack of passenger space to the employees of Air Canada behind the counters at air terminals. They are very courteous and do everything they can to help, but if seats are not available on aircraft there is not much point in complaining to those individuals. In any event, as this newspaper article states, if you are planning a business or pleasure trip via Air Canada do not start packing your flight bag too quickly.
Much of our railway passenger service has been discarded apparently because the service was not being utilized. A sufficient number of planes to handle air traffic is not available and it would seem there is some difficulty in obtaining aircraft. However, other air carriers have indicated that they can provide service, and I think now is the time to abolish the monopoly position enjoyed by Air Canada. Air Canada is now operating at a profit. I suggest it is not necessary for a crown corporation to make a profit and that service should be the first consideration. Perhaps there should be competitive rates, but this is the time for the government to give some consideration to the possibility of allowing competitive lines to operate in this field, particularly in bottleneck areas like Ottawa where one cannot always get transportation in or out. If Air Canada cannot handle the traffic, let someone who says they can enter the field and compete for the extra business. It has been established that Air Canada has as much traffic as it can handle at the present time. As suggested by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, the entire service
Supply-Transport
should be thrown open to competition, not only the service in places like Ottawa and Edmonton.
The minister professes to believe in free enterprise. If that is so, now that this crown corporation, Air Canada, has been looked after and is operating at a profit, perhaps we should allow free enterprise to provide service. I am sure that such service would be the best and cheapest available. The minister should give this whole idea some consideration.
Before I resume my seat let me again say, regarding the specific case I have brought forward in respect of air service at Maple Creek, that the minister should make some commitment that the board will provide an answer why this application cannot be accepted rather than simply saying that there would be insufficient utilization. This application should be accepted and some assistance should be provided. Some aircraft are now flying into this area.
Let me give one example of why this service is necessary. The area served by the hospital is very large and a radiologist must go into the area weekly. Every time he lands his plane there, there is some danger so far as the hospital is concerned. He cannot get there in any other way except by car, which would take too much of his valuable time. The railway passenger service in this area has been curtailed by the actions of the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I protest.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Go ahead and protest. I still make the statement. You did not give us any assistance when we tried to maintain the system we had. You concurred with the suggestion that the railway companies should be allowed to abandon rail passenger service. As a result you are at least partly responsible for the predicament we now face in respect of transportation in Canada. The minister has failed to bring forward plans for air service and has allowed the reduction of passenger service on the railways. I cannot say too much in respect of highway facilities because the minister is not responsible in this regard, but so far as I am concerned the blame is on his shoulders. I make another plea to him to help us in this regard.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few brief observations without unnecessarily taking up the time of the committee. Of course you know I never do. But I have always been interested in transportation, having as a boy started out travelling by

May 29, 1967
S upp ly-Transport
Indian canoe, then by horseback and by steamers. As a matter of fact, I saw the first car in British Columbia in 1914. I have seen our transportation system develop over a period of more than 60 years.
On this occasion I shall stick pretty close to earth and leave astro-developments in respect of communications to those who are better equipped scientifically than I in this regard. I intend to deal with matters in respect of which I have some direct knowledge. Let me thank the minister and the officers of his headquarters and local areas for the prompt attention they have given to matters I have brought to their attention. I thank the minister for his detailed and complete replies to my inquiries. I appreciate this service because I know the minister is very busy and that he cannot write a three or four page letter overnight without a great deal of assistance from people who know something about the situation. The local staff in British Columbia have on occasion done a great deal to investigate certain circumstances in southeastern British Columbia.
I have been asked by the chambers of commerce and other organizations in my district to express the appreciation of the people of Kootenay West for the improvements that have been made over the years to the airport at Castlegar. Recently I had a cutting from a newspaper sent to me which indicates their appreciation, and I think it is only fair to compliment the government when it does something which is satisfactory to the people involved. The article states in part:
"Simply terrific" was the reaction of Castlegar and district chamber of commerce member Sam Muirhead to improvements in lighting at the airport.
This article appeared in the Castlegar News on May 8, 1967 under the headline "Airport Changes Are 'terrific' says Muirhead". The article continues as follows:
installations have been made to improve night landing procedures and to better indicate traffic flow patterns on the runways.
These were in the form of a number of three million candle power lights-
Other improvements at the airport noted by Mr. Muirhead were improvements to certain runways, a new equipment garage and seeding of some of the grassed areas, a project which was completed late last week.
The article then deals with the intention of constructing a new terminal airport building in the near future. Perhaps I should mention that Mr. Muirhead is a very ardent supporter of our party, but he is a very fair person and (Mr. Herridge.]
wanted me to mention this fact because so far as the airport is concerned the minister and his department have done a very good job.
I cannot speak during our consideration of these estimates without making a passing reference to passenger service on the Kettle Valley line. I am sure the minister has heard about th's situation both inside and outside the house, and I am sure he will hear more about it this afternoon, perhaps, from the hon. member for Medicine Hat.
We have all heard requests for the restoration of passenger service on the Kettle Valley line between Lethbridge and Vancouver. These requests have been endorsed by municipalities in southeastern British Columbia, chambers of commerce, farmers' institutions, women's institutions, the Canadian Legion and trade unions, particularly railroad union organizations. I do not know what the circumstances are at this time but I look forward to hearing from the minister, when he rises to answer the various questions put forward by members, just what the situation is in respect of the restoration of passenger service on the Kettle Valley line. These people are not asking for something out of the question. Perhaps we could have a dayliner with a sleeping car, a cafe car and a car to carry light baggage. I hope the minister will look into this situation and will give us a favourable answer.
Let me now refer to a matter of great interest to the people of southeastern British Columbia. It was referred to by another hon. member during our consideration of these estimates last Friday. I refer to the agreement with the C.P.R. to haul coal from the Crowsnest over a Canadian route.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I asked a question about this matter a few days ago. The minister replied that the C.P.R. has concluded an agreement with one company in the Crowsnest pass area. This matter is of considerable concern throughout British Columbia as a whole and particularly in the interior. I noticed these headlines in the Financial Post of May 13:
Ottawa facing a five-way dilemma in the "coal war".
Why Ottawa so involved in proposed railway line.
Kootenay & Elk line our newest railway?
Planning 70-mile long line, costing $14 million, to haul Rockies coal-and foil C.P.R.
When the minister deals with this question I hope he will give us an up to date report on what success he has had in maintaining contracts with the C.P.R. for the hauling of this
May 29, 1967

coal over the Canadian route and the continued employment of the people who will be directly affected.
I now come to a rather interesting subject having to do with some complaints of the rank and file in the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen in the Kootenays. These complaints do not come from their head office in Ottawa but from the workers on the railroad. They have taken up these matters with their regional officers and have not obtained any support from them in drawing their complaints to the attention of the Minister of Labour. I understand these questions are also receiving the attention of the Minister of Transport. Before going further I want to say that I know the hon. member for Kootenay East is very interested in these problems because I understand he had a meeting with the railroaders in Cranbrook on the very issue involved.
These are the complaints the railroad employees make at the present time. There is no patrol of the railway at night. I am speaking now of the Kettle Valley line which has on it some very dangerous spots. I have travelled over it a good many times and have seen a good portion of that road built during my lifetime in that part of the country. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that there is no patrol in front of the freight trains at night. This is a very dangerous situation owing to the possibility of rock slides and things of that sort.
These people tell me there is no adequate safety equipment on the trains. The safety equipment, if it is to be used satisfactorily, should be placed at the head end and not at the rear end of a train possibly over half a mile long. There are no rest houses provided on the road. There is some dissatisfaction among the membership of the unions with respect to the directives issued as to statutory holidays. In this connection I have received some fairly strong letters from individual members of the unions. I know practically all these men, many of them senior conductors, younger brakemen and so on. I should say that I know practically all the crews that go out of Nelson east and west, except for those who have been employed only in the last year or two.
These people do not make complaints without consideration. In my opinion they are sound complaints which should receive the consideration of the Department of Transport, the Department of Labour and their own organizations in Ottawa. I have some of the letters here. I am not going to read them all. They gave me permission to use what would
Supply-Transport
be considered unparliamentary language with respect to these circumstances in bringing them to the attention of the house. But, Mr. Chairman, I would not think of doing that with a lady member so close to my rear.
I wish to quote a letter received from the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, British Columbia sub legislative board, R.R.l, Nelson,
B.	C. It is addressed to the hon. member for
Kootenay	West,	the	hon.	member	forKootenay	East,	the	hon.	member	for
Okanagan-Revelstoke, and Mr. R. O. Jones.
C.	P.R. fireman, Cranbrook, B.C., who if I remember correctly ran as a Social Credit candidate in a provincial election at one time. That has nothing to do with this matter, because we all stand together on these questions. When I stand together with the hon. member for Kootenay East, Mr. Chairman, it has to be pretty strong glue that keeps us together. Anyway, I know that hon. member is very interested in these matters. This letter says:
Further to a letter addressed to you by R. A. Hyssop, trainman on the C.P.R. from Nelson, B.C. and dated May 5, 1967 relative to the lack of adequate first-aid equipment on C.P.R. freight trains in particular.
Mr. Hyssop's letter has the endorsation of Lodge No. 558, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen in Nelson, B.C., and it is my opinion that his letter is self-explanatory. He has documented an instance of a mishap he was involved in during the evening of January 16 last on the C.P.R. lines adjacent to the westerly shores of Lake Kootenay, where I might reiterate there is no other form of transportation media other than the railway. The highway is across on the easterly shore of this large lake.
It will be of interest to note that a similar wreck happened in about the same area approximately a year to the day prior to this one listed: and at that time, Mr. J. C. Young, a C.P.R. engineer from Nelson was quite badly injured. Broken bones and so forth. On that occasion it took over seven hours to transport this man to Kootenay Lake General Hospital.
There are no adequate first aid facilities on either engines or cabooses except for a very small pocket-size kit which might be O.K. for a minor cut finger or something of that nature.
I have personal knowledge in this regard because I have been on the trains. If anyone understands what railroading is like along the shores of Kootenay Lake he will realize that the possibility of rock slides and incidents of that sort is much greater than it is in many other places. The letter continues:
At the time of the Young incident, I wrote our B.C. compensation board to enlist their aid in having proper and suitable equipment supplied. They replied that their jurisdiction fell short of requesting or ordering the C.P.R. to do anything of this nature. We had the sympathy of the board,

May 29, 1967
Supply-Transport
but inasmuch as their authority did not extend that far, we were stymied.
The matter of supplying stretchers on cabooses in freight service is on record in our many briefs written by our various legislative committees in our various railway brotherhoods. To date we do not have any.
I am reliably informed that there is a move on foot to bring this matter of safety under some kind of a joint federal and provincial co-operative structure whereby matters of this nature may be properly presented with the hope that pleas such as ours will be carefully considered and if necessary acted upon. Your support of such a proposal which I understand to be presently in the planning stages by some committee in the Ottawa House of Commons is earnestly solicited, and anything you gentlemen can do-
This is a very kind reference to the hon. members to whom the letter is addressed.
-to further this matter will be greatly appreciated not only by those unfortunate enough to be injured in wrecks, but also by those of us who never know from day to day when a calamity might occur whereby the presence of some adequate first-aid equipment, particularly stretchers, is an absolute necessity.
Thanking you, one and all, and with very best personal regards and all good wishes for the future,
I remain
Yours very truly,
Fred H. Lowe,
Chairman,
Joint Legislative Committees, International Hailway Brotherhoods in B.C.
Here we have the central local of the Kettle Valley line endorsing the action of the rank and file. They had some of their own union representatives there from Calgary, I think. These men simply did not understand the conditions under which the railroaders have
a result of consideration by the two departments in Ottawa with the union officials directly concerned this situation will be remedied. It seems to me it would be so inexpensive to remedy it. No large expenditures are required. All that is required is to admit the facts and provide the safety equipment, the rest houses and the necessary patrol.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I might indicate that one of the engineers told me that if a diesel engine goes off the track and is badly damaged the cost to the company is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. They cannot understand why the company does not provide a patrol at night to protect the lives of their crews who are operating these trains.
I want to mention briefly that there is considerable concern throughout the district in respect of the closing of certain stations by the C.P.R. Unfortunately these stations are closed very often without the local people and organizations being informed of the reasons for the closing. In that connection I suggest that every effort be made to get the company and the officials of the minister's department to explain the circumstances, because it has been my experience that when it can be proven to the persons affected that to do so and so is not economic, generally speaking they are willing to accept the situation and adjust themselves to it. I suggest there should be more co-operation between the company and the communities affected. After all, many of these communities have used the facilities of the C.P.R. for up to 60 years and more.
to operate, and finally the railroaders just brushed them aside and said they would take rank and file action to get something done in this connection. There is nothing I enjoy more than fighting in a rebellion, within any movement and I am very pleased to bring these matters to the attention of the minister. I am a bit of a radical myself. I am sure that something will be done to correct this situation. I have been on that road many times; I have been in the engines and the cabooses. These men have every justification to complain about the situation that exists.
I have brought to the attention of the minister the fact that there is no patrol in front of the trains at night, and such patrols are particularly required. There is also the fact that no rest houses are provided, and there is some dissatisfaction with the company's interpretation of statutory holidays. I hope *hat as
[Mr. Herridge.l
There is another matter to which I should like to refer briefly, the railway grade crossing fund. The need for crossings is growing every year with the increase in population and the increased density of road traffic, and this has caused some concern in my constituency. Several municipalities there are considering utilizing the provisions under the railway grade crossing fund. I suggest to the minister that it would be a good idea for the officials of his department to visit these municipalities, examine the circumstances and advise them on how to proceed to take advantage of the legislation that is now in effect. One or two municipalities have made that suggestion to me.
Some time ago the city of Nelson made some tentative arrangements with the minister's department with respect to transferring to the federal government the ownership of certain property it held at the Castlegar airport in return for a grant for the building of
May 29. 1967

i much smaller airport at Nelson, B.C. I have rot heard anything about that in recent nonths. When the minister speaks I wish he would tell the Committee-if he does not have ;ime now perhaps he could let me know by correspondence-what the situation is at the present time with respect to the transfer of this land by the city of Nelson to the Cas-tlegar airport committee with a view to get-;ing a grant for the improvement of the present very small airport at Nelson.
There is a greatly increased need for smaller airports because of increased industrial development and the increased number of tourists. More and more small planes are coming in from various parts of the province end wanting to use small airports. Even in tny own district in the Arrow lakes it is proposed now to build a small airport. Because many of the people concerned do not lave much technical knowledge of what is required with respect to the site and location with relation to other surrounding circumstances, I suggest that the officials of the minister's department be prepared to give these smaller communities technical advice with respect to the location of small airports and their development and advice on how to proceed to obtain some assistance from the federal government in this connection. Generally speaking, whether it is federal or provincial legislation I think that the closer pne can get to the people and the more one can get them to participate, the more successful one will be.
I suggest that the minister could well consider expanding the public relations branch of his department so that the communities, the farmers' organizations, chambers of commerce and unions are made aware of what the federal government intends to do in a certain area. There is nothing like getting co-operation on the basis of understanding and participation. I suggest that some of the minister's senior officials, without dealing with policy at all, would be well advised to address periodically a chamber of commerce, a trade union or a farmers' organization and outline what the federal government has in mind with respect to a certain development within a certain area. I put that forward as a suggestion.
I also made this suggestion in connection with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and I am very pleased that senior officials of the C.B.C. have visited Trail, Rossland and other small communities to discuss the local circumstances with the people concerned. As
Supply-Transport
a result these people know what the policy of the C.B.C. is with respect to matters relating to television, radio, relay stations and so on, and the officials understand better the reasons for which these people are seeking this or that. I do hope that suggestion will be given some consideration.
In conclusion I wish to speak about transportation research. I am all for it. We are living under changing circumstances. In my own short span of life, which I am hoping to prolong as long as possible, I have seen the development from very primitive forms of transportation to railways, highways, airways and so on. I think it is very necessary that research into transportation be undertaken in co-operation with the provincial governments, not necessarily into the technical side of transportation but so that the federal government will know what any provincial government has in mind with respect to the development of a certain industry, a certain resource, or possibly the development of the provinces highway policy. All of these should be related. Any money we can spend in that direction will be well spent indeed. I am simply suggesting that if a policy is going to be as effective as possible we should have the participation of the provincial governments and, wherever possible, the participation of the industries and organizations that are concerned with the development of a logical transportation policy to meet the needs of the future.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a few moments to answer the questions raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West. I do not intend to deal with all the matters raised by him. However, first I should like to assure him that we do have a meeting of minds on quite a large number of matters, one specific difference being the question of socialism versus free enterprise. But in so far as our concern for our fellow man and the public generally is concerned we do agree on most matters.
It is true that I held a meeting with the employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway in Cranbrook a week ago last Thursday to discuss specifically the question of safety on that section of the railway with which the hon. member and I myself are familiar-along the west bank of Kootenay lake where no other mode of transportation is available and where the slide area is extensive. Of course there is an unusually large amount of freight passing over that line. The reason is that practically all the freight shipments from west Kootenay

May 29, 1967
Supply-Transport
to the coast are baekhauled from Nelson to Cranbrook and up the Columbia valley to the main line.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Some time ago the Canadian Pacific Railway did remove the night patrol that had customarily patrolled that area several times during the hours when there are no section-men available on the track itself. There have been a number of accidents. The one to which the hon. member referred was a very serious accident and I am told that the injured lay for some five to seven hours before being transported to hospital. This is an intolerable situation and I have expressed my opinion to the Department of Labour, to the Board of Transport Commissioners and, of course, subsequently, to the Canadian Pacific Railway itself.
There is I think, some reason to believe that the officers of the union have done as much as they found possible. There is some measure of confusion at the moment about jurisdiction in respect of safety regulations on railways, that is, whether they come under the compensation board of the province or whether they are directly related to the Department of Transport. This matter is being clarified under our new Department of Labour safety and hygiene measure. I have arranged a meeting tomorrow with the legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, at which time we will discuss the matter further and determine what action should be taken. I am sure the hon. member will realize that we consider this question to be a serious one and hope to have it cleared up in the near future.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I will only take a few minutes of the time of the house to bring two points to the attention of the minister, that is the air service and the C.N.R. passenger service in the area which concerns me.
First of all, let me congratulate the minister for his patience in listening to us and for the way in which he accepts our requests and our complaints. He always has a smile on his lips and I wish his acceptance was initiated by the companies involved, that is the crown corporations which do not seem to pay as much attention to our remarks and to our appeals as the minister does.
I think the crown corporations have somewhat too much latitude and that the minister lacks some authority over these corporations,

because they do not want to fulfil their purpose of serving the public. In fact, if I understand the reason for creating these corporations, it is first and foremost to serve the public for, after all, the public is paying. Now, when we ask for a service, when we point out some weaknesses, they seem indifferent, they seem above these small details and these questions are put off or completely forgotten.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that the crown corporations are showing a lack of social conscience and that they are neglecting their duty, and when they come here and ask us to pay their deficit which is often due to their own inefficiency, I feel that the minister should have the authority to make them think or to rebuke strongly those officials who are not only unable to balance their budget, but who cannot make profits like other companies, such as the Canadian Pacific, for instance, which shows profits every year. I believe that if the officials of the Canadian National were as skilled and serious, we could get an adequate service and not call upon the taxpayers every year to replenish those crown corporations.
Mr. Chairman, this was not the main part of my remarks, but I wanted to draw the attention of the minister on that situation.
Now, I would like to call his attention to the matter of air transportation of passengers in my area, that is Lac Saint-Jean and more precisely Roberval. I do not know whether the minister is aware that we have a very small airport in Roberval. He nods to indicate that he knows; I think that he has already landed at this airport.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
It is not a big city airport but we value what we have and I think that something could be done about that airport. At the present time, it is an asphalt strip which has been used for several years already but not regularly since 1960, and even Nordair Lt6e which used it did not renew its contract last year.
On March 29, 1967, the newspaper L'Etoile du Lac published an article entitled "Nordair returns" after an interruption of almost four years in the passenger service. I am not talking about the commercial service, because it was possibly a little too profitable for Nordair, and that may have made it forget the passengers. Since its licence allowed the company to concentrate most of its business in Montreal, it followed in part the example of the C.N.R. in transferring everything to Montreal; all one can see now in the Roberval
May 29, 19G7

area are Nordair planes flying north without stopping in the county of Roberval.
This is what Roland G. Lefrangois, president of Nordair Ltd. wrote:
If the town of Roberval does not object, the Nordair Ltd. airline will re-establish its daily service between Roberval and Montreal. That is what the president of the company, Mr. Roland G. Lefrangois, has just announced in a letter to the airport committee of the Chamber of Commerce of the district.
Recalling that his company had provided such a service from 1956 to 1960, via Chibougamau, Quebec city, La Tuque and Chute des Passes, and that it had not proved very profitable precisely because small private companies like Nordair received no help from the governments in those areas.
-and had to be discontinued in 1960, Mr. Lefrangois explained that a new policy of the Department of Transport now made it possible to re-establish the service-
Further on, it is written:
After reminding that Nordair had all the facilities necessary for such a service in Roberval, Mr. Lefrangois observed that the undamaged part of the runway would be adequate for the planes which the company wanted to use.
Mr. Chairman, if we talk of sacrifice, I think the town of Roberval has done its share, since it had to pay over $300,000 to co-operate with the government and construct this runway.
As regards the present condition of the runway, it is easy to understand that an airstrip that has not been used every day, during four years, has deteriorated; in fact, it was somewhat damaged through bad weather, cold weather and frost and a complete sinking in of the strip is even to be feared. After so many sacrifices on the part of the company, the government and the town of Roberval, the government must not let that runway deteriorate any further.
Officials of the Department of Transport came to Roberval in March and promised to proceed with the necessary repairs in June or July. Last spring, the town of Roberval cleared up the airstrip by itself and took care of minor repairs, and we would like the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), to draw that to the attention of the commission and refresh its memory about it, so as to have that part of the runway reconditioned since, at present, there is about one third of it which is damaged.
I would also ask the minister to intervene with the commission for the granting of the
Supply-Transport
permit requested as soon as possible, in accordance with the new policy of the government concerning small airports, since that will permit the operation of an economic route for our area, considering that that is the only federal airport in the constituency of Roberval, at present. I think the minister must see to it that our area is served as fairly as the others.
We now have the undertaking of Nordair, in that connection, for November 1967, that is for the fall. But we feel we must have more adequate service sooner, because of Expo in Montreal and forthcoming industrial developments in the county of Roberval. I will point out to the minister that if Nordair does not hurry in applying for a permit, Quebecair seems very interested in giving us air service. In fact, in the newspaper I'Etoile du Lac of April 19, an article concerning Quebecair read as follows:
From usually reliable sources, we learned last night that the directors of Quebecair, amongst others, the vice-president of the airline, Mr. Fournier, will visit the area shortly to meet our businessmen and municipal leaders and discuss the possibility of re-establishing the daily air service between Montreal and Roberval, via La Tuque and Chibougamau.
Quebecair, a company administered by the Briant family of Rimouski, already uses the base at Bagotville, and, it seems that this French-Canadian firm would be willing to consider the expansion of its air service.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we now have the choice between two companies and if the first one does not want to move faster, we certainly have a good opportunity with Quebecair. The minister should point that out to the commission, to its members, because it is a very important and vital matter for us. At present, that is the only airport we have, and when we want to make a quick trip, the service through Bagotville is not satisfactory because we have to drive 200 miles to reach the Lake St. John area.
We prefer the airline to the railroad since it is practically impossible to get adequate rail service. And that brings me to say a few words about our good old Canadian National. I see the minister laughing a little. He has good reason to do so because that old train is hobbling along wondering whether it will reach the end. It is faithful to its slogan: Let us keep our delays.
As I have to use that last means to cover the 500 miles or so to get to my work here, in Ottawa, I must tell you that I have sometimes the impression that the authorities have decided to make that line so hated by the passengers that they will themselves beg for its

May 29, 1967
Supply-Transport
abandonment. And we pay those men $75,000 a year to use the taxpayers' money in that manner.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
For instance, a roomette costs $9, meals included, but meals are not available because they are never served on that train. The cost is $9 all the same, and it takes 18, 19 or 20 hours to cover a distance o1 500 miles nonstop. Moreover, and the minister is perhaps aware of it, C.N.R. trains are prohibited from exceeding 30 miles per hour between Chambord and Dolbeau. Over 30 miles per hour, the train could become derailed.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, something could be done, but in spite of all our requests and of all our entreaties to C.N.R. authorities, we have failed to obtain any results. And I know from experience because I board that train every week. In winter, especially in extremely cold weather the situation is worse. On one trip, it is very hot, and on the next very cold. I have even had to get up at two in the morning to put on my winter clother in order to get to Chambord without freezing my feet, my hands and face on the train. And if we have heat, the situation is the same.
I have asked if it would not be possible to get a technician to control the equipment, but that is impossible. The last time I left Montreal, I saw the technician adjusting the temperature. I asked him: Do you think we will have a normal temperature this time? Each roomette is equipped with controls to set the temperature but the equipment is nothing more than a toy. In fact, you play with the gadgets and nothing happens. I asked the man in charge: Do you think we will be comfortable? He answered: It is warm now, but I do not know what will happen at the other end. He, of course stays in Montreal. Everything is concentrated in Montreal. You can imagine what fate awaits the passengers.
Last winter, I saw women with babies freezing on the train; there was no heat. At one point, I got up. I do not hold it against the train conductors, they do what they can, their utmost. What can they do when there is no heat, when the equipment is not working properly? Sometimes, tricks are played on them because they do not know. I could hear women in the other roomettes shouting: We are freezing, we are freezing. As I am getting to know the various train conductors, I asked the porter? What have you done' The steam was not going up; not only that, he had opened the cold air valve. Instead of getting at least a little warm air in the roomettes, we

were getting cold air. He had opened the wrong valve.
If, at least, we had someone who knew what to do on a long stretch like that, especially in winter when it is 40 below zero. It is a question of public service and protection. It is either cold or hot. And if they put on the heat, the same thing happens. The other day, every steam valve had been opened. There is no way to control anything. The windows could not be opened. At that time, we were dying of heat on the train. I asked the conductor if he could turn off the heat and he answered: The only thing I can do is open the doors at both ends; there is no other way to control it.
I am telling the minister that he is just the man to bring this to the attention of those who will not listen to us. It seems as if they did not want to. I do not know whether they lack goodwill, but they are unwilling to listen to us.
It was like this all winter; it was either too hot or too cold, but we never could obtain a normal temperature.
On other trains, for instance between Ottawa and Montreal, the temperature is normal. But when we get on our trains, it seems as if we were supplied with the oldest material, with anything that is unmanageable, so that when passengers arrive at Dolbeau, Normandin, Chambord or Roberval, they swear they will never be caught again, the C.N.R. will not catch them to return to Montreal.
That is why I was telling the minister that those companies must absolutely be forced to give the service, and if they do not, let them vacate the field for the Canadian Pacific for instance, or other companies. In addition, if the men are not serious enough to take care of people's health and welfare, let them be taken out of there. People can be replaced. At $75,000 per year, Mr. Chairman, you could have several men, and good men at that.
Mr. Chairman, those are the two points which I wanted to draw to the minister's attention. I know he will do what he can, but I believe he does not have, as of now, enough influence on those crown corporations which have become almost all-powerful, and I do hope that some day the government will give him more latitude to force those crown corporations back to reason. I think that completes my remarks on the point I wanted to raise. I would now like to deal with another. I received this morning a letter from Arvida about the telecommunications system. It
May 29, 1967



comes from a businessman who complains about the system aboard that train which does not operate directly in my region, since it is the train from Chambord to Chicoutimi. Here is what he says:
I would like to complain here about the quality of the service given us by the C.X.R.'s telecommunications service.
I apologize for raising this matter, Mr. Chairman. That letter comes from the riding of Lapointe and I quess the writer preferred to send it through me. I continue:
I think the present situation is intolerable in a region like ours and should be remedied as soon as possible.
On Friday night. May 19 last, after an urgent meeting, the executive of C.A.M.A., our association, sent to the out of town directors, through the C.N.R.'s telecommunications service, a rather important night letter. That message arrived in Chicoutimi at four minutes past eleven o'clock; the employees tried to reach me but, since I was not at home, they left the following message: Mr. Dostie has received a telegram; we close at
11.30 and we will call him back on Tuesday because no one works during the weekend. May 22 being a legal holiday, the telecommunications service was therefore closed during 80 consecutive hours.
I sincerely believe that this situation should not exist, that this decision was taken too hastily by the C.N.R., that they did not try hard enough to find a solution which would make it possible to keep the telecommunications service in operation at least 16 hours a day during a period of 365 consecutive days.
If the Chicoutimi system must be closed, telegrams should be routed through Quebec City or some other centre, and transmitted from there by telephone. If this procedure is too costly, further research should be made, but means should be found to keep the telecommunications system in operation 16 hours a day.
This is signed by a Mr. Clement Dostie, from Arvida. I think this letter should be mentioned here and brought to the attention of the C.N.R. people.
Now, I have received many complaints about this railway line. I have never mentioned this in public because it is a semi-public semi-private institution, but when nobody makes a move and everybody seems asleep, I think the time has come to bring the matter to the attention of the public at large.
The problem concerns a night porter on the Chambord-Chicoutimi run.

1 do not know if the minister has heard about it-who does his duty and is even over-zealous for he wakes women up at two and three in the morning to ask them for ten or fifteen minutes off. This night porter, a coloured man, even if he likes our white women, is paid to let them sleep and must do so.
Supply-Transport
This is a rather delicate matter but the minister can make an inquiry. Seven or eight women have complained that they were even offended by this porter. This must stop.
(English)


Mr. Fairweather:: First, Mr. Chairman, I wish to do something unusual. I wish to compliment the minister for sharing with us three excellent speeches that he made to universities across the country. I read with interest his speech to Memorial University of Newfoundland, the one to his alma mater in Manitoba, and I look forward to reading his speech to Bishop's which has had some publicity. We ought to have more opportunities to read and hear thoughtful speeches such as those made by the minister. Perhaps some might be made by backbenchers away from the political milieu. I hope they are as thoughtfully and interestingly presented as were the minister's speeches.
As we all know the estimates give a member of parliament an opportunity to fulfil one of his roles, the representative role, even though we cannot do too much about it. I say this by way of apology because my remarks, strictly speaking, are parochial.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I wish to enter a caveat about Air Canada's service to Saint John, New Brunswick, which unfortunately has deteriorated somewhat this summer, it seems to me. I am not suggesting remedies, but I feel that flights in and out of the maritimes very late at night should be avoided. One I often use arrives in Saint John well after midnight and arrives in Halifax at
1.30 a.m. I hope that when next November comes and the next change is made in the timetables it will be possible to travel from Ottawa and arrive in Saint John before two o'clock in the afternoon. It is not possible to do so this summer.
We are told that if we go to the grass roots we shall find out what the people are thinking. During the Easter break I found there were more complaints in my constituency about Air Canada timetables and the lack of baseball on television this summer than about any national or international issues. Today I have an opportunity to comment on the timetables. I understand that the estimates of the Secretary of State are coming along soon and I shall then be able to take up the issue of the lack of baseball on C.B.C. Saturday programs.

May 29, 1967
S upp ly-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman not think he must have pretty contented constituents?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I do not want to analyse that suggestion publicly, with the feeling for preservation all of us have.
I wish to comment now on a continuing problem which arises in connection with the air terminals of this country. I am not an engineer but I wonder whether the time has not come to undertake a giant study of means by which passengers could be transported more quickly from terminals to downtown centres. Expo has shown us what can be done by using imaginative transport policies. During my stay in Ottawa one of the most hair-raising parts of that experience has been taking the air line bus along what I believe to be the Hunt Club road out of Ottawa to the terminal. It is certainly more hazardous than any jet flight I have undertaken, and the need for seat belts is even more evident. Could not journeys of this kind be made easier by the use of monorails, for example? I notice that Dr. Solandt had some most imaginative things to say the other day about planning in the next hundred years of Canada's history and I would think that high on the list of priorities should be the project I have mentioned.
My hon. friend from Edmonton-Strathcona talked about supersonic jets. I suspect that if he and I were to discuss this question our views would be opposed. I worry not so much about possible difficulties in embarking or disembarking as I do about noise and other interferences with daily life. I presume that the National Research Council or some of the minister's own officials are even now studying the effects of noise and other nuisances which will be caused by aircraft of this type.
To turn from supersonic jets to the National Harbours Board, may I say that for some time I have requested that arrangements be made in the port of Saint John for the offloading of feed grain. Though all the necessary facilities are there for the loading of grain in an efficient manner, it is interesting to note that there are no facilities whatever for offloading. What the port needs is a leg, I think it is called, before its full facilities can be used.
My concluding comment is even more parochial, though perhaps the concept is not. It is a request that the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works should work together very closely in connection with the provision of navigational aids and other amenities on our great waterways. I believe

"Commercial use" should be interpreted very widely, because in these days of shorter working weeks our citizens are much more readily able to acquire power boats and so on. I was unable to persuade the former government to adopt this view but I have not given up hope of converting the present administration. These waterways are a priceless asset. I know the minister and his department have co-operated in seeing that navigational aids are brought up to date in some cases, but time and again when I recommend certain changes or the provision of amenities along the Saint John river system I am asked: What is the commercial use?
If that means unloading logs for pulp and so on, there is very little commercial use. But within the last 12 months the river system and the people of New Brunswick played host, as it were, to the Cruising Club of America whose members arrived in $2 million worth of sailing boats and other craft. It would have been an unforgettable experience could those yachts have benefited from modern navigational aids and other amenities such as garbage disposal facilities, ice, oil, fuel and so on.
I hope that at some time when historians are poring over the remarks I am making today they will be able to celebrate a day when the great purpose of the river system will be to meet the needs of the man who seeks to revive his spirit by taking to the clean waters of the Saint John river, something which could be made easier and more pleasant if we really made the best of the wonderful inland water system which is part of Canada's heritage.


Mr. Priftie:: Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of any hon. members who may be waiting to speak I can tell them my remarks will be brief.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Royal congratulate the minister on speeches he had made recently. We receive a great variety of minister's speeches through the mail from their public relations staffs. I agree that the recent speeches of the minister were very good. I do not say this in the expectation that anything will be done by the Department of Transport for the constituency of Burnaby-Richmond. But they really were very good.
The minister will not be surprised if, like other members, I raise some local matters. Before I do so may I say a word on the subject raised by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek and the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, each of whom
May 29, 1987

spoke of the need for better air service and recommended increased competition among air lines. I suggest to those hon. members that the question is not as simple as they would have us believe. The basic difficulty is the shortage of planes. If tomorrow, for example, the Air Transport Board were to say to Canadian Pacific Airlines, "You can have all the rights you want", the fact is they would have great difficulty in providing service. The shortage of aircraft today is critical. Because of the war in Viet Nam the production of military aircraft is being given priority in the United States. Neither Air Canada nor Canadian Pacific can get all the aircraft they need. This is unfortunate in a year in which great demand's are being made upon passenger service in Canada.
The shortage of aircraft is not confined to the two larger corporations. The hon. members to whom I have referred should bear in mind that whatever the arguments for or against the provision of additional services by other carriers it is doubtful that those carriers could supply additional services this year. I doubt that the situation will change in 1967.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I should like to add this comment in that connection. Some reference has been made to the minister's own air line, the aircraft of the Department of Transport. There are three government air lines-Air Canada, Department of Transport aircraft and the aircraft of the Department of National Defence. In respect of aircraft of the Department of National Defence particularly, the policy has been that they do not carry people who normally should travel on commercial air lines. One can understand the reason for this. In the past the commercial air lines have complained. We find that when members of parliament are travelling to official conferences they are sometimes allowed to travel on government aircraft, but if their wives accompany them they must go by the commercial air lines. I suggest that this summer and fall there might be a suspension of the policy now in effect. If government aircraft of the Department of Transport and the Department of National Defence have regularly scheduled planes flying across Canada with available space, perhaps this information could be made known to members so they would be able to obtain transportation to and from their constituencies, at least for the next few months which are the critical period.
As has been pointed out, the problem is really quite serious for those of us who come from the west. Frequently we are stranded
Supply-Transport
for many hours in Toronto. Only those who come from distant points in the country realize how critical the situation is. Even, if you travel by train you must make your reservations a long time in advance. This situation is not likely to improve very much between now and the fall. I suggest that the policy of permitting only service personnel to travel on departmental aircraft be suspended for a while so that if there should be space available members of parliament and others in the government service might be transported and if necessary pay for the service as they do on commercial air lines.
I should like to refer to another problem which concerns my constituency and indeed the whole lower mainland of British Columbia. I know the minister is well aware of it but it is one which should be restated publicly from time to time. The question of access to Vancouver airport which is situated in my riding has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. When I raised the matter previously the minister said that discussions with the government of British Columbia were being continued and that it was hoped they would lead to a costsharing formula to build a bridge or tunnel from the city of Vancouver directly to the airport on Sea Island. Some progress has been made. I recall bringing up this matter when the hon. member for Kamloops was minister of public works in 1962 and he said that the federal government met its commitment when it helped in respect of the Moray Arm bridge. The federal government now admits its responsibility in this matter.
I suspect that part of the problem is with the government of British Columbia. It is not known for its eagerness to share costs with other people. I brought this matter up in 1962 and as the years go by the traffic situation worsens. If the airports serving Montreal and Toronto were on islands served by a two-lane bridge which opens at times, I believe we would hear a great deal about it and probably more action would have been forthcoming before this time. In the lower mainland of British Columbia the problems in respect of getting to and from the airport have increased. I hope that in the near future the minister may be able to announce that an agreement has been reached with the government of British Columbia to construct a bridge or tunnel from the city of Vancouver to the international airport. It seems that it takes three or four years to build bridges or tunnels, and if an agreement were reached

May 29, 1967
Supply-Transport
now it is doubtful that a tunnel or bridge could be completed before 1970 or 1971. I understand that the new airport in Vancouver will be in operation next year.
I should like to mention another matter of which the minister is aware. Sea Island, where Vancouver international airport is located, is owned largely by the federal government through the Department of Transport. However, on that island there remain several hundred residential homes. The people living in these homes have something of a problem. If this area is allowed to be neglected very much longer it will go down hill very rapidly. There is an understandable reluctance on the part of lenders to provide the money necessary for home improvement in this area. There is need for a statement from the Department of Transport concerning its long-term intentions in respect of Vancouver international airport. Until they have this inuncertainly. This is not very good for the community. I understand that study is formation the residents are living in a state of under way and I hope a report on the study will be forthcoming in the very near future. I am always suspicious of studies. A study on the problems of pilotage has been going on ever since I came to Ottawa. I trust it will not take nearly as long to produce the report on the further use of Vancouver international airport as it has to produce the pilotage report and that perhaps we will have it some time this year.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to talk about airports, specifically municipally developed airports to which the government contributes under its program and, second, airports which are built under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport, which I believe are referred to loosely as national airports. Historically my riding has been a railroad transportation constituency. With the decline in railroading we have been attempting to broaden our economic base by developing the tourist trade. An increasing number of tourists are now coming into our area by air. We have been pressing the Department of Transport for airports, specifically for airports at Sioux Lookout, Red Lake, Dryden and Kenora. I should like to deal with each of these centres in order to illustrate what has been going on for some time.
In respect of the regional airport assistance program I notice under vote 40 that for the fiscal year 1966-67 the amount provided was $1,608,000 and that for 1967-68 it is being reduced to $1,386,700. This is a very valuable

program. I should like the minister to explain why the program is being cut back. I should like to see an increased appropriation for this program.
May I deal first of all with the situation at Sioux Lookout. I had a meeting there with the town council and chamber of commerce to deal with the airport situation. For four years now they have intermittently been making application to the Department of Transport to have their airport runways resurfaced and lengthened. After four years the answer they received was no. This was a bit of a blow to the people of Sioux Lookout because when TransAir of Winnipeg made an application to operate a flight from Winnipeg via Red Lake and Sioux Lookout to the lake-head and back again Sioux Lookout for the first time was going to be on an air line schedule. Unfortunately, the day before the flight was to be inaugurated the Department of Transport informed TransAir that it could not land at Sioux Lookout because the runway was too short. It was 2,800 feet and under the regulation it is necessary that it be 3,600 feet. Yet the DC-3 aircraft, which were to be used, are still landing at Sioux Lookout, although I must admit they are being used as cargo rather than passenger aircraft.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The point I want to make first of all is that the Department of Transport has been remarkably lax in taking such a long time to answer such a simple request. Second, the TransAir schedule had been known for some months before the service was to go into operation. Yet the day before it was to be inaugurated, permission to land there was denied. In any event, DC-3's are still landing there.
The third point is that even though the cost of extending the runway to 3,600 feet, to make it long enough for DC-3 passenger aircraft to land, would be high, about $300,000, I think the Department of Transport has taken the wrong approach. Even though the cost would be high, the fact is that with regularly scheduled flights landing there, there would be a certain amount of revenue to the Department of Transport which otherwise they will not receive. Unlike other airports, there would be a certain return to the Department of Transport as a result of the scheduled service that would be provided. I understand it would be a six-day service.
May 29, 1967



Another situation I wish to refer to exists at Red Lake. There has been an air connection between Red Lake and Winnipeg via TransAir for some time. Last year I was told that the Department of Transport was going to extend the runway and resurface it to a length of 5,000 feet. This plan was cancelled because the cost was apparently too high. This project was to be included again this year in the plans, but apparently it has again been cancelled. I do not know what the reason is for cancellation this time because I only heard about it from the local people yesterday. There does seem to be something suspicious about this situation in view of the fact this plan was supposed to be included in the estimates for two years but has been cancelled both times for no real or apparent reason.
Let me now deal with the situation which exists at Dryden. The people there have requested the development of an airport under the regional air development policy. I received a letter today from the chairman of the committee making the application to the department. The committee is bothered because of the small allotment of money in the estimates for the next year, approximately $1,300,000 for the whole of Canada.
The people of the area do not know how much chance they have of getting any money in order that they may proceed quickly with this project, and TransAir has promised them that if the project is proceeded with quickly Dryden will be included in the flight schedule between Winnipeg and the lakehead. I should like to see some other means of allotting this money worked out because the present system does not do much for northwestern Ontario. That area is included by the Department of Transport in the Winnipeg region. This means that before our needs are likely to be considered the needs of the province of Manitoba will be looked after by the department. Perhaps the minister would consider establishing a new region for eastern and northwestern Ontario in order that this area will not be considered after the province of Manitoba. There is some reason to believe that this is the situation at the present time.
The other airport I want to talk about is that at Kenora. It is also operated by the Department of Transport and there have been efforts to get the runway extended to 5,000 feet in order to service the business being generated in this area by the tourist industry. This is becoming increasingly important to the economy of Kenora as the income re-
Supply-Transport
ceived from the railway industry becomes less.
The cost of extending this runway would be quite high, but the people of Kenora are attempting to get a regional air line from the United States to provide a service there. This again would provide a certain amount of revenue to that airport. The cost of constructing airports in northwestern Ontario is very high, as the minister is likely aware, because of the terrain with which we must work. In view of the fact that this area has reached an all-time low so far as railway service is concerned, perhaps the minister ought to look at the situation from the point of view that while airport construction is expensive this is an investment in the future of the area. This area must be developed if it is to grow and survive.
The modern method of air travel is becoming increasingly more important, and I appeal to the minister to do something about the difficulties which result from the allotment of money under the regional airport assistance program. I urge him to take another look at the advantages resulting from the extension of runways at Sioux Lookout and Red Lake. I hope he will realize that although the capita] cost may be high, as a result of scheduled air lines servicing these areas there is a good possibility of retrieving some of the expense.


Mr. Howe (Wellington-Huron):: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to discuss transportation problems in Canada during our consideration of the first item of these estimates. Several members have referred to speeches made by the minister, but I am afraid I have not had the pleasure of reading them. Let me say that during our consideration of Bill C-231 the minister proved to be the most amiable-perhaps I should say bendable-minister in the house. That was apparent when he agreed to the considerable number of amendments made to that bill.
At this time I should like to reiterate the observation made during our discussion on Bill C-231. At that time I objected particularly to the phasing out of subsidies provided by the Freight Rates Reduction Act. It was indicated by the presidents of the two railway companies there was every possibility that when this measure was put into force there would be an increase in freight rates. In view of the tremendous increase in the cost of living and the cost of goods and services in this country, some consideration should be given during the implementation of this measure to the effect it will have on freight

May 29. 1967
Supply-Transport
rates. I hope the minister will comment on this when he replies and tell us what will happen to freight rates when the complete implementation of this measure is brought about. I hope the minister will also tell us when the Canadian transport commission will commence operations and make its services available.
The second subject I wish to refer to involves the threat to small communities as a result of the abandonment or reduction of rail services. This situation was brought to my attention specifically by a letter from the provincial member for Perth in which he stated that under the new improvement plan all the stations and the services provided by agents in 12 communities in western Ontario are to be discontinued. Very likely these same communities were coaxed to allow the railway companies to come in and no doubt each one provided not only financial assistance but the property for the stations and the railroad. Perhaps we should bring this situation to the attention of the Minister of Industry in the hope that he will change the criteria in this part of western Ontario in order to assist these communities through existing legislation to attract industry.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I should like to commend those communities that are doing their utmost to create a climate which will attract people by the provision of all types of services such as good schools, hospitals, swimming pools, and so on. The religious organizations are also doing everything they can to make people happy in these communities when they come there. In this way these communities are hoping by their own initiative to attract industry. However, they feel that when a service such as the railway is in danger of being removed and people will no longer be able to telephone the station agent and find out what the freight rate is on cattle, a load of feed or a load of furniture, the community will be denied the possibility of attracting the industry they urgently need in order to get an industrial assessment that will help counteract the cost of the services they have to provide at the present time.
I bring this matter to the attention of the minister in the hope that the railroads will be informed that until the transportation commission is operative these applications should be held in abeyance, because I know the experience of small communities when they

come up against the financial and legal experts of the railroads. It is pretty difficult to fight them and it is pretty hard to put forward arguments that seem logical. My experience in these communities is that the cost of the station itself is very much less than the profit derived from businesses brought into the area. I believe that because people in these communities are carrying on needed businesses there should be available to them the services of a station and station agent. Once again I should like to bring this matter to the attention of the minister so that a closer look may be taken at all these applications in the hope that the services will be continued in those communities that require them.


Mr. Monieith:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to reiterate very briefly the words of the previous speaker, the hon. member for Wellington-Huron, concerning the 12 stations that are being closed in the Stratford division. I would point out that at Atwood, for instance, there is a huge feed mill and at Milverton there is a furniture business. The rest of the 12 smaller stations, I suppose one might call them, have industries in the area. They will cease to be served by the railway if these stations are closed. The hon. member for Wellington-Huron has pleaded their case and I do not intend to do so again except to add my words to his and urge that a very close look be taken at this situation before cancellation is embarked upon.
I should also like to bring to the minister's attention a specific case which came to my attention only today. I have received a letter from the financial secretary and the recording secretary-it is signed by both of them-of Avon Lodge local No. 38 of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, Stratford, Ontario. It has been brought to the attention of these gentlemen that apparently Canadian National Railways plans to abandon trains Nos. 218 and 217 which operate between Stratford and Toronto. It is apparently planned to abandon these trains early in July this year in favour of highway transport. These gentlemen point out that the train takes three hours and a few minutes in its journey from Stratford to Toronto. It stops at Kitchener, Guelph and Brampton, picks up several cars of freight at each stop, and on the return trip it drops cars of freight at these places. Twenty five to 28 carloads of freight have been hauled per trip. On the return trips there are not as many freight cars but in both directions the trains carry piggyback trailers.
May 29, 1967

Apparently it has been proposed that this Canadian National freight service be turned over to highway transport entirely. These trains cover the distance in three hours and a few minutes each way and give very prompt service in picking up traffic en route. I believe that if this traffic is hauled by road it will only further clutter up the highways. It is really railway traffic in the first place and, as the two gentlemen who signed this letter so succinctly point out, if the trains are cancelled railway traffic will no longer be travelling on the rails where it belongs but on the highways. I should like the assurance of the minister that further, very serious consideration will be given to retaining trains Nos. 217 and 218 before they are cancelled, as has apparently been proposed.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister will agree that I am one of the members who has troubled him least. I can assure him that I have not the kind of riding that is likely to cause me to trouble him very much in the house. But as he knows, I am a fellow alumnus of his university-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Which one?


Winona Grace MacInnis: -so
he is very fortunate not to be troubled by me. However, as one of the members from the lower mainland of British Columbia I am concerned, with the other members from greater Vancouver and the lower mainland, about the whole question of the Vancouver airports and the air service provided to the Vancouver area.
I know that the question of Boundary Bay airport is not new to the minister. I have at least troubled him behind the scenes, and I have also written to him about this matter. I wish the minister would give a definite assurance to the house that before the Department of National Defence phases out the radar installations at the Boundary Bay airport site, a decision will be taken that the Department of Transport will move in and make this airport site available for the Vancouver area.
As you know, Mr. Minister, we have two airport sites in Vancouver, the international airport and the one at Abbotsford. But Boundary Bay has certain advantages which I think are very necessary for the whole Vancouver area. The congestion in the Vancouver area is bound to increase. Boundary Bay has the merit of being relatively fog free.
Supply-Transport
Until the question of pollution in the Vancouver area is tackled a great cloud of pollution will continue to drift down the coast, but fortunately it almost completely misses the Boundary Bay area. This is of tremendous importance and significance where small planes are concerned because they cannot use instruments and have to depend upon clear visibility for safe flying. Also, as a means of keeping the main Vancouver airport free it is necessary to have this auxiliary site. In addition, the rainfall at Boundary Bay is much less than in the Vancouver area. There is also the point that access to the city from Boundary Bay is a great deal easier than farther down the mainland at Abbotsford.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
For all these reasons it is very important for the people in the Vancouver area to know that when the Department of National Defence withdraws its installations from this site it will be used as an airport. Years ago objections were raised from a number of quarters to the use of the Boundary Bay airport site. However, these objections have been overcome by negotiations among the parties concerned and today the regional planning commission for the whole lower mainland is in accord with the use of the Boundary Bay airport for civilian services. In addition, the municipality of Delta in which it is situated is very anxious to have the airport used again for civilian purposes.
In view of the fact that long-range plans are being made and the whole lower mainland area is trying to make plans for the future, it is of the utmost importance for them to know as far ahead as possible what the plans are in connection with the Boundary Bay airport site. I know it is probably impossible for the Minister of Transport to say just when the Department of National Defence will be phasing out its radar installations and when the airport will be once more freed for civilian purposes. However, I do think it would be very helpful if the minister could assure the authorities in greater Vancouver and the nearby municipalities, the regional planning authority, the municipality of Delta and other people, that when the Department of National Defence has completed its use of the airport it will be returned to civilian use and become in reality a civilian airport on the west coast. I would ask the minister to tell us whether this can be done and if it cannot be done, what the obstacles are that stand in its way. This is a tremendously important matter which concerns well

May 29. 1967
Supply-Transport
over a million people in the nearby area, to say nothing of the large amount of international traffic at Vancouver airport and the need to ensure the safety of that-traffic which can only be done when the small planes are cleared out of there and given an airport of their own. I therefore ask the minister very definitely whether or not he can assure the house that Boundary Bay airport will be returned to civilian use.


Mr. Watson (Chaieauguay-Hunlingdon-Laprairie):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to place on the record what I and I think most citizens on the south shore of the St. Lawrence river in Laprairie county, along the length of the seaway channel from St. Lambert to Laprairie, the Cote Ste-Catherine locks and Caugh-nawaga, consider to be the basic responsibilities of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. In 1957 and 1958 when the St. Lawrence seaway was built along the south shore of the St. Lawrence river the citizens of this area were assured that the initial scars of construction would soon disappear. In its commitments to individuals arising out of land expropriation, the seaway authority has, not without some nudging, fulfilled its responsibility toward shoreline owners. I must say in fairness that in many cases it has actually brought shoreline properties to a better state than existed prior to the seaway construction. The seaway authority has also settled satisfactorily most of the differences which existed between it and the affected south shore and Laprairie county municipal bodies. Caughnawaga is one exception to this, but negotiations have been under way in earnest for the past two years in the latter case, after a long period when communications had broken down. I am hopeful that the Caughnawaga band can be adequately and fully paid for the expropriated band lands and rights without too much additional delay.
Having said this, let me add that the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority has failed in its commitment to the Canadian public, and more particularly in its obligations to the citizens of the south shore and Laprairie county, with regard to the portions of land which it expropriated and then kept. I refer specifically to the unfilled excavations and rubble piles left untouched since the last construction bulldozer left the site eight or nine years ago. In the city of Brossard these eyesores, which for years were hidden from all but the suffering local citizenry, are now exposed to millions of Expo visitors because a six-lane highways has been completed along the shoreline.

I am pleased that last autumn the seaway authority acceded to my request and hired a landscape architect to prepare plans for beautifying this portion of the seaway property. The landscaping needed may well be expensive, but it is clearly the responsibility of the seaway authority to see that such landspacing take place and that it be implemented without additional delay.
The seaway authority has been dragging its feet, hoping that higher tolls will provide it with additional funds for this purpose. The United States government has now rejected any increase in tolls and the seaway authority must now face up to its obligations. I hope the minister will lend his support to an effort by the seaway authority to eliminate this year the affronts to nature which the authority created nine or ten years ago at Brossard and at Caughnawaga at the approaches to the Mercier Bridge.
I can assure the minister that I do not intend to take no for an answer on the question of the elimination of these roadside blights. Halfhearted landscaping consisting of the leveling of piles of rubble is as unacceptable as inaction. The Canadian public accepted the seaway as a national responsibility. Other Canadian organizations, both public and private, minute in comparison to the seaway, have accepted their responsibility for landscaping and frequently have allowed the use of such landscaped areas by the public. That the seaway authority, which possesses some of the most beautiful shoreline property in the Montreal region, should consider that its public responsibility consists solely in ensuring the unimpeded passage of ships in the seaway channel is to me a totally unacceptable proposition. Not only must the construction scars be eliminated, a promise now ten years unfulfilled, but landscaped parklands should take their place.
I appeal to the minister and to the seaway authority to fulfil this year the obligations of a term we hear frequently these days-good corporate citizenship. Surely the implications of this term to the seaway authority, a crown corporation, are of the utmost importance and weight.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, in the last couple of years the Minister of Transport has been inundated with requests and representations regarding safety on the St. Lawrence, and I think he is to be commended for having dealt with some of them at least in the manner in which this has been done. He has probably accomplished more beneficial changes in this
May 29, 1967



regard in the last couple of years than have been effected within the last two decades and, as I said, he and his department deserve a tribute for doing the things that have been done so far with respect to safety and accident prevention measures along the river. Of course the minister is not entirely responsible for all that took place because it goes almost without saying that had it not been for the persistence and insistence of the officers of the Seafarers' International Union, which has been tremendously active in this regard, perhaps the situation would have remained as it was previously.
This, of course, is not to say that the minister should become lax now that a few things have been accomplished. I know he will approach the remaining problems with the hope of bringing solutions to them in the reasonably near future. If he could have another accidental meeting with the chairman of the royal commission on pilotage we might be able to ascertain what that august body has determined should happen with respect to pilots and pilotage, a facet of shipping and navigation about which there is great concern. I am making these remarks to the minister to indicate that even though he and I have had differences of opinion about some of these things, when success is achieved and things are done which are beneficial the credit deserved should be passed along.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I want to talk briefly with the minister about a matter at home and to say that through the news media I watched his progress with some interest while he was there. I read copious newspaper accounts about the things that were said and the minister left a distinctly lasting impression. I understand from these reports that he was visibly impressed with the potential of the area and the great possibilities that exist in northern British Columbia. It is a sad commentary really for him to have said that because it means he really was not listening to what I have been telling him all these years about the great possibilities that exist there.
I suppose the old Chinese proverb is applicable that one look is worth a thousand reports. We are pleased that the minister went. We have been trying to get other ministers to visit that area and I am sure that when they do go they likewise will be impressed with the tremendous growth and development of northern and northwestern British Columbia. We look forward to great things emanating from the minister's department in connection 27053-441
Supply-Transport
with those matters about which he was so visibly impressed.
While the minister was there he had some comments to make about the Terrace airport terminal building. He probably made those remarks because just a few days before I had made some comments. I say frankly to the minister, if he had not guessed it before, that the comments I made regarding the Terrace airport were calculated to coincide with his visit.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would never have guessed it.


Frank Howard: If the minister would never have guessed it he is a poor student of his own activities. I only did so because I know the way the minister operates. The statement was made in the hope of evoking some comment from the minister while he was at the Terrace airport building which would be worth while and would provide information for the residents of Terrace, Kitimat and others who use that airport.
I was rather disappointed in what the minister said. I wonder whether I might comment about it now, Mr. Chairman? I should like to read from the Kitimat Northern Sentinel. I regret that I do not have the date of the issue but it was just a few days after the minister's visit. The headline reads, "Minister Speaks Plainly." The subheadline reads, "Pickersgill On Howard". Some of the other subheadings read: "Pickersgill On C.N.R.", "Pickersgill On Prince Rupert," and so on. The minister covered a wide range of topics.


An hon. Member:: Bilingualism?


Frank Howard: This is a unilingual newspaper. The report regarding the Terrace airport makes reference to the statement I made, but I must quote what the minister said:
I understand that he had reference to a statement that was made on Mr. Laing's authority some time ago.
For the benefit of those who may not know who Mr. Laing is, he is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I continue the quotation:
I've seen a reference to that statement, and that statement said something about long-range plans that would still require government approval, and the estimates, of course, contain what the government has approved for each year-they don't contain any long-term forecasts.
Then, the minister went on to make other comments about the Terrace airport, which was going to be improved. In any event, the key part is the minister's reference to having

May 29, 1967
Supply-Transport
seen a statement by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which said something about long-range plans. Perhaps the minister does not know about the commitments that are made on his behalf by his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. If the minister did not let these other departmental heads run the affairs of the Department of Transport perhaps he would be a lot better off. If he would just put a clamp on the ebullient Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in connection with making commitments, possibly the Minister of Transport would not get into so much difficulty.
It is obvious from the minister's statement that he has not seen the statement issued by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I should like, therefore, to read it to him. I will gladly send him a copy if he would like to have one. This letter is dated December 13, 1966 and is signed by one Arthur Laing. It is addressed to Gordon Williams, Esq., President of the Smithers Liberal Association, Box 400, Smithers, British Columbia:
Dear Mr. Williams:
I must read all of the letter or I will be accused of taking something out of context.
You will recall our correspondence earlier this year concerning the Department ol Transport's plans lor the airport terminal buildings at Smithers and Terrace. At that time I made inquiries about both, and relayed the latest information to you.
As far as Terrace airport in particular is concerned, I am certainly very much aware that it is becoming very important and improvements are overdue. I have been in close touch with my colleague, the Minister of Transport, and you will be interested to know that we-
I do not know whom he means by "we", whether the Minister of Transport and himself or the government.
-have approved in principle the expenditure during 1967-68 of $700,000 on the airport at Terrace:
This statement is fairly clear, but just in case it is not clear Mr. Laing adds this:

in other words, it is approved subject only to parliament voting the money in that year.
You may have already heard this. I should have written to you before to keep you posted; I certainly meant to. At any rate, my confirmation of our plans is, I hope, better late than never.
As I say, this letter was written on December 13, 1966. In Kitimat and Terrace some four months later the Minister of Transport made this comment on the statement by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern

Development, and I quote from the newspaper report:
I've seen a reference to that statement, and that statement said something about long-range plans that would still require government approval-
The letter I just read, which was to the Smithers Liberal Association, is not about long-range plans but is about $700,000 in this year's estimates. Where is it? That is what we would like to know.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Just in case this is an isolated instance of forgetfulness on the part of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or of his really not knowing what is going on in the Department of Transport, let me point out that he wrote two letters to individuals other than the president of the Liberal association in Smithers. He wrote to an individual in Terrace. He wrote three letters in all, and in each he said the same thing, that $700,000 would be allocated to the airport terminal in Terrace in the estimates for the year 1967-68 subject only to the approval of parliament.
I ask the minister, how much is in the estimates for this purpose? Is the amount of $700,000 included for this year? If the minister tells me that it is, I will have to call up the person in his department who told me otherwise. On checking I find in this year's estimates the sum of $244,000 not $700,000, for the Terrace airport. That amount is far short of the $700,000 that the minister's colleague told the Liberal association about. Of this amount only $200,000 is earmarked for the airport terminal building. The balance is for such things as paving, furniture, a sander, a foam truck, a vehicle storage building, and so on.
When I gave this information to the newspapers at home just prior to the minister's visit I told the press that five months ago the minister of Indian affairs had told Liberals in Terrace and Smithers that $700,000 had been approved, and that I classified this statement by the minister as false. I should like to know from the minister if it is correct that there is $700,000 in the estimates for this year for the airport at Terrace. If there is I will publicly withdraw on bended knee all of the allegations I made about the minister of Indian affairs making commitments which were not in accordance with the facts. If the $700,000 is not in the estimates, then I think we should know officially from the minister what the amount is. As I said, I telephoned the department and asked the officials for a breakdown of the amount, how much for this, how much
May 29, 1967

for that, what it was for, and so on. I received that information, and I base my remarks on that information.
Here is an opportunity for the minister to accomplish something unique. I would ask him to picture, if he can, my apologizing to him on bended knee. He can make an honest man out of the minister of Indian affairs simply by telling me that $700,000 is included in this year's estimates for the terminal building at Terrace airport. If it is not included, he can put it there; either way is satisfactory for me. However I think this mattter should be laid before the public eye for all to see.
I use this arena to comment on this matter, Mr. Chairman, because both the minister and I are here. Unfortunately, when he was in Kitimat I was unable to be with him; nor was I able to be with him in Prince Rupert. Indeed, I was not invited to be there.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Shame.


Frank Howard: I do not mind that. That is a matter for the minister. If he wants to use the Department of Transport helicopter service in that area to ferry around the Liberal candidate, and if that is his concept of the expenditure of public funds for a good cause then that is his business.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: A lost cause.


Frank Howard: It may be a lost cause, but that action of the minister does not detract one bit from my opinion of him. However, I should like the facts to be put on the record at some convenient time, and I would ask the minister to detail for me the amount allocated in the estimates to the Terrace airport. Perhaps he will add the different items up to $700,000 and1 put some substance behind the letters that the minister of Indian affairs has been writing on his behalf.
Before closing I might say I tried to get a letter from the department which listed this information in detail. I telephoned a senior official in the Department of Transport and asked him whether he would send me a letter listing the information given to me over the telephone. I telephoned him twice, having waited a period of time without receiving any communication. I am not going to disclose the name of the officer or his position in the department, but he was fairly senior. I have yet to receive a communication listing in detail what is allocated in the estimates to the airport terminal building at Terrace.
The only information I received over the telephone, which I will give to the minister so
Supply-Transport
he can check it, is that in the estimates for this year there is an amount of $244,000, of which $10,000 is a carryover from last year. There is a capital amount for the building of $190,000, $30,000 for a foam truck, $9,000 for a sander, $5,000 for furniture, and the total is $244,000. As I say, that information was given to me on the telephone.
There is one other interesting aspect of this matter to which I think reference should be made. I understand that a submission was made by somebody in the department to Treasury Board in respect of the cost of the airport terminal building, the adjacent parking space, the storage building, the sander and all the rest of it. The recommendation of the department to Treasury Board was in respect of an amount of $475,000. I do not know how Treasury Board operates, and perhaps the minister does not know either, but apparently Treasury Board, through whatever means it employs, decided that $475,000 was too much and said to the department in effect. "Do it for $375,000".
The interesting thing is that this same Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who wrote the letter to his Liberal friends at home saying that there was $700,000 waiting to be picked up also sat as a member of Treasury Board at the time the amount was cut back from $475,000 to $375,-
000.	But he did not write a letter to the Liberal association or anybody else telling them about this. All he believes in doing is taking credit for the sunshine even when the sun is not shining. In this instance he is hiding everything when the weather is gloomy. What we would like is disclosure of a little factual information about what is taking place in Terrace.

[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, like my colleagues who voiced their grievances to the minister, I shall also try to be brief and seek inspiration in the introductory remarks of the minister when he asked approval of his estimates for the fiscal year 1967-68. I should also take the opportunity of these few minutes to make my recommendations to the minister as to certain developments needed in my constituency mainly concerning local airports.
The minister is probably aware that requests are being made for the construction of airports in the Amos, Chibougamau-Chapais and Matagami districts. The minister might possibly say that I am asking a lot for a single constituency. Mr. Chairman, I should

May 29. 1967
Supply-Transport
like to point out to him that my riding extends over one third of the province of Quebec. Moreover, the possibility of converting it into the eleventh province is now being broached. The minister will therefore understand that an area in full development as the northwest region of the province of Quebec needs some transport facilities for the manufacturers, the businessmen who want to develop the natural resources of those regions.
At present, northern Quebec has two airports one of which is quite satisfactory and first rate. I refer to Val d'Or airport which is at the same time a military airport. We have another near the town of Rouyn which is also used by the planes of Air Canada, but the runway is not in very good condition. As a matter of fact, when landing on this strip in an Air Canada Viscount, one has the impression of travelling on the provincial highway through LaVerendrye park, so rough and bumpy it is. One can then see the difference between a military and a civilian airport.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the point I wish to make is the need in the areas I just mentioned such as Amos, Chibougamau-Chapais and Matagami, for developing an air service and local airports so that businessmen and the general public may travel easily. I said that if cities like Val-d'or and Rouyn have rather large airports, it is probably because those localities and their mining industries have developed rapidly.
But in the areas of Chibougamau-Chapais and Matagami mining developments have taken place in the last few years and there seems to be no end to them. New deposits are being discovered and the mining companies are becoming more and more interested in those areas. That is why I am asking the minister to consider the request to open up airports there.
I mentioned the city of Amos because it is located in the middle, at the heart of all that area of northwestern Quebec which is called Abitibi and which includes in general Rouyn-Noranda and even the Temiscamingue area. In view of its geographic location and the developments taking place in the vicinity the city of Amos is urgently requesting the building of an airport.
When I asked the Department of Transport to provide concrete support to those municipalities so as to enable them to develop airports, here is the answer I got. On February 20 last, an employee of the Department of Transport, working at the Montreal
[Mr. Laprise.l
international airport, sent me the following letter:
Our department has one million dollars per year at its disposal to develop airports such as the one proposed tor Matagami, and this amount must be sufficient for all the provinces of Canada.
Please note, Mr. Chairman, that he says "for all the provinces of Canada". And he goes on:
Unfortunately, applications for the fiscal year 1967-68 are very much in excess of this million.
Mr. Chairman, the area I represent is not the only one to ask for developments, as far as air services are concerned, or to ask for the construction of airports. Now, as we have only one million dollars distributed among our ten provinces, one understands immediately why developments are as slow as they are now.
Consequently, I beg the minister to intercede with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) so as to get additional funds for the construction of local airports and to place at the disposal of municipalities the subsidies necessary to build these airports which we need for the development of our northern areas.
Last year, I had the opportunity to visit the Northwest and Yukon Territories. In all the sparsely populated places which we visited, we found magnificent airports that served this area very well. So, I wonder why we are not more anxious to serve the populated cities, where primary industries are established.
For the last two days, we have been studying the estimates of the hon. minister. I hope he listened to my representations as carefully as to those of my other colleagues in this house and that he will give due consideration to my requests and to the problem I submitted to him, so that these airports may be developed, if not in 1967, then in 1968 at the latest, for they are urgently needed.
Now, Mr. Chairman, before concluding my remarks I should like to present another request to the minister, still concerning air transport. For the last two weeks, in particular, I have noticed the lack of seats on Air Canada planes flying between Rouyn and Montreal.
Several times, when trying to make reservations on the plane going to Ottawa, I was unable to get a seat. I had to take other means of transportation to go to the capital for not only was the plane full, but dozens of people were waiting. Therefore, I ask the minister to consider the possibility of doubling the number of flights between the towns
May 29, 1967

of Rouyn and Montreal, in order to meet the demands of the people who wish to travel by Air Canada.
Mr. Chairman, these are the recommendations I wished to make to the minister tonight while considering his estimates, and I hope he will give them due consideration, for they are urgent and pressing.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, under the minister's estimates I wish to discuss such matters as regional air policy, air service in western Canada, the application of the new transport act and matters related thereto and those matters that are being held in abeyance until the new act and the commission to be set up under it become operative. I shall pass up the opportunity of speaking on these topics because I am anxious to hear from the minister about the new freight arrangement between the Canadian Pacific and one or more of the coal mines in the Crowsnest Pass. I do so hoping that the minister will reply to the questions that I and other hon. members have asked about these other matters.
If these coal companies, in order to stay competitive in the supply of coal to an offshore market, Japan, had arranged with a United States railroad to haul their coal through the United States and back into Canada via a longer route, it would have been unfortunate for Canada. I hope a comprehensive agreement has been reached between the mining companies, the Canadian railroads and the Japanese to enable us to get on with the business of expanding the production of coal in the Crowsnest Pass and delivering it to what has apparently evolved into a longterm, steady market.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Before resuming my seat, in the hope that the minister will answer my questions I wish to raise another matter. No one has criticized the railways more than I have for failing during some crop seasons to deliver wheat from the Canadian prairies to export position. I do not apologize for criticizing, but to be fair I must commend the railways for some of the outstanding operations they have conducted. I want the minister and the management of the railways to know that we commend and congratulate them on the excellent job they have done in moving grain from the prairies into export position during this crop year. The volume of grain hauled from almost all regions of the prairies from August 1 until now has been substantially higher than at any
Supply-Transport
time in the past. Generally speaking, there is satisfaction throughout western Canada, and in southern Alberta in particular, with the volume which has been moved during the course of the year.
Southern Alberta was one of the areas which appeared to be faring badly last year and the year before. We were left until the last. This has changed, and I think we have had our fair share of the available transport all through the season. I want to express my appreciation to the minister and to the railway companies for doing a commendable job this season.
I sit down now hoping that the minister will give us detailed information respecting the new arrangement between the railways, the coal mining companies and Japan so that we may bring about the expansion of the mining industry and turn the area into a prosperous part of Alberta once again.


Mr. Haidasz:: Mr. Chairman, with only seven minutes remaining before private members' hour begins I do not believe the minister will have time to answer the numerous questions which have been addressed to him during the discussion of the estimates of the Department of Transport. However, I will forgo my speech and confine my remarks to questions which directly affect the city of Toronto. I speak as the representative of one of the larger areas of Toronto bordering on lake Ontario.
I should like to ask the minister, whose departmental responsibilities include studying the weather and other aspects of our climate, to tell us what plans have been made to combat air pollution. I notice that under vote 40 there is approximately $185,000 set aside for grants to universities in connection with this problem. Air pollution is a major problem in the city of Toronto and I hope the minister will have something to say about it when he replies. I heard recently from an engineer who is an expert on air pollution that commercial jet aircraft contribute significantly to this nuisance. Apparently one jet aircraft taking off contributes as much air pollution as 10,000 automobiles.
I should like the minister to tell us also what plans have been made by the department for additional airport facilities in Toronto. Also, what is to be the future of the Toronto Island airport.
Again, of course, there is the serious problem of water pollution. We in Toronto on the shore of lake Ontario do not have one beach

May 29, 1967
Supply-Transport
which is safe for swimming. I should like to see a strengthening of the regulations applicable to shipping as they relate to the discharge of ordure and garbage.
My final question is whether measures are being taken to make boating safer in Canada. I commend the department on the informative pamphlet "Safety Afloat" which has received wide distribution and has been appreciated by the boating public. But the public are also asking questions about the results of the departmental effort to develop safer life jackets. I hope the minister will be able to throw some light on these points.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago the hon. member for Chapleau raised the subject of air transportation to northern Quebec. As the representative of the riding of Timiskaming in northern Ontario I support the representations which the hon. member made because they affect my riding too.
Surprisingly enough, the only air service in my part of northern Ontario consists of one flight a day along the route Montreal-Ottawa-Val d'Or-Rouyn-Earlton-North Bay Toronto. At the same time the service is duplicated in the opposite direction from Toronto to Montreal. Over the years there has been a great increase in travel in this area and recently, as the hon. member pointed out, it has been difficult to get a reservation on this flight. However, I remember travelling on it not long ago when there were only four or five passengers on many parts of the run. It seems to me this is the type of service which Air Canada must maintain even if there is no financial advantage from it because it covers a large area and meets an undeniable need.
Very often the service is the only means of conveying sick or injured people rapidly to places of treatment. It is not uncommon to find stretcher or hospital cases carried on these runs. I have been a passenger on several occasions when unusual things occurred. A few months ago the plane on which I was travelling was held in Val d'Or for the arrival of a patient from the hospital there. When the patient arrived we learned that a baby had been born prematurely some 20 minutes before the plane was due to leave. Since the nursing sisters did not have the necessary facilities to deal with the case in their hospital they had decided to use the air service knowing it would be a matter of minutes before the child could be taken care of in one of the large Montreal hospitals where all the necessary equipment was available. It often happens that accident victims are put on the

plane in the knowledge that within a short time they can be treated at one of the major hospitals.
As I say, passenger traffic in this area is increasing rapidly and Air Canada does not seem able to cope with it. Undoubtedly the geographic location of the communities to be served has created difficulties but at the same time I feel that the requests from the area for a better service between Ottawa and Montreal should be given consideration. May I call it six o'clock?


Herman Maxwell Batten: It being six o'clock and in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, I do now leave the chair.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed' on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Before the next business is called I should bring to the attention of the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows:
The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Cho-quette), Broadcasting-Building of relay stations to retransmit C.B.C.'s French speaking programs; the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), Public Works-Hazelton, B.C.- Request for federal action.
e (6:00 p.m.)


Richard Albert Bell: That this House regrets that the authority and effectiveness of the House of Commons has declined, is declining and will continue to decline unless basic constitutional as well as procedural changes are undertaken immediately, and therefore resolves that a Special Committee of fifteen members, to be designated at a later date, be established to consider and from time to time to report upon the operations, efficiency and effectiveness of parliamentary institutions and of the system of responsible government within the federal domain, and to recommend such changes in structure, conventions, or practice as would enhance the authority, prestige and sovereignty of this House and restore the independence and effective influence of private members of Parliament, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, to consider inter alia the feasibility and desirability of:
May 29, 1967	COMMONS
abolishing the Royal Power of dissolution; institution of fixed dates of election, subject to power in the House of Commons itself to order an earlier date of election; abandonment of the constitutional convention whereby defeat of the Government in the House of Commons will normally result in a dissolution and the substitution therefor of a practice which would enable this House to determine in such event whether a government should continue in office, another government replace it or an election be held forthwith; provision that the House of Commons would have such continuity of existence that parliament might be summoned in event of an emergency arising during an election campaign; a requirement that financial provision for government be made before an election and the abandonment of the use of Governor General's warrants; changes in practice to enable the Commons more effectively to fulfil its traditional functions of making ministries responsible, initiating legislation, controlling supply and redressing grievances; and the adoption of other changes and reforms which will close the bewildering gap between the way in which parliamentary institutions and responsible government are supposed to work in theory and the way they do work in actuality.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Choquette) rises on a point of order.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I put resolution No. 36 on the order paper. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) rose on a point of order saying that my resolution should not be on the order paper. You took the case under consideration and said that you would make a ruling.
As you have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the matter was not urgent. In my opinion, the resolution which we are to consider raises the same problem as resolution No. 36, that is-


Richard Albert Bell: Oh. Not at all. Ridiculous.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, may I conclude my remarks? If the hon. member wants to reply, he may do so after. I have some authorities to quote, if it can enlighten you. On the other hand, knowing that you are well-informed, there is no need for me to read those authorities.
Motion No. 1 is as follows Mr. Speaker: That this house consider the desirability of abolishing the royal power of dissolution. Now, there is no constitutional authority in Canada or in the Commonwealth which would maintain that the power of dissolution is not an important royal prerogative.
Now, in 1966-
DEBATES	685
Suggested Committee on Procedural Changes


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must know that it is not the duty of the Speaker of the house to consider constitutional matters but simply to rule on points of order.
It is quite out of the question to consider the constitutionality of the notice of motion by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell).


Auguste Choquette: I shall proceed otherwise, Mr. Speaker, and remind you that a similar situation occurred in 1966 at which time the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked you to consider the possibility of removing from the order paper a bill which according to him sought the abolition of a royal prerogative.
You then took the matter under advisement, Mr. Speaker, as reported on page 4220 of the 1966 Hansard, and without ruling on the merit of the question you said, while indicating that if there were resolutions affecting royal prerogatives, you might consider deleting them from the order paper.
In 1966, Mr. Speaker, you decided that the bill to abolish the right of the cabinet to commute the death penalty did not affect a royal prerogative since it did not alter in any way section 658 of the Criminal Code which read as follows:
Nothing in this Act in any manner limits or affects Her Majesty's royal prerogative of mercy.
Now, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) wants notice of motion No. 36 stricken from the order paper, and you said that you would make a ruling, Mr. Speaker.
I am under the impression that if the hon. member for Carleton, who proposes the removal of the royal power of dissolution- which I think is an erosion of the powers of the crown-is entitled to introduce his notice of motion today, I am discriminated against, because you have not yet ruled on the validity of notice of motion No. 36.
Accordingly, I suggest that the hon. member's notice of motion should not be considered before a ruling has been made by Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether we should proceed with this discussion. I wish to advise hon. members I would be pleased to hear their views, but I have given whatever thought is required to be given to this problem since it was raised originally by the hon. member for Winnipeg South
May 29. 1967
686	COMMONS
Suggested Committee on Procedural Changes Centre. The reason, of course, that no decision was given is that it was a theoretical point in view of the fact that the particular motion had not come before the house. We now have a motion which according to the hon. member for Lotbiniere raises the same point of order. If the hon. member for Lotbiniere raises the matter as a point of order I am quite prepared to indicate what my views are. This can be done very quickly, but if hon. members wish to express opinions so that these will be inscribed on the record for posterity, although they will not influence my decision, they will be allowed to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the challenge to put something on the record for posterity is one that is difficult to resist, but I can tell you that is not the reason I rise to say just a word or two in this regard. I should like to express the opinion, and I do so with great respect for my hon. friends from Winnipeg South Centre and Lotbiniere, that both their points of order are phony. I suspect that the hon. member for Lotbiniere is merely retaliating against the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, but surely there are no limitations of this kind against the right of members of this House of Commons to bring propositions before parliament. Of course, as private members we are limited with regard to moving items which involve the expenditure of money and we are limited concerning the number of resolutions we may have on the order paper, but I know of no limitation against our asking for any change in any law of this realm.
I am not expressing an opinion for or against the proposition advanced by the hon. member for Lotbiniere or the one put forward by the hon. member for Carleton. However, as a member from the floor I should like to say that both of them have the right to present their propositions. Your Honour was perfectly right in pointing out that it is not the duty of the Chair to rule on constitutional questions. One reason Your Honour cannot rule on constitutional questions is that it is up to the house to make the decision in respect of the laws it wants to pass. If they are unconstitutional, the courts make that decision. Your Honour has to put a question to the house even if it involves you personally. This will never happen to you, but the rule that you would have to do so indicates that you would be exceeding your authority if you suggested that either of these propositions should not be before the house.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I make no comment on the substance of either proposition, but I 

defend the right of both members to place before hon. members the propositions which are contained in their notices of motion.


Richard Albert Bell: I rise only for one purpose, Mr. Speaker, because I do not wish to intrude upon the time I should like to take for serious discussion of a serious matter. Your Honour indicated there was some suggestion there was a similarity between this motion and that of the hon. member for Lotbiniere in his view. I should like to say in all seriousness that there is none whatever and that a greater misunderstanding of the purposes of this motion could not be given than that which the hon. member for Lotbiniere has advanced. There is no member in this chamber who has a greater respect for the crown and the traditions it represents than I have. I want to treat the silliness of the hon. member for Lotbiniere with the disdain and indeed the contempt it deserves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was that a speech on a point
of order?


Mr. Speaker:: I assume the hon. member was speaking to the point of order. Hon. members will realize, as I said a moment ago, that I have given the matter some thought and that the decision I have reached after giving whatever consideration was required is obvious for the very reasons advanced' by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I might say in passing to the hon. member for Carleton that I did not suggest there was a similarity between the two questions, the one raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere and the one raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. If the hon. member will read the record he will see what I stated is that in the argument advanced by the hon. member for Lotbiniere he claims there is, but of course that does not mean that the Chair agrees with him.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
I think I should repeat what I said a moment ago. It is not for the Chair to rule on constitutional points but rather on points of order. The hon. member has not cited for my guidance any standing order of the house affected by the propositions in the form in which they were advanced. Nor did the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre cite any such standing order.


Richard Albert Bell: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, please do not put our motions in the same category. I resent that deeply.


Auguste Choquette: They are the same.
May 29, 1967


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is difficult tor the Chair to make a ruling at this time without referring to both points. Perhaps hon. members would like me to make one ruling, sit down and then stand and make a second ruling.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: I will withdraw my motion if this is the way the House of Commons is going to be conducted.


Auguste Choquette: They are the same.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Both notices are in abstract form and have been put forward in the form of recommendations asking the house to consider taking certain steps. Were either or both of these motions adopted they could not in themselves affect any of the prerogatives or functions of the crown. I am in agreement with this point advanced by the hon. member for Carleton, as well as the other points he has advanced. In view of the ruling I think there should be no further intervention in the matter and that the hon. member for Carleton should be allowed to proceed with the presentation of his argument in support of his motion.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, last session I indicated that one of my personal centennial projects was to stimulate discussion and analysis in depth of the existing state of parliamentary institutions and responsible government. That is the object of this motion which obviously from its length is an omnibus one and virtually a speech in itself but which is modeled directly upon my private member's Bill No. C-61 now on the order paper. Bill C-61 spells out my current thinking and proposals in specific legislative form. There are members in this house who apparently have not read it.
In my view parliamentarians, political scientists, journalists, and indeed the public generally have become much too traditionalist and conventional in accepting the existing state of parliamentary institutions as the last word in democratic achievement. Most of the discussion about parliament relates to procedure, to rules, and to the standing orders. Almost none of the discussion affects the institutional aspects, the excellence of which seems to be taken for granted. If parliamentarians in the 1860's had been as self-satisfied about the excellence of governmental institutions as almost all their successors are today we should never have achieved confederation 100 years ago.
Suggested Committee on Procedural Changes
Canadians in the early days were the greatest political innovators of the democratic world. We were the real authors of the system of responsible government. We were the first to engraft a federal system of government upon the parliamentary system. Our originality in this respect has been admired and emulated in many parts of the world. Soon after confederation our political originality seems to have been stultified. Most parliamentarians and most political scientists accepted the responsibility of defending the status quo as the ultimate in political wisdom.
The last words of this motion state my opinion of the real problem. I believe that there has arisen, and I quote these words from the motion:
-a bewildering gap between the way in which parliamentary institutions and responsible government are supposed to work in theory and the way they do work in actuality.
Never have theory and practice been more widely separated. These words of the motion are based directly upon a comment by the leader of the House of Commons at Westminster, Richard Crossman, during a brilliant speech in that house on December 14, 1966. I quote from the British Hansard at page 482:
-there is one aspect of our institutions which is pernicious mumbo-jumbo. This is the wide and, to the ordinary elector, the baffling gap between the way in which our parliamentary system is supposed to work according to its procedures and the way it actually works in real life, between what we purport to be doing and what we actually do. It is this gap between parliamentary theory, parliamentary procedure, and parliamentary practice which, in my view, is largely responsible for the decline in the prestige of the House of Commons.
To that, Mr. Speaker, I say, amen.
This motion would provide the technique for the study in depth of that baffling gap. In my view there are three basic problems. First, the transfer of power from parliament to the executive has gone much too far. Second, so called responsible government has ceased in fact to be responsible and, third, independence in thought and action of the private members of parliament has been dangerously curtailed.
The late R. MacGregor Dawson put his finger directly on the problem, and I quote from the fourth edition of his "Government of Canada" at page 400:
Responsible government would appear to have suffered a strange and alarming inversion: the cabinet is no longer responsible to the Commons; the Commons seems instead to have become responsible to the cabinet.
That there is a substantial measure of truth in this, no one can deny.

688	COMMONS
Suggested Committee on Procedural Changes
Dick Crossman in his introduction to the latest edition of Bagehot sounds the same note on page 22 where he states:
Collective responsibility combined with the threat of dissolution have enabled the cabinet to become master of the assembly that created it.
To this truth we must add a further statement of Crossman at page 51 of his introduction:
The post-war epoch has seen the final transformation of cabinet government into prime ministerial government.
Instead of being what he once was, primus inter pares, the prime minister has achieved the position of grand vizier, never intended by the theorists or early practitioners of responsible government. I am not alone in so believing, and I quote from the Globe and Mail of January 10, 1967:
Opposition Leader John G. Diefenbaker says the office of prime minister of Canada has become allpowerful.
The article then states:
"The prime minister used to be regarded in the days of Macdonald as the first among equals," Mr. Diefenbaker said. "That no longer applies today. He's the first. There are no equals.
The prime minister in the days of Macdonald was not all-powerful. Today he is. When I say allpowerful, I refer to the period before an election. During an election, of course, democracy is restored."
That is a rather significant and discerning comment, and the inferences to be taken from it are rather considerable. The article then quotes the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert as follows:
"But between elections the power and authority of prime minister today is far beyond what it was in the days of Macdonald."
What I believe has happened is that we have engrafted much of presidential government upon the parliamentary system, without the checks and balances inherent at least in the United States system. Other factors involved in the shift in emphasis in power are the modern growth of the cult of personality, intensified by television, the hardening of party loyalties, the intensification of party discipline, the leader's control over the party machine, the virtual transfer of the power of dissolution into the hands of one man, the prime minister, and his use of the threat of dissolution as a disciplinary measure against ministerial and parliamentary colleagues alike, the rarity of resignation on questions of principle, the increasing percentage of parliamentarians of the majority party involved in some aspect of administration. Yes, all

DEBATES	May 29, 1967
these are factors which I suggest tend to make myths of the traditional concepts of responsible government.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
Ministers of the crown have come to feel themselves the agents of the prime minister, owing allegiance to the man who gave them their job, rather than servants of the Commons. With great respect, sir, I submit that ministers now concern themselves more about their relationship with their chief than with their responsibility or accountability to the Commons.
The most unfortunate by-product of this bewildering gap between theory and practice that I speak of in the last section of this motion has been the drastic curtailment of the independence of the private member. In my submission, what parliamentary institutions need more than anything else is a genuine restoration of the real independence of the peoples' representatives. The House of Commons needs to be made once again the real master of the administration. I believe we need to restore cabinet government as opposed to prime ministerial government and to make the cabinet actually responsible to the Commons, to correct what Dawson described as the "strange and alarming inversion."
With these objectives, the motion proposes that a special committee study a number of proposals listed in the motion. The first is the abolition of the royal power of dissolution. Let nobody be silly enough to continue the talk of the royal power of dissolution. It is not a royal power today; it is a prime ministerial power. I propose in substitution therefor the institution of a system of fixed dates of election subject, however, to a power in the House of Commons itself, not in the prime minister to order an earlier date of election.
The so-called royal power of dissolution, as I have said, has become in fact a prime ministerial power. Since 1926 the reserve of authority with the sovereign has virtually disappeared. There is no advantage in blinking this fact. Mr. St. Laurent, by devising in 1953 the technique of an instrument of advice for prime ministerial recommendations, effectively put the power of dissolution in the exclusive control of the prime minister acting alone and without the consent of his cabinet colleagues. Dissolution is one of the four things that a prime minister can recommend by instrument of advice without a minute of council, in which latter matters a quorum of cabinet must concur.
May 29, 1967	COMMONS
I interject to say that I prepared the groundwork for this speech by a number of questions placed on the order paper in the last session. The answers to these questions are revealing in outlining the change in constitutional structure, and I venture to give the references to them: sessional paper No. 217, tabled in the House of Commons February 15, 1966; Hansard, pages 2280, 3776, 4062 and 6749.
The power of dissolution is a carry-over from the days when the monarch was allpowerful and at will could send the people's representatives packing. Despite my good friend Dr. Eugene Forsey, who 1 think is one of our greatest Canadians and with whom I generally agree, the power of dissolution has become obsolete, has no inherent magic as a political instrument. Other reasonably enlightened nations manage to survive without it.
It has been argued in the press since my private member's bill was introduced that without this disciplinary power a prime minister would be powerless. I submit, sir, that this is a gross overstatement. Personally, I do not believe any one member of this House of Commons should have the exclusive right to terminate the life of this chamber. Equally, I do not believe that any one member, whether he be from Prince Albert or Algoma East, should have a disciplinary club to hold over independently-minded private members.
The concomitant, of course, of the abolition of dissolution must be the institution of fixed dates of election. Personally, I believe that if the life of this house were fixed we would have much less partisanship, at least for two or three years; we would be able to plan and execute our legislative and investigative program and do so in a much more efficient and expeditious manner. Would parliamentary stalemate be a possible result of fixed dates? I submit not. It is to avoid just such a possibility that I would propose a power in the House of Commons itself to fix an earlier election date. My proposals in this respect are set forth in detail in Bill C-61.
The next matter which the motion suggests for study by a special committee is the abandonment of the constitutional practice whereby defeat of a government proposal is considered defeat of the government and normally leads to an election. I propose the substitution therefor of a new constitutional practice which would enable this house itself, in such event, to decide whether the government should continue in office or be replaced by
DEBATES	689
Suggested Committee on Procedural Changes another government or an election held forthwith.
On all government measures I believe the members of this house should have full independence of action without concern about the electoral consequences of defeating a government proposal. Each of us is sent here because our constituents have confidence in our judgment on public issues. But as soon as we arrive here, particularly when we are supporters of a government, we surrender our judgment to a system which makes mere voting robots of us.
It may be said that you cannot have 265 independent exercisers of judgment without chaos. I do not believe that. I have confidence in the general good sense of legislative bodies and confidence in my parliamentary colleagues. I think the people are entitled to expect and to receive the independence of judgment and action of each one of us. But so long as the present system continues the role of the private member supporting the government inevitably will be one of frustration and humiliation, a mere cog in a parliamentary machine designed for different and earlier days. I think we should ask ourselves, is it not possible that we can agree that the more leisurely days of Simon de Montfort or even those of Sir John A. Macdonald may have disappeared?
There are two other matters dealt with in this motion upon which I think there should be little basic disagreement. In my submission, sir, it is necessary by some technique or other, I care not what, to provide for continuity of existence of the House of Commons. In these days of rapidly developing crises both international and national the nation cannot afford to be without a legislative body for periods of 90 to 100 days. Yet that is what dissolution achieves. Dissolve parliament and the country becomes legislatively impotent for 30 days after an election, which election normally takes about 60 days. A parliament dissolved cannot be "undissolved". War, railway strike or any other emergency, with which only parliament can deal effectively, must await the return of the writs of election. How preposterous this is in this day and age.
The proposal I make in this motion is that each House of Commons have continuity of legal existence until its successors are elected, and thereby we would always have a legal, legislative authority to be summoned to deal with crises. Whether or not we adopt my suggestion of abolishing the power of dissolution, I submit that it must be changed or
690	COMMONS
Suggested Committee on Procedural Changes amended so as not to leave the nation legislatively powerless for periods which in today's rapidly moving world are relatively long.
I might point out by way of illustration that this appears to have been just the problem that deterred Mr. Mackenzie King, in view of the dangerous international situation in 1939, from advising a dissolution of parliament in the summer of that year. If he had done what he would like to have done, Canada would have been caught without a House of Commons at the outbreak of world war II. Would any Canadian feel confident if this parliament were in a state of dissolution at this particular time when conceivably we could be on the verge of another war of major proportions?
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Finally, this motion would seek a study of the means of doing away with Governor General's warrants-a system of procedure which I believe is a denial of the basic function of the House of Commons. Four times in recent years parliament has been dissolved and there has been a massive resort to Governor General's warrants. After the dissolution in 1963 it fell to my lot, as the acting minister of finance, to sign the recommendations for Governor General's warrants and, sir, I say to you that no more distasteful duty ever came my way. I interject to say that the then minister of finance was wise enough to spend the whole election period in his own riding. He was re-elected, but I was stupid enough to try to carry my own portfolio and be acting minister for several others. As a result on election night I was left in a situation which I have since rectified.
In my submission these Governor General's warrants are an intolerable denial of the basic authority of the elected representatives. Indeed they are -a thumbing of the nose at democracy itself, and the proposal for study in this motion would mean that parliament would be required to make financial provision for the administration of the government before an election. A concomitant would obviously be the repeal of the provisions in the Financial Administration Act for Governor General's warrants.
Already my speech is as long as the motion. However, I hope I can induce serious hon. members opposite to take this motion in the spirit it was intended, and to agree to the appointment of a special committee. Perhaps I might even have the vocal support of my best advocate, whom I would now like to quote from the Ottawa Journal of December

DEBATES	May 29, 1967
24, 1966. Perhaps, sir, you can see whose picture is on the page from which I am quoting. It reads as follows:
We might take the lead in adapting old institutions to new problems. I think, for instance, we could bring about a drastic change in our parliamentary institutions, not tinkering with a rule here and a rule there, but getting down to a real examination of parliamentary institutions and how they function in the face of new problems and new opportunities. If they are in default, if they are not living up to the necessities and the opportunities of this new age, then let us change them radically. And I believe this can be done without destroying the values and the principles and the traditions of parliamentary self-government.
Question-Do you suggest moving toward a congressional system?
Answer-I used to take a dim view of the congressional as opposed to the parliamentary system. I still think our system has some basic advantages because, for one thing, it brings the executive into closer touch with the representatives of the people. But it also has some disadvantages, and I wouldn't be surprised if one day we find, as is so often the case, that the best solution would be the adoption of the best of both systems. This is the traditional Canadian approach to things-we take the best of the American and the best of the British and try to build up something Canadian. But I get very impatient these days when we spend hours in the House of Commons arguing whether one rule or another will be changed, whether we'll have ten men stand up instead of one man in order to block something. We have already made some very useful changes. But I would like to see a very thorough, non-partisan examination in depth of our parliamentary institutions.
So would I, Mr. Speaker. Whose words were those? They were the words of the right hon. member for Algoma East, the present Prime Minister of Canada. What I am trying to do by this motion is precisely what the Prime Minister advocates, that is bring about a very thorough and non-partisanship examination in depth of our parliamentary institutions.


Auguste Choquette: M. Speaker, first of all, I should like to reassure the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), who has just resumed his seat, that I have nothing against him and that I am not attacking him personally when I question the validity of the motion before the house.
However, your judgment has shed light on the situation, Mr. Speaker, and we are now considering a resolution for a measure of parliamentary reform which most of the hon. members, if not all, advocate with special enthusiasm.
I am glad to read the integral text of this motion, because I now feel less alone in the House of Commons. Since my election to this
May 29, 1967

house, in all good faith, without fanaticism and in answer, I am sure, to a wish dear to the younger generation of Canadians that certain colonial traditions be put aside, I have always put on the order paper a resolution with that object in mind.
And now the hon. member of Carleton wishes to abolish the royal power of dissolution. This has made me feel that the house supports my objectives, which I would not call republican but which are the abolition of all symbols of colonialism and the proud affirmation of Canadian sovereignty, both symbolically and in practice.
However, before supporting the resolution of the hon. member for Carleton, it would be useful to know the concept or philosophy of the Conservative party as far as the royal prerogatives are concerned.
As recorded in Hansard of 1966 on page 4101, the Leader of the Opposition said the following:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point ol order in respect of the bill entitled "An act to amend the Criminal Code (repeal of power to commute a sentence of death)This bill should not be before parliament and it has no place on the order paper. There can be no interference with the Queen's right to grant mercy, even though this member would abolish the Queen-it is unconstitutional and improper, and cannot be justified on any ground.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
Why did the Leader of the Opposition say such words? Because he thought that I wanted to abolish, by presenting this bill, a royal prerogative which consists in commuting to life imprisonment a death sentence. But, Mr. Speaker, is there a more important royal prerogative than the power of dissolution of the houses. Can there be a more important royal prerogative than this one: the dissolution of the houses; if the sovereign is to be made simply a symbol and if all his prerogatives are to be eliminated, it is necessarily a step towards the abolition of monarchy. No one in his right sense will deny it. No one can objectively claim that he who favours the abolition of the power of dissolution does not tend to lead our country step by step to the abolition of monarchy. It is clear. The member can protest as much as he wants but I shall go into his constituency of Carleton and show the population that, in fact, this is the hidden purpose he is aiming at. He wants to achieve indirectly what other members are trying to accomplish more directly and more openly.
DEBATES	691
Suggested Committee on Procedural Changes
Mr. Speaker, the preamble of this motion is most interesting. It says:
This house regrets that the authority and effectiveness of the House of Commons has declined, is declining and will continue to decline-
I shall ask the hon. member for Carleton seriously to examine his conscience. If the authority and effectiveness of the house have declined, is it not first and above all due to certain improper debates we have had to suffer during the years 1963-64-65? Let us recall the debates on the distinctive flag, during which the members of the Conservative party gave out 175 speeches and more against the adoption of a distinctive flag.
Who at that time, contributed most to reduce the prestige of the Canadian parliament if not those who filibustered as never before in the past? Who1 contributed more to the decline of the Canadian parliament and attempted to reduce this institution into an abject state where no legislation could be passed nor Canadian policy discussed?
All we heard around here was talk of scandals. The Rivard affair, the Banks affair. Who brought this up unceasingly, if not the members of the opposing party? And then it will be claimed that the authority and effectiveness of parliament is declining simply because there was no change in procedure or constitutional reform.
What matters above all, Mr. Speaker, if our institution is to have the prestige it deserves, is that those who sit here should know how to behave. That is the basic principle of the efficiency and prestige of our parliamentary institution.
By dealing solely with scandals as was done for years and even after the general election of 1965, the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielson) who seems to have disappeared, and the member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) wanted to launch a debate on fraudulent bankruptcies through all kinds of insinuations. Did they not contribute to the loss of prestige of parliament? Had it not been for the former minister of justice, Hon. Lucien Cardin, who may be blamed by some for having had the audacity of holding a press conference, which some said was rather undesirable, had it not been for him, that witch hunt would have continued, the scandal-mongering would have continued and the authority of parliament would have diminished accordingly. It is not that there is a lack of constitutional reforms, of procedural
May 29, 1967
692	COMMONS
Suggested Committee on Procedural Changes changes, but rather that some members lack manners and did not prove equal to the task.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, to come back to the heart of the matter, I should first like to quote Mr. Churchill.

-the real one, former prime minister of Great Britain.

In answer to a question put to him, Mr. Churchill replied as follows, and I quote:

He is claiming for the executive now to dissolve parliament and go to the country-
Mr. Churchill replied:
I never said anything of the sort. I must make it absolutely clear that it does not rest with the prime minister to dissolve parliament. The utmost he can do is to tender advice to the crown.


Richard Albert Bell: Which is invariably accepted.


Auguste Choquette: He was then asked another question, and I quote:

That, of course, is the law, but in actual fact the advice comes from the prime minister.
Mr. Churchill replied:
This is one of the exceptional occasions when the prerogative of the crown comes into play and where in doubtful circumstances the crown would refer to other advisers.

The prime minister of Great Britain, (Mr. Churchill), declared that the royal prerogative of dissolution is one of the most important and that those who want to abolish it are those who are in favour of the abolition of monarchy. I want the hon. member to know that, and that is indeed the reason why I would be ready to endorse this resolution as drafted.
Mr. Speaker, as far as essential reforms are concerned, the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Allmand) made, mind you, interesting suggestions when he spoke during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
He spoke of time limitations. Instead of allocating eight days to the debate on the address in reply, he suggested to limit it to three days. Instead of six days for the debate 

on the budget speech, he suggested that it be limited to three days and that members be restricted to relevant matters, that is related to the budget. He also suggested to restrict the time allocated for speeches and also the time for the ringing of the bells which often causes a waste of valuable time in the house. He suggested a great deal of other reforms which should be considered very seriously.
It is my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that the numerous reforms adopted by the present government should be carried out. For instance, a one-hour notice must be given in regard to questions of privilege and the question period has been shortened, while it was unlimited previously. What about the amendment providing for a limitation of a debate, which had to be applied for the debate on the unification of the armed forces. That change proved very worthy, and even though the present government took the initiative of all those reforms, we should continue. I am under the impression that what is needed are more intensive reforms, if our system is to work more adequately.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the session could be divided into two or three periods, and I wonder whether I am not now expressing an idea perhaps already advanced roughly by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), namely that the session could be divided into two or three periods: one period during which the plenary assembly would sit and another one during which committees would sit and the house not sit; in this manner committees could work much more efficiently.
I also wish, Mr. Speaker, that very serious consideration be given to the American system whereby ministers are not elected, because, as everybody knows, ministers must first of all be election-minded since they must be elected.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Furthermore, parliamentarians who have to sit, answer questions and report to the house on their administration, must also be administrators.
It often happens, in life, that the best administrators are not precisely efficient parliamentarians; the best administrators are those who are not much suited for elections. I wonder whether we could not consider much more seriously the possible implementation of the American system in our country and assess to what extent we could reform parliament so that ministers would not have to be elected.
May 29, 1967	COMMONS
Mr. Speaker, such as it exists today, we know that the Senate does not produce the results we could expect from such a distinguished house. I wonder whether we should not consider the feasibility of making the Canadian Senate elective and, also, much more representative of the minorities because, after all, it should be in that house that the minorities are protected.
Our country is made up of several ethnic groups, which we are proud to have as components of our Canadian population. They comprise Ukrainians, Germans, Italians, Polish, and that is what makes Canada a richer country. I see that the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) agrees with me. I think that if the Canadian Senate were reformed so as to be much more representative of all those elements which make up our country, it would be quite an exceptional contribution to our parliamentary system.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Carleton for the resolution with a republican connotation which he introduced. I congratulate him for the great reforms he wants to bring about. We are ready to support him. We shall do everything we possibly can so that all the suggestions from individual members may be taken into serious consideration. I am convinced that, in this way, we shall gratify the wishes of the younger generation which believes much more in effectiveness than in symbols.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into the type of vindictive argument that appears to be developing as a result of the introduction of this motion. I believe that had the motion been introduced in a more conciliatory manner it would have received more support. Most people who have studied this motion and others like it, and who have listened to the proposals made by many persons will agree that there is a need for a conference to discuss in depth some of the changes which must be made in our system.
Part of this motion, which has been introduced now for four or five years, goes a long way in this direction. I refer to that section of the motion which deals with the power of the prime minister to call an election; and it is obvious that much abuse of this power has taken place during the last ten years.
Originally, Mr. Speaker, before the King-Byng issue, as pointed out by Dawson, the Governor General had considerable power.
DEBATES	693
Suggested Committee on Procedural Changes At that time I presume the royal prerogative, to which reference has been made this afternoon, was in fact in effect and that the Governor General of the day did have some power in the dissolution of parliament. Since I have been in parliament there have been a number of occasions when there was no justification whatever for the dissolution of parliament; it was merely a matter of the political advantage that could be gained by the prime minister of the day and his party.
This has meant, Mr. Speaker, five federal elections in eight years, and this as much as anything has brought the Canadian parliament into disrepute, not only in the eyes of Canadians but also those people in the newly emerging nations who are concerned with finding a model parliament with which to govern themselves.
This abuse has also led to a situation wherein, for many years now, there has been little constructive legislation which originated in parliament itself. In the main, legislation has been presented by the establishment and accepted by the cabinet. Cabinet ministers have had no time to concern themselves with the intricacies of their departments; they accept the point of view of the establishment simply because they are so busy conducting election campaigns that they are unable to get to know their own departments.
During the years I have been here, which include the four years when the Conservative government were in office, a continuous election campaign has been conducted because members knew that the minute the prime minister decided political advantage would be gained an election would be called. They were also aware of the fact that the Governor General perhaps did not have much knowledge of the parliamentary system or of his role in it, and he became a functionary willing to accept the dictates of the prime minister in this respect.
With regard to establishing a set term for parliament, I did suggest a four year period in a bill I introduced and which has been discussed several times. Some hon. members suggested that this was a republican idea and similar to the United States form of government. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we can accept a method that does seem to work in another country without changing our whole system.
It seems to me that the expression about throwing out the baby with the bath water has applicability to any type of parliamentary reform. In my opinion, I consider a four year
May 29, 1967
694	COMMONS
Suggested Committee on Procedural Changes term to be necessary in order to give members three years to conduct the legislative business of the country and a fourth year for campaigning purposes, instead of using all four years as at the moment simply because members do not know which year will be the last year of a parliament.
Obviously, with a four year term there would have to be some mechanism for deciding who would form the government if it were defeated. It is true that if the government were defeated in a major vote of nonconfidence, as distinct from the non-confidence motions we now move, the government would have to resign. The royal prerogative would come into effect and the Governor General would be in a position to call on somebody else to form a government. This would not be done on his own initiative, but after consultation with the leaders of all parties in the house. A substitute prime minister who would be acceptable to the other members of the house at the time would have to be found.
If, Mr. Speaker, the situation arose where a suitable prime minister could not be found, then a certain number of members-I suggested 15-would' move a motion of dissolution of parliament, and this would mean an election would be held. This motion would have to be supported by 75 per cent of the members of the house. I suggest 75 per cent because I think it would be foolish to suggest 51 per cent. With the lesser percentage the leader of the party would obviously say that if his members did not support his motion for dissolution he would not supply them with any election funds for the coming election. Therefore the majority would have to be considerably larger than just a mere margin.
If the situation arose wherein no government could stay in office and no party could form a government, there would have to be a safeguard to allow for dissolution of parliament when the members of parliament so decided. That is only natural.


Auguste Choquette: May I ask the hon. member a question?


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


Auguste Choquette: Does he contend that the royal power of dissolution is an important prerogative of the crown, and that anybody who wants to abolish such a power is eroding the prerogative of the crown? Is the hon. member saying that objectively?


William Arnold Peters: It is a matter of semantics. I think the royal prerogative has disappeared 

now anyway. I do not think it is of any significance here. The royal prerogative has been replaced by certain commitments made by the Governor General, and from time to time they are changed by legislation. The royal prerogative does not exist any longer in Canada, and I do not think it has existed for some time. As a matter of fact, I was surprised to see that the member who introduced the motion used capital letters, because I do not think it exists anymore, or indeed that it has existed since the days of the King-Byng issue even if it was in effect at that time.
I believe that the introduction of this motion, Mr. Speaker, is a worth-while step, and I should like to see the house support it. I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) was only playing with words when he made a statement to Peter Newman some months ago. If he really believes in what he said, no harm could result from adopting this motion, which would refer to a committee this very important subject for immediate attention.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hour assigned for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. The house will now resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Nasserden in the chair.


[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $6,655,700.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: The house in committee of supply on the estimates of the Department of Transport, item No. 1, departmental administration.


William Arnold Peters: Before the supper recess, Mr. Chairman, I had been adding my representations to those that had been made by other hon. members from northern Ontario and northern Quebec, and I was saying that additional travel facilities ought to be made available to the public. Much extra traffic from my area has been generated by Expo '67, and much of the traffic increase in the last few years is likely to remain. The hon. members for Timmins and Chapleau talked about the need for new transportation facilities, or for
May 29, 1967

services. Could the minister not discuss with Air Canada the possibility of having a run from Ottawa to North Bay, then up to Earlton and Timmins, and back to Montreal, relieving the pressure on the run from Rouyn to Montreal, which cannot serve adequately the area I have mentioned? Also could he not look into the possibility of smaller charter or feeder air lines co-operating to a greater extent with Air Canada. Could the charter services not be extended to relieve some of our present difficulties.
Air carriers such as Austin Airways, Georgian Bay Air Lines, and Matagami Air Lines, as well as others operating in this field might provide connections between smaller centres and major Air Canada airfields. The need for such services has developed because the railways have not provided adequate facilities in these areas. If this trend continues the railways will acquire less and less passenger business as more and more the population takes to motor cars and aircraft.
This raises another point. I am informed that trains Nos. 87 and 88 which run out of Toronto are to be discontinued as of July 1. I am not sure whether the service covered mail, passengers and baggage, but it is to be discontinued. The result will be that more people will use the highways.
The current trend was brought home to me when several weeks ago a young group of students chartered a bus to take them from my home town of New Liskeard to Montreal, a distance of approximately 500 miles. I think a train service should have been available for this trip. Were the railways truly interested in passengers they would provide decent accommodation for the use of those passengers. In these days, because a person finishes high school without having been on a train does not mean that he is from the backwoods, but that he has found other means of transportation that are more satisfactory than the railroads.
The minister may not care much about trains Nos. 87 and 88, but I ask him-and through him I direct my question to the Canadian National-whether, if the railway is not interested in operating these trains from Toronto, it might not sell its line to the Ontario Northland Railway. The Ontario Northland or the Canadian National could run an efficient service from Toronto to Hearst, yet the passenger services are inadequate. One travels to North Bay for the connection and takes another train which is overcrowded and has poor facilities.
Supply-Transport
One takes the O.N.R. to Cochrane and then changes again to the Canadan National to travel to Kapuskasing. Recently the O.N.R. has carried passengers from Kapuskasing to Hearst. That being so, I should have thought that it would be wise for the authorities to arrange to sell to the O.N.R. the line from Toronto I previously mentioned, so that the
O.N.R., by operating it, might provide a better service than has been provided in the past. Unless something like that is done the government will have to make provision for other forms of transportation. The services by small feeder lines to areas such as Kapuskasing have not been satisfactory, and better facilities for this area must be provided.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
For years we had to take trains at Montreal which arrived, 24 hours later, in Kapuskasing, not a great distance away as a matter of fact. We were accustomed to it, but a visitor from a foreign country would have been surprised to receive a ticket about a yard long, and baffled when it came to making all the changes required. To do this properly required a ticket with at least seven spaces on it, and these tickets were hard to get. It was not easy to find an official who would make one up correctly. He figured he could issue a little one and it would get you there. But it would not work. All in all, transportation in our area has never been very good and I suggest the minister might do a lot worse as a centennial project than make it easier for those who live there to travel to and fro between their communities and the larger population centres.
We are finding great difficulty in establishing industries in northern Ontario because it is so hard to get in and out of the region. The air routes cross at Earlton, for practical purposes, and passengers can decide whether they wish to go from there to Montreal or Toronto. Obviously they cannot go in both directions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: Or in the case of two people, they cannot go in two directions. But I think the minister is well aware of this problem. Representations have been made in regard to it by others representing this part of northern Ontario and northern Quebec. I might add that the Northeastern Development Association has suggested that direct transportation be arranged to Ottawa rather than fly via Toronto or the long scenic route via Val d'Or. I am sure the hon. member for Port Arthur

May 29, 1967
Supply-Transport
and the hon. member for Fort William would support this proposal, which has been endorsed by both city councils.
The other comments I wish to make on these estimates concern a subject which has nothing to do with my riding, but in which I have been interested recently. I refer to the hotel ship Florida with which I suggest the Department of Transport should be very much concerned. After attending meetings held between the department and the safety council of the St. Lawrence seaway I was surprised to read orders in council published in the Canada Gazette on April 19 referring exclusively to this hotel ship. I am sure hon. members will not have forgotten the Nordic which burned in Toronto with the loss of many lives. At the inquest which followed this tragedy it was recommended that a flrewatch of at least 15 men was required if similar occurrences were to be avoided. These men had to be trained in both firefighting and lifeboat duties.
The Florida is almost twice the size of the Nordic and a disaster, if one were to occur, could therefore be twice as serious. This is a vessel which has been condemned in the United States, and very few modifications have been carried out since then. Montreal would not allow it in the port and the vessel is now at Beauceville. As things are, proper fire protection is lacking. I asked whether a fire tug could not be provided in that area by adapting one of the present tugs. The department replied that this was not feasible. Mr. Chairman, when we are considering a danger to lives the cost is not significant; people have to be protected from the consequences of their own folly, if necessary. The S.I.U. has refused to man this ship because the owners will not agree to hire sufficient men. In the light of the finding of the Nordic inquiry, that the proper maintenance of fire watches called for 15 men, it seems to me altogether unreasonable to ask sailors to man this vessel. Her engines will not be running and no fire protection is available either from the shore or from the ship, which will be using electric pumps, I presume. I think it is unfair to ask people to man this ship and to allow people who take berths on it to expose themselves to a dangerous situation-one which the Department of Transport seems to have ignored.
I raise this question knowing full well that these orders in council have been passed, as recorded in the Gazette of April 19, and that they must refer specifically to the Florida because it is the only floating hotel we have 
in Canada. The minister has been advised of the danger and of the type of fire service which is required, and in these circumstances I suggest that a great deal of responsibility would rest squarely on the shoulders of some of his senior advisers if a disaster were to break out, since obviously they have advised him that it will not be necessary to add regulations to cover the fire watches. In the event of a tragedy occurring the hon. gentleman would not be in an enviable position. This ship has accommodation for 500 guests on five decks and it appears to me that a fire watch of 15 men would not be too large. If something were to happen it would be a calamity not only for those involved but for Canada as a whole in this centenary year.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I understand the minister intends this evening to answer various question which have been asked by hon. members in the course of this discussion. Many questions have been put to him and I know he has been making careful notes in preparation for answering them. Because of his courtesy in allowing me a few minutes before he speaks tonight I will try to be brief.
The subject I wish to raise concerns transportation, in particular the transportation of coal by the C.P.R. from the Crowsnest pass, from Canmore and other hard coal areas in the mountains. The big problem is that the freight rates charged now and in the past by the C.P.R. are higher than those charged by the Great Northern Railway in the United States, making it difficult for the companies operating in the Crowsnest pass and adjoining areas to compete with other trading nations in the sale of coke and coal.
The Financial Post put it succinctly on May 13 last when it stated:
Industry sources agree on one point-that expanding the Japanese market depends on a long term freight rate outlay not exceeding $4 per ton from the Coleman-Crowsnest pass area to tidewater.
The CPR's best offer to date is $4.60 per ton, and the producers are convinced the railway will not budge.
The producers contend that the $4 rate would be "more than generous", adding that its acceptance by the C.P.R. would enable them to greatly increase sales to Japan without federal subsidies.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
With the greatest respect for the coal operators and the employees in the mines I should like to say that I have never gone along with the idea that we should have to subsidize our own resource in order to trade our coal and in order to keep the railway operators in
May 29, 19B7

business. Our trade with Japan is subsidized at the rate of $4 per ton. I should like to be fair with the present government and say that the subvention was put on by the Conservative government. On several occasions during the orders of the day I have asked the minister whether he, his government, and his department have worked out with the C.P.R. any formula concerning this matter, because the coal operators have suggested coal need not be subsidized at $3.70 per ton as in the past, or $4 a ton, because they could compete without the subsidy if the C.P.R. shipped the coal from Michel, British Columbia to the Great Northern Railway of the United States and then, from a point somewhere in Montana, to Seattle and then on to Japan.
I remember the minister, on an occasion when he was speaking off the cuff, saying that the C.P.R. was one of the biggest enterprises which built this nation. I congratulate him on his facts. Surely in centennial year this government can work out some kind of agreement with the C.P.R. to take that coal at least as cheaply as it could be taken by the Great Northern Railway in the United States. Here we have a Canadian enterprise, one of the biggest in the world-the C.P.R.-which is not able to ship coal through one of the easiest passes in the land, the Crowsnest pass and Canmore, from the area of the hon. member for Kootenay East to Vancouver, and then on to Japan, as reasonably as a company in the United States.
The Crows Nest Industries Ltd. of Fernie, B.C.,-and I am sure the hon. member for Kootenay East will pick up his ears on this -also has contracts to export about 500,000 tons per year, and is negotiating a 10 year $260 million contract. The contract, also with Japanese steel interests, involves shipments of two million tons per year. I am sure the minister will confirm the fact that we have contracts amounting to 1.2 million tons per year for nearly seven years, to 1970.
The report continues:
"Market prospects have blossomed dramatically. Just a few months ago we were happily contemplating sales of about three million tons a year to Japan by 1970. Now it appears sales will be more than double that figure," an industry source said.
What is the problem. Let us take a look at it. The problem is put very succinctly by the Financial Post and more briefly than I could
Supply-Transport
put it-and I assure you I should like to put it as briefly as possible:
One way or another, Ottawa will be dragged into a bitter fight between Western Canada's coal exporters and Canadian Pacific Railway Co.
If Ottawa does not intervene now, the coal operators seem ready to build a railway of their own to the U.S. border and ship their coal to the Pacific coast via a U.S. line, the Great Northern.
If the railway gets built, Ottawa will almost certainly have jurisdiction over much of its operation.
If Ottawa does step into the fight now, it would mean-at the very least-one of two unpopular moves:
Continuation and extension of federal subventions on coal shipments for offshore export. Neither the taxpayer nor the coal producer would become this.
Now, just pausing there for a few moments, may I say that we cannot compete with Australia and we cannot compete with the United States in the export of coal to Japan from this nation. We are unable to ship that coal via the C.P.R. as cheaply as via the Great Northern. The government cannot prevent the Great Northern coming through British Columbia, but it does have some jurisdiction when the railway crosses into another province or crosses the boundary between Canada and the United States. It would have some jurisdiction. It seems strange to me that this railway in Canada, the most powerful company we have in Canada today, cannot compete with our United States neighbours in the shipment of coal.
If the government bows to the C.P.R., what does it cost the taxpayer? If we are to sell 1.2 million tons per year working up to three million tons per year, to Japan for their steel industry, for every ton of that coal it will cost the taxpayers of Canada $4. I will be fair to the government and the minister and say that it was our Conservative government which put on the subvention on coal in order to obtain contracts with Japan. When we came to office in 1957 unemployment was rampant in Canmore. The railways had turned from coal to petroleum for their locomotives and as a result many men were out of work; they were on relief and had run out of unemployment benefits. In order to get these men back to work and keep our mines in operation the Conservative government at that time commenced paying $4 per ton subvention on the coal. I am sure, however, that the coal operators and the workers would say that no one expects the taxpayers of this nation to pay $4 a ton in order to get rid of our coal, an asset put by God into our soil.

May 29, 1967
Supply-Transport
The problem is on the shoulders of the minister, because he should negotiate-not in a nice way any more, because that has failed -with the C.P.R. We are not asking the C.P.R. to carry the coal at a loss but rather at prices which are competitive with the Great Northern Railway of the United States. Surely that is not much to ask. Coal industry sources say emphatically that they do not want to operate with the taxpayers' help. They claim, in extremely frank terms, that they are the scapegoat in an arrangement under which the C.P.R. collects subsidies which are unjustified. In other words, it is the C.P.R. which is demanding that the government of this country pay $4 a ton to get rid of or unload assets which are depleting. They say that if they cannot get the subsidy one way they will get it another way; that is, by overcharging on the shipments of coal. The report continues:
They point to a recently concluded agreement between Crows Nest Industries Ltd., a major export coal and coke producer, and Great Northern under which export coal can be hauled to tidewater, despite a major investment and a longer haul at a rate well below that presently charged by the C.P.R.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Federally initiated litigation that would involve, directly, Crows Nest Industries, and indirectly, the British Columbia and Alberta governments, two other major coal producers, and the C.P.R.
That is not necessary and is not the answer. I made that suggestion to our own minister, when we were in office and we all know what happened on that occasion. Let me say it again to you, Mr. Minister. In this regard the C.P.R. should be in the same position as the C.N.R., and the officials of that company should be brought before the standing committee of this house to make explanations and answer the questions of members of parliament, rather than in the minister's office or in the office of the C.P.R. In this way they could indicate to this country through us why they cannot compete with United States companies in carrying coal.
The railway companies are no longer using the old fashioned method of hauling coal with perhaps just three or four carloads in the middle of the train. One has only to visit the area of lake Louise on the main line between Calgary and Vancouver to see trains half a mile in length carrying coal. Today the C.P.R., through automation and the ability to haul coal at a rate per ton cheaper than ever before, should be able to compete with United States railroad companies. If they cannot then the coal operators through me and through

the Financial Post, which I suggest is a reliable source, have given notice that they will take advantage of the old charter.
Let me remind the minister that under this charter the coal operators have the right to build a railway from Michel to the United States to join up with the Great Northern. In this way the coal could be hauled to Vancouver and exported to Japan at less cost than via the C.P.R. Failing that I suggest there are two alternatives: Either the contracts will be lost to the United States, and the minister knows there are over-riding clauses in these contracts, or this market will be lost to Australia. When I was in Japan in 1958 the steel people told me they were prepared to purchase coal of a lesser quality from Australia than that produced in the Canadian Rockies if the price was 50 cents a ton lower.
The minister must develop a tough policy with the C.P.R. in this regard. It is high time that company automated its operations, and high time its officials appeared before the standing committee. We all know about the Marathon Realty Company which is owned by the C.P.R. and that some of their assets are being transferred to another company. We all wonder whether one day they will come to us and say they have transferred all their valuable assets to another holding company, and we can now have the railway. Perhaps that is their intention, and the minister has heard this suggestion before.
I should like to touch upon one or two other points and I intend to be brief.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have taken only ten minutes and I said I would take fifteen, but I am sure the minister will not laugh off a contract for 1.2 million tons of coal per year, and the estimate that in ten years it will be increased to three million tons. This means employment for about 3,000 men in the mines, many of whom have been unemployed for years and unable to enjoy the dignity we expect for families who live in Canada. This also will increase our export trade and bring in new dollars, because there will be an imbalance of trade between Japan and Canada in our favour.
Let us consider the companies who are worried about this situation. The Coleman Collieries Limited have a 500,000 ton coking coal contract negotiated for 15 years amounting to $160.5 million. Crows Nest Industries Limited have a contract for 500,000 tons per
May 29, 1967

year and is negotiating another ten year contract valued at $260 million. Canmore Mines Limited has negotiated a 200,000 ton annual contract at an almost comparable value. McIntyre Coal Mines Limited, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of McIntyre Porcupine Mines Limited is working on extensive coal leases in the Smoky River area on the route of the Alberta Resources railways about 110 miles north of Hinton, Alberta.
The minister has a good sense of humour, and I congratulate him in this regard. The other day when I asked him a question about this situation he said he was the most promising minister in the government. He has been promising me and the province of Alberta to make a clear-cut unequivocal statement in reference to this matter, and it is hightime we received that statement.
The other day the minister gave an answer to a question that had been asked. Unfortunately I was not here and the Secretary of State brought that fact to the attention of the house. She likes to bring things like that to the attention of the people of Canada. Let me say that I am not worried about my absenteeism from this house; I am more worried about doing my job for Canadians. This subject is one of the most important to western Canada today, perhaps the most important, next to improved loading facilities for grain at the Vancouver port. That situation should also be looked into.
The minister gave an answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West, not the hon. member for Kootenay East who is very close to the minister and the government. I hope the people of his riding will read what I have said tonight because they are 100 per cent in favour of what I have suggested. They know the minister should be doing something about this situation, and they know that the Canadian government has been sitting on something I cannot mention tonight in the house, doing nothing at all about it.


An hon. Member:: Colin Cameron can say it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Someone said that Colin Cameron can say it, but he can say a lot of things I cannot say.
On May 23, the minister said this as recorded at page 470 of Hansard for that day:
Mr. Speaker, so far as the first part of the question is concerned, I thank the hon. member for sending me notice ... To the best of my knowledge, unless it happened over the week end, there has been no official notice to the government of Canada that anyone has any intention of building a railway.
Supply-Transport
My answer to the minister in this regard is that they do not have to give notice, they already have a charter to build a railway through British Columbia from the riding of Kootenay East. The minister then is reported as having said:
I think it would be unfair to the Crows Nest Industries and other related interests to give the impression that there has not been some informal exchange in respect of this matter-
We have had a lot of informal exchanges and answers, but we have had nothing definite. The minister is afraid to answer this question and afraid to speak up to the officials of the C.P.R. My charge tonight is that the government and the minister have not stood up to the C.P.R. on this matter, and as a result the Canadian taxpayers have had to pay a $4 per ton subsidy to get this contract, worth millions of dollars. A new budget is to come down very soon which I am sure will outline further tax increases.
The minister then went on to say that as far as the relations of the mines and the Canadian Pacific were concerned he was happy to be able to say that they are happy. They are not happy, and there is no agreement between the C.P.R. and the coal operators. The operators are now trying to drive a hard bargain, and have said to the government that they will build their own railway because they do not want to operate on a subsidy at a cost of $4 per ton to the taxpayers.
It is my hope that the minister will make some explanation tonight about this whole situation. He has not given any answer or explanation during the orders of the day in the last three months.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the eloquence of-


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I have two small matters I should like to bring to the attention of the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think there was an understanding that I would be allowed to speak as soon as the hon. member for Timiskaming had finished; however, the hon. member for Bow River was so seductive I yielded to him.


Colin Cameron: I hope the minister will answer the points I will bring to the attention of the committee later.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman knows that his points are always unanswerable.

May 29, 1967
Supply-Transport


Colin Cameron: They are always unanswerable by you, and that is why we have so many questions that are unanswerable by this government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the eloquence of the hon. member for Bow River, I am sure he will not expect me to favour him over other members who have taken part in the debate, but I do promise him I will in due course refer to the subject he has raised. I do not think I will necessarily deal with all points, because some of them seem to be more in the way of representations than matters requiring replies.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I also feel that the first subject with which I should deal is one about which I detected what seemed to be a lack of understanding of certain facts on the part of some hon. members. I am sorry that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek are not in the chamber at the moment, because they seemed to be unaware of the fact that on March 27 the government announced a policy which involved an extension, in fact a doubling, as soon as Canadian Pacific Airlines were able to make their application and get into operation, of their transcontinental service, and which would provide that the service could operate through Edmonton and Calgary. It seemed to me that for some reason or another the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona had overlooked that statement. I do not think I should take up the time of the committee to repeat that statement now, because there are so many questions to deal with; but I will see that the hon. member receives a copy of the statement.
In addition to that, on the same day, March 27, I indicated that because we expected to have a very marked increase in the demand for air services this year, the regional air carriers would be allowed to provide additional charter service to meet the Expo and centennial demands to the extent that they were able to do so.
I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond really put his finger on the problem that faces all of us in this country, so far as air services are concerned, that the air lines in Canada, indeed nearly all the air lines in the world, are competing against the war in Viet Nam, and the competition is very unequal. As long as that struggle goes on, as long as there is the demand for aircraft in

that conflict, deliveries of aircraft that are needed and which could be used to provide civilian service are, so far as I can learn, going to be delayed. It does not really matter whether you give a charter to Canadian Pacific Airlines or any other air line; if they have not the aircraft with which to provide the service, it cannot be provided. That is the situation which we in this country face. That is the situation with which air lines in every part of the world are faced.
We all know that air traffic is increasing. The traffic offering is increasing faster than the capacity of air lines to meet it. There is nothing the government or anyone else can do about that. But within the limits of what it is possible to do we have sought to make every kind of improvised arrangement, and the Air Transport Board is continuing to do that, to see that as much equipment as can be made available is made available for this purpose.
The next subject with which I should like to deal is that raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East and commented on by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. It is subject quite closely related to that referred to by the hon. member for Medicine Hat and the hon. member for Bow River this afternoon and this evening. I refer to the capacity of Vancouver harbour to handle the traffic that is in prospect in the next few years. I think it will be recognized that, in the last year or so, there has been a very distinct improvement in the whole situation at Vancouver, which has been brought about by a number of factors, one of the most important of which, of course, was the settlement of the long-standing dispute between the Harbours Board and the Canadian Pacific Railway over property rights.
As a result of the settlement of this dispute we are now getting ahead with both private and public developments in Vancouver harbour that probably should have been started a good deal earlier, but could not be started until the title to the property was settled in some fashion. I modestly take a little credit to myself for the fact that this setlement was made, because I indicated when I was in Vancouver a little over a year ago that it was going to be settled one way or another during 1966, and it was settled amicably not very long after that.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra pointed out that the capacity of the port of Vancouver was rather dramatically demonstrated the other day by the huge ship that took the largest cargo of wheat that I think has ever been shipped from any port in
May 29, 1987

Canada. There are two existing bulk loading facilities in Vancouver harbour and there is a third under construction, again on property made available by the Harbours Board and made useable by a dredging program in the last year.
I think we are a long way from having reached the limits of the capacity of Vancouver harbour, of Burrard inlet and of the Fraser river, where vast improvements have also been made in the last few years, including the trifurcation near New Westminster and the increase in docks and other facilities, which have added tremendously to the capacity of the ports of Vancouver and the Fraser river.
At the same time, about seven or eight months ago when I was in Vancouver I announced that we were going to extend the legal limits of the national harbour at Vancouver from the entrance to Burrard inlet right to the international border, and that we would engage engineering consultants to study the future development of that area. That engineering study is now under way.
I can assure all hon. members that it is the intention of the Harbours Board and of the government to see that in so far as we can properly foresee the requirements for this harbour-which I have said once or twice is like the end of a funnel that serves about one third of Canada, not just the lower mainland of British Columbia but most of the province of Alberta and a great part of the province of Saskatchewan as well as all the southern part, at any rate, of British Columbia-we will see that this huge harbour, the fastest growing of all our harbours and already the greatest harbour on the Pacific coast, is developed as rapidly as developments are required in order to handle the traffic.
We have pretty accurate estimates and projections in this respect, and we are sure that the traffic will increase, and increase very rapidly. The question that is most acute at the present time, of course, is whether the existing facilities at Vancouver harbour and those under construction are adequate to handle the exports of coal that can reasonably be contemplated now and in the next few years.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In the next 10 years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a subject of quite acute controversy, as hon. members know. I may say it is a subject that has given me a good deal of concern, because I think it is evident to everyone in the house that if the freight rate for the carriage of this coal, and if the loading charges are paid to Canadians, 27053-45
Supply-Transport
this will provide income, employment and taxes in Canada.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
If they are paid to American citizens, they will provide income, employment and taxes in the United States. Other things being equal, any Canadian would want to keep that traffic entirely in Canada.
I do not think there would be any difference in any quarter of the house on that point. As the hon. member for Bow River has said, it is really a question of whether or not the coal can be mined and sold at a price which will make the whole transaction profitable, without any subvention from the government of Canada. A subvention has been paid on a quite substantial scale for several years for relatively small quantities, but still substantial quantities of coal, from the three mines which were mentioned by the hon. member, the one at Colemen in Alberta, the Crowsnest mines near Fernie, British Columbia and the Canmore mine on the main line of the C.P.R. The discussion that has been very active between these mines and the Canadian Pacific Railway for the last several months is whether or not, if the quantities that can be sold in Japan can be raised sufficiently, the C.P.R. and the terminal facilities in Vancouver can provide a combined freight and loading charge which it will be possible for the shippers to pay and still make a profit out of their transactions. Whatever one may say about the C.P.R., under our system of government, it is still a private company, and so are the coal mines. This is a matter of hard bargaining, and I think it would be quite wrong for the government to be partial in this matter and take either side. I think it is our duty to be impartial and, so far as possible, to allow them to make their own bargains.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May ask the minister a question? I agree with the minister that the government should be impartial, but does he not consider that when it comes to the question of the export of coal to the tune of many millions of dollars-the Financial Post mentioned a figure of $260 million-by one mining company in Alberta, it is not a question of partiality or impartiality but a question of sound business to sell the coal. The C.P.R. would not exist, were it not for the sales of coal or grain.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly, and without
some railway to carry it to the seaboard, the coal could not be sold, and the railway work-

May 29, 1967
Supply-Transport
ers and the railway company are just as much entitled to earn a living as is the coal mine. Perhaps the hon. member will allow me to point out that he neglected to say in his speech that on May 24 an announcement had been made by the chairman of the coal board that a long term contract had been concluded by the Coleman collieries with the Japanese for the shipment of coal entirely through Canada, and that this transaction is now completed. It would not have been completed but for the action of the government in authorizing the coal board to provide subventions on a declining scale for an additional two years above the two years for which they have already been provided so that the Coleman colliery could gradually build up its production to a million tons. The C.P.R. said that when they had a million tons from that mine they would give it a combined rate of $4.60, subject to certain escalation to which the two parties agreed, and at that point there would be no further need for a subvention. On that basis a contract for $160 million worth of coal has been concluded. That coal will be shipped from the Coleman colliery in Alberta entirely through Canada, so that the employment generated, not just in the mining but also in the carriage until it is loaded on the ships, will be Canadian. I do not think we have any reason to be ashamed of making that possible through additional declining subventions through the coal board for two additional years.
It goes without saying, but perhaps it is important that I should say it, that the government is prepared, and has told the coal board it is prepared, to have a comparable arrangement made with Crows Nest Industries. If, during a transitional period, some additional subvention on a declining scale is needed so that they can build up their tonnage to the point where unit trains can be used and other economies can be effected, we are prepared to treat Crows Nest Industries in a way comparable to the way that Coleman mine has been treated, which has enabled them to make this contract.
That happens to be the position of the government in this matter. I have read many things in the press, as did the hon. gentleman, but I do not always accept everything I read in the press at its face value.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The figures quoted by the minister are the same as those quoted by the Financial Post.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 

want to repeat that, so far as the government is concerned I am authorized to say-I am authorized to say it because my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who is responsible for the coal board is away in Washington today-that the government is quite prepared to provide comparable terms to Crows Nest Industries, for a transitional period to enable the build-up of production so that such a contract would be possible.


John George Diefenbaker: What does the minister mean by "comparable"?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I mean comparable to the terms given to the Coleman mine, the transaction for which is already completed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask the minister one question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister has partly answered my argument. However, I should like to hear his answer to this question: Why is it that the Great Northern Railway maintains, and the coal operators maintain, that they can ship this coal cheaper than the Canadian Pacific? We all want a Canadian route. We are not asking for the United States to get into this scheme. I am asking the minister why he has not discussed that phase of the problem with the Canadian Pacific.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have of course discussed it with the Canadian Pacific. I am sure the hon. member, who was an assiduous member of the house during the passage of the national transportation bill, will recall that any freight rate on a shipment from a point in Canada through any other country and back to another point in Canada has to be posted with the Board of Transport Commissioners or the Canadian Transport Commission, and it has to be compensatory. The rate would be open to scrutiny by any interested party who felt it was not compensatory. We have no evidence, except the word of these promoters of the coal transaction, that such a combined rate would be possible.
It is based on three or four quite big ifs. The first one is, if they can build a railway to a certain point and make the connection with the United States railroad. They would have to have shipping facilities built that do not exist at the present time. If all these things are done, on a certain basis, then there will be a $4 rate. Perhaps there will be, but I do not feel the case is proven at all. I have 27053-451
Supply-Transport
never been one who has felt that loud assertions made things any truer than whispers. A thing is either intrinsically true or it is not, and in so far as this particular statement is concerned I have no way of knowing. I have no way of auditing the books of the Great Northern Railway. I am sure these people are saying what they are saying in good faith. I am not questioning that. However, I have seen quite a lot of projects in the last 30 years that turned out to cost an awful lot more than the estimates which were made before the projects were started.
In so far as the Canadian Pacific Railway is concerned, the railway is there, the shipping facilities are there and we know the coal can be shipped. It is merely a question of whether or not the two parties can get together as Coleman and the Canadian Pacific have already done. We hope the parties can get together and, with the help of the coal board and the help of the government, establish a rate the operators can afford to pay, and still make the mine operate successfully so they can get a contract. I sincerely hope they can, because it would be a great thing for Canada.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I ask the minister a question? He has mentioned that the agreed rate of $4.60 per ton was possible because there was an arrangement with the government on a declining subvention basis over the next two years. I wonder if the minister would be prepared now to tell us how much of that $4.60 per ton will be paid by way of subvention through the coal board?


John Whitney Pickersgill: None; I am very grateful to the hon. gentleman for the question because it reveals a gap in my explanation. The subvention is to be paid in order to enable the Coleman mine to build up its production to a million tons. When they get to a production of a million tons, the Canadian Pacific has agreed to carry it for $4.60, subject to certain escalations which I am not going into now. It is a very complicated arrangement and deals with the escalation of labour costs which, of course, the Japanese must bear. If the Coleman mine can build up production to a million tons, that would make an economic operation. It is to meet that intervening period that the subventions are available.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Then, do I take it that of the $4.60 per ton there will be a certain amount paid until they reach the million ton mark? Would the minister care to divulge to the house how much that would be?

May 29, 1967
Supply-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid I have not got all the details. I have a copy of the press release issued by the coal board. Of course, the subvention at the present time is $2.73 per ton. Now, part of that goes for the freight rate and part of it goes to the collieries. I am not quite sure what the split is. My recollection is that it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1.40 that goes to make up the present freight rate and handling charge. However, that freight rate and handling charge will drop to $4.60 when production reaches a million tons. Then there will be no more subvention paid at all to pay any part of the freight rate. There may be a little subvention needed by the colliery, because it is putting in new machinery and establishing modern methods in order to step up production. The subvention would be $2.73 altogether for the first year and I think for the second year, then somewhat smaller for the third year and still smaller for the fourth year.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Before the minister resumes his seat-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not resuming my seat, I am going right on to talk about other things.


John (Jack) McIntosh: While I am on my feet, I just want to apologize to the minister. Evidently he answered certain questions that were raised this afternoon concerning air services. I was in the lobby and was just called in. However, I was told that he said the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and I did not understand the situation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I think what I said was that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona spoke as though he had never seen the statement I made on March 27, which permitted the capacity of Canadian Pacific Airlines to be doubled as soon as they can make application and carry out all the formalities. Stops are provided for at both Calgary and Edmonton. Unless I missed something he said, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona talked as though the situation that had existed before March 27 still existed. I thought the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek was echoing that statement. I was not being critical.
I was just saying that it is true the government provided, in 1967, for a doubling of the seat miles available on transcontinental service to Canadian Pacific Airlines, which seemed to be along the lines of the request the hon. gentleman was making. I did go on to say, and perhaps it is worth repeating, that it does not really make any difference to

existing shortages. We are trying to do everything we can to make air services available through whoever can provide them. The real problem today is that none of the air lines can get enough aircraft to carry the traffic that is being offered in any country where the traffic is expanding. This is not because of any unwillingness on the part of the government or on the part of the air lines; a lot of the aircraft go to Viet Nam instead of going to meet civilian demand. I know of no way of changing this, except to end the war in Viet Nam, which we all pray will happen very soon.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


John (Jack) McIntosh: Will the minister allow other carriers to come into these areas served by Air Canada where there is a bottleneck, such as Ottawa? The other air carriers served Ottawa when Air Canada personnel went on strike and they did a pretty fair job. If other air carriers such as C.P.A., have aircraft and can take passengers from Ottawa or other areas of bottleneck, would the minister allow them to do so?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Ottawa is included in the list of cities that Canadian Pacific Airlines will now be permitted to serve. However, I would be extremely surprised if they would attempt to serve Ottawa very quickly, and for this reason. Edmonton to Montreal or Edmonton to Toronto is a long haul. Ottawa to Montreal or Ottawa to Toronto is a fairly short haul. The amount of traffic that would be picked up from Ottawa by other carriers, which are short of aircraft, I think would not be very large.
I am not running an air line, Mr. Chairman, but my guess is that an air line would be more interested in stopping at Edmonton or Calgary if they wanted to get the traffic. After all, they are in the business of carrying as many passengers as possible, and within the limits of their licence will obviously stop at those places where traffic is the heaviest. I do not think there is anything much to be done except to pray that the air lines will try to work out better schedules. But there is an over-all shortage of seats or space. If we try to make more seats available in one place we will have to take them away from another place. That is really all that I was saying.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I am sure the minister realizes that if another carrier comes to Ottawa they will pick up passengers at other places as well, not only from Ottawa to Toronto or Ottawa to Montreal. There are other places in
May 29, 1967



Canada people wish to visit besides those two cities; I refer particularly to the west and the Atlantic provinces. I understood the minister to say that he would allow other carriers to come into these areas.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think I have been very patient all day and I did get up to make a speech, not to be constantly interrupted by the hon. gentleman.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Order. The time allocated to the minister has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Has
the minister unanimous consent to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think I should now try to deal in a more or less systematic way with the various points which have been raised since the debate began.
The hon. member for Saint John-Albert, who was the first speaker, made a number of points, but I think the most important matter to which he referred, the one in which there is greatest general interest, is about the report of the consultants who were engaged by the Department of Transport and who have been supervised by the Department of Transport and the Atlantic Development Board. I refer to the report dealing with transportation problems in the Atlantic region.
The main study is now completed, though there are some supplementary studies still in progress. It consists of about 12 volumes and is a very lengthy report. I have had some summaries of it prepared which will be available for distribution, and I will try to arrange to have them distributed in English, in French or both languages. I think I will have enough copies by morning so they can be distributed generally to all hon. members. Before I conclude my observations I should like to make a very brief statement about this study, but I think I will leave that for the last and watch the clock, because I should like to deal with as many of the other points that were raised as possible.
The hon. member for Saint John-Albert also talked about the importance of satellite communications. I could not agree with him more about how very important this whole subject is-not merely satellite communications but the whole question of the use of satellites, the ownership of satellites and the organization to control and operate them.
Supply-Transport
I think a lot of us are inclined to think of the most spectacular use which has been made of satellites, which is to send television pictures from one quarter of the globe to another. I would very much question whether television is the most important use. It is one of the most important, but there are many other uses. Satellites can provide telephonic and telegraphic communications as well as other communications that I do not understand very well, and provide them on a scale way beyond anything we have ever dreamed of with the use of land lines, microwave transmissions or other methods.
In addition to the use of satellites in the field of communications there appear to be many other uses, such as for exploratory work and for photographing the earth. I think it is very important that as quickly as we can and with the knowledge that is becoming available to us, we work out the best policies for the most effective use of this tremendous new medium both for the communication of knowledge and, indeed, for adding to our knowledge. The government is giving, in a number of ways, the most urgent consideration to this matter.
The hon. member for Saint John-Albert made a pretty comprehensive speech so I am being rather selective, but he also inquired about the probable date of the establishment of the Canadian Transport Commission. I wish I could give a firm date, but I do not think it is yet possible to do so. The last word I had was that the drafting of the rules which will have to be followed by the commission when it is set up is almost completed. It will also be necessary to select certain personnel, and attention is being given to that matter.
The one thing we must understand, of course, is that this commission has to be able to operate from the date it is appointed. Since the work it is going to do is in many respects being done at the present time by the Board of Transport Commissioners, the Maritime Commission or the Air Transport Board, perhaps the public interest would suffer less if we took a little longer and made sure things were done properly; because no really urgent current business is going to be delayed by the failure to set up the commission.
I did deal with the main point that was raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East, who asked about the future of the seaport of Vancouver.
Supply-Transport

May 29, 1967
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
With respect to the international airport at Vancouver which was referred to by several hon. members, the most recent of whom was the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, I remind those hon. members, when they say that, had the airports at Montreal and Toronto been on islands, something would have been done long ago about providing access, that the airfield at Dorval is on an island and that the island airport at Toronto is on an island. Nothing but a rather poor old ferry connects Toronto island with the mainland. I just say this in what might be described as a lighter vein-one of those heavy jokes that politicians usually regret making. The view has always been taken by all governments up to now that once the passengers are at the airport it is the business of the local authority to provide the access to that airport.


Mr. Cowan:: Let them do it, then.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will not be diverted by the hon. member for York-Humber, no matter how interesting the diversion might be. Vancouver airport being on an island is a special instance and, going as far as any minister can go in giving his personal opinion, the sooner arrangements can reasonably be made for us to acquire the whole of Sea island for the Department of Transport, the better. I am sure that eventually it will be needed. I appreciate the problem that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond talked about; and anything I can do to speed up the process reasonably, without being unfair to anybody who is living in good faith in his own house, I am anxious to do.
We also recognize, because of the peculiar geographical problem, and because the airfield is on an island, that the federal government will have to take some share in meeting the problem of access. At this very moment we are engaged in active discussions with the government of British Columbia to try to work out some arrangement by which we can get on with providing access to Vancouver airport without having to go first to Lulu island.
A number of hon. members, beginning with the hon. member for Portneuf and others representing northern Ontario and northern Quebec, spoke about trains. The hon. member for Roberval made a particularly eloquent speech this afternoon. I might say I thought he was describing a journey in Siberia, not in Canada. The hon. members who spoke felt
[Mr. Pickersgill.I
there ought to be marked improvements in train services in northern Ontario and parts of northern Quebec. I shall be happy to bring all the points which have been raised to the attention of the Canadian National Railways.
The hon. member for Moose Mountain had some constructive comments about the Canadian Transport Commission. I have already dealt with the points he raised. About jet service between Regina and Saskatoon, perhaps I failed to let him know but I did let the hon. member for Regina know what the contemplated dates for its beginning were. They are some time in August-I have the details among my papers. I hope that those dates will be met.
The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres asked me to make another appeal to the Canadian Pacific about the night train from Montreal to Quebec. Of course I shall be happy to do that. He also raised other points which I intend to pursue.
I think that I had replied to the main speech of the junior member for Queens. It seemed opportune to do so when the estimates were up on Friday. I have conveyed his congratulations to the staff of the Atlantic Development Board.
The hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska discussed the need for air service in northern New Brunswick; that need will be subject of hearings to be held soon before the Air Transport Board.
The hon. member for Shelburne-Yar-mouth-Clare discussed the Yarmouth airport and the ferry service to New England. I made a general note of what he said about the airport. As far as the ferry service is concerned I have said more than once that if we can find a vessel to supplement the existing service we shall be glad to get it. Such vessels are not that easy to find.
With respect to the representations of the hon. member for Timmins, the hon. member for Timislcaming, one or two other hon. members, including the hon. member for Chap-leau, about air services in northern Ontario and northern Quebec, again I intend to bring these matters to the attention of Air Canada.
I wish to say a word now about something brought up by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek and by many other hon. members-the subject of small airstrips. When the policy of providing assistance for small airports where there is no scheduled service was adopted by the government a couple of years ago, largely at my urging, I was given a ceiling of $1 million a year. That
May 29, 1967



is why I can tell the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River that, with the $1,300,000 that is in the estimates for this year, the $300,000 is a little buckshee that I managed to get. A sincere and conscious effort is being made, within the limits of what the Minister of Finance feels he can get out of the taxpayers for this purpose, to meet the most urgent problems first. I think the hon. member will admit that my explanation is better than the one he quoted this afternoon. It seems to me that a facility which is not useable cannot be used-and I thought he made an unanswerable point there.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Will the minister reconsider the applications?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We shuffle the cards about once a month and look them over again. The hon. member's card is one that will be looked at, of course.
Notwithstanding the complimentary things said about me by the hon. member for Royal, for which I am sincerely grateful, I still do not think that I can promise him that we shall do anything about the offloading of feed grains in Saint John harbour. I am told that with the new agreed charges, most feed grains are now moving into New Brunswick by rail, the water traffic and traffic prospects at the present time will not warrant the expenditure that would be necessary for a leg.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
With respect to what he said about aids to navigation and other facilities on our inland waterways, I thoroughly agree with him. We are trying within the limits of our financial resources to do as much as we can in this field. I will of course bring the representations made by the hon. member for Wel-lington-Huron and others about the abandonment of stations to the attention of the appropriate railway companies.
With respect to the Boundary Bay airport, which my fellow alumnus from Manitoba, now temporarily resident in Vancouver, brought up this afternoon, I may say it is only about two days since I had the latest report on this airport. The Department of Transport is very much interested in it. I think I ought to come clean about this and say there is only one problem which may inhibit the use of it, and that is its proximity to the Vancouver airport. If we can be quite satisfied that it would not be a hazard to aviation I do not think there is any doubt we would be exceedingly interested in using it.
Supply-Transport


Winona Grace MacInnis: Is
the hon. gentleman taking steps to find out whether it would be hazardous?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, yes, everything possible is being done to determine whether these hazards would exist.
I will tell the St. Lawrence seaway authority, if their officers have not already listened to what was said, about the south shore of the St. Lawrence in the area of Montreal mentioned by the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie. As to the point raised by the hon. member for Parkdale about air pollution in Toronto, the activities of the Department of Transport in this field have so far been confined almost exclusively to certain aspects of research, and this will be continued. Where the real jurisdiction lies in this matter is uncertain. We know that if ships pollute water we have jurisdiction, but we are not so sure where the jurisdiction lies in other fields. I could not agree with him more about the importance of this question.
The hon. member for Timiskaming mentioned the Florida. There is a legal problem involved in connection with this so-called ship. I really feel somewhat inhibited from saying anything about the matter at this moment, but I can assure the hon. member that it is not being neglected. I really would not be truthful if I said I was sorry he had brought the matter up.
Now I would like to say something a little more extensive about the Atlantic transportation studies. As all hon. members know, these grew directly out of the report of the Royal Commission on Transportation. The Mac-Pherson commission decided they could not take the time necessary to deal with particular problems in the Atlantic region and suggested that further investigation was required. That was the purpose of these studies.
The government, in preparing the national transportation bill, recognized that the Atlantic region presented particular problems which could not be dealt with without separate and detailed study of many aspects of transportation in the region, and the impact of transportation on the regional economy.
Discussions were held with the premiers of all four Atlantic provinces during 1965 to outline the purpose and scope of the study. A decision was made in the autumn of 1965 to commission consultants to carry out the required studies. The Department of Transport provided the funds and the study itself has been supervised jointly by officials of the

May 29, 1967
Supply-Transport
Atlantic Development Board and the Department of Transport.
The consultants were directed to assess the effectiveness of the existing transportation facilities and to determine the best means of developing these or alternative facilities to meet present needs and to foster the economic growth of the Atlantic provinces. The consultants were afforded complete freedom to carry out their investigations without official intervention of any kind. Their findings and conclusions were arrived at with a degree of independence as complete as that given to a royal commission.
The main study has been completed within the period of 18 months it was estimated would be required-I think they should be given full mai'ks for that-thanks to the cooperation afforded by provincial governments and the various community, business and transportation interests concerned.
The study is comprehensive and detailed and covers not only transportation in each individual province but also special research on various transportation services, such as the Newfoundland coastal services. Special studies were made of the possible effect on the Atlantic area of constructing a corridor road across the state of Maine between Quebec and New Brunswick, and of the problem of the seasonal fluctuation of the volume of traffic through the ports of Halifax and Saint John.
A particularly intensive study was made of the influence on the economies of the Atlantic provinces of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, the Freight Rates Reduction Act and the National Transportation Act.
While the conclusions of the consultants cover many aspects of transportation, they give particular emphasis to the need for further improvement and development of highways in the region and confirm the soundness of the federal support which has been given to the development of trunk roads in the Atlantic provinces since 1963. It will be recalled that the government made a decision in 1964 to give financial support to highway development in the north Gaspe area of the province of Quebec, rather than to extending the railway in that area.
When the main study was undertaken, it was recognized that if the study was to be completed within a reasonable period of time, certain additional studies might have to be carried out on a supplementary basis. As a result of the emphasis in the main study on the need to develop roads in the Atlantic

provinces, supplementary studies connected with trunk roads are now under way.
These studies are concerned with certain trunk roads in the province of Newfoundland, particularly in the Burin peninsula and on the northwest coast, and of the project for a highway across Labrador; with the development of the highway in New Brunswick from Moncton to the Quebec border via Bathurst and Campbellton; and with the development of the supplementary data relating to the roads in the Gaspe region, which is included in the area covered by the Maritime Freight Rates Act.
I mention these particular studies because there are a number of other roads which are dealt with in the main study, roads on Prince Edward Island, the road across the southern part of New Brunswick and a number of key trunk roads in Nova Scotia.
At its most recent meeting held in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, the Atlantic Development Board adopted a formal resolution recommending continued federal support for trunk roads in the Atlantic region to promote economic development.
I want to emphasize the next two paragraphs of this more or less written statement I am making now.
Conclusions reached by the consultants involve new approaches to transportation between the mainland and Newfoundland, particularly for services other than the present rail-ferry services. While these new conclusions will require careful examination, there is every intention on the part of the government to complete the work under way at the present and to improve railway terminal facilities at North Sydney and Port aux Basques.
In releasing these studies, it is the government's intention to provide all interested parties, whether public or private, with an opportunity to study and comment on their contents, and it is also the intention of the government to proceed expeditiously to examine the findings and conclusions with a view to formulating future policies.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Now, I might say that these problems are by no means the only urgent transportation problems we face in this country. The other day I collected, at random more or less, a list not only of the things which the government already had undertaken to do but also of the big transportation problems I could see ahead. It is really almost frightening when one realizes the amount that needs to be done
May 29, 1967



in this country if we are to have the kind of growth and development we want. In addition to the problems of the Atlantic region, there are a number of other major transportation problems which, because of their size and scope, fall outside the normal limits of present policy and require special attention. These include, for example, such items as the problem of an additional crossing of Vancouver harbour and the wider problem of the expansion of harbour developments at Vancouver; the question of an additional approach to Vancouver international airport on Sea island; road construction which may be required, in some cases, to offset railway branch line abandonments in the prairie provinces or elsewhere, and substantial additional expenditures and development which will be required if the Welland canal and the St. Lawrence seaway are to be expanded to meet the requirements of the future.
In addition there is the matter of improvement and possible deepening of the St. Lawrence ship channel below Montreal; major airport and air terminal expansion at Toronto and Montreal that will be necessary to take care of traffic requirements in the era of the jumbo jet and supersonic aircraft, as well as the question of better ground transportation arrangements to and from major metropolitan airports, and the possible need for harbour and railway expansion in the northern and northwestern areas of Canada to provide for economic exploitation of natural resources in those areas. Within the context of consideration of other urgent transport needs, the development of policy in all these fields becomes a matter of the greatest importance of the future of our country. I think perhaps at that point I might take my seat.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would permit a question. He made passing reference to the jumbo jets and supersonic transport type of craft. Since the minister has made passing reference to them I should like to ask him whether the government has any attitude or policy with regard to the acquisition of these craft, or is the attitude or policy of the government simply that of Air Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: So far as the jumbo jets are concerned, in considering the budget of Air Canada and the projections of the budget it appeared unlikely that all the funds which would be required could be generated by Air Canada, and therefore the government had to
Supply-Transport
make a decision whether these aircraft should be ordered. We came to the conclusion that the economies of the operation of these huge aircraft were likely to be such that the effect on the air line would be crippling if it were not permitted to order them in the quantities which the traffic seemed to warrant.
With respect to the Concorde, which is being built by the British and French, we gave firm approval to the recommendation of Air Canada that they be permitted to order some of these aircraft. With regard to the proposed supersonic aircraft which are to be built by Boeing, the government approved of Air Canada taking its place in the queue. At that time there was a good deal of uncertainty about the whole program. There may still be a good deal of uncertainty about it. At any rate I think it will be necessary, at a fairly early date, to have a further review of this matter as the circumstances develop. We did feel, however, that it would be wrong, having regard to the best possible advice we had and having regard for the fact that all major air lines were also taking a place in the queue, if we should inhibit Air Canada, although if we decide not to go ahead it may cost something.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I have some brief questions for the minister which I hope he will not mind my asking, even if he should be unable to answer them. He has had that difficulty in respect of my questions in the past. I do not know whether the fault is with the questions or the minister. However, one of the matters with which I will deal has to do with my constituency, and then there is a rather more important matter.
I have received complaints concerning the lighting in Nanaimo harbour at the small boat basin. There are complaints to the effect that people have come in at night when there were no lights on. The inquiries I have made indicate there is some dispute between the Nanaimo Harbour Board and the B.C. Hydro Authority. Perhaps the minister will look into the matter to see whether Mr. Bennett's government is being unreasonable or whether the Nanaimo Harbour Board or the Department of Transport is being unreasonable.
The other matter is one which I have already taken up with the Department of Transport but in respect of which I have not yet had any satisfactory answer; that is, the sudden increase in rentals for water lots in the Nanaimo harbour area. These rentals were raised two and three times over the

May 29, 1967
Supply-Transport
rentals of last year. I understand that this was done on the basis of the high rental that was charged for a concern that is in that area, but which is an extremely wealthy and profitable enterprise. They applied the same yardstick to the other water lots. This has created a very serious problem for the smaller enterprises in that area. On inquiry I found that increases in rental by the Nanaimo Harbour Commission were required to be O.K.'d by the Department of Transport. I wonder whether the minister would look into this matter to see under what circumstances the department O.K.'d these extremely rapid increases of two or three times over what they had been paying, in some cases.
The other matter affects much more than my constituency. It is an important question and arises from some information I obtained last week in Nova Scotia. I discovered, greatly to my satisfaction I may say, that in Dartmouth there is a firm which is producing the most sophisticated and modern automatic directional finders for aircraft. They are equipping all United States military aircraft with them. This perhaps is a matter which is not of great satisfaction because I learned from the officials of the company that all the helicopters operating in Viet Nam are now equipped with them. Men who are on patrol in the jungle have a small transmitter which enables the helicopter to zero in on them in all weather conditions, in darkness and daylight, and so on.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The point I want to draw to the minister's attention is this. I am informed that they have not been able to interest the Department of Transport in this very sophisticated and modern automatic directional finder. As a consequence we still have the spectacle of air transport in Canada being disrupted because of fog conditions in Vancouver, Toronto and other places in the country. I gather this is the same sort of equipment which B.O.A.C. has recently been trying out at Heath Row airport, where with this aid they have been able to land in thick fog. I should like the minister to make an examination to find out whether he has ever heard about this, or if it have been brought to the attention of his departmental officials, and if not, why not. It does seem to me a tragic thing that we have here a prime example of the sort of industry we should be developing in Canada, producing specialized equipment that will enable us to compete throughout the world. Surely the

Canadian government should be the very first to encourage this in the operation of our own aircraft within Canada. I hope he will be able to do something in this regard, and if he has not heard about this that he will make inquiries.
If my information is correct, and having received it from one of the engineers of this firm, I assume it is, I hope the minister will take speedy steps to see that the problem of landing and take-off in heavy fog conditions is solved in Canada once and for all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is anyone in the house more anxious to solve the problem of landing and takeoff in heavy fog than the member for Bona-vista-Twillingate. I shall be very glad to look into all three points raised by the hon member.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the latter remarks of the minister were intriguing to me because he mentioned railway development northward. As he knows, we have had some interest in this matter recently. As a matter of fact it was on this subject that the minister spoke the voluminous words in Kitimat to which I referred earlier. Perhaps it is fortunate that Hansard now has those documents and I cannot repeat them to the minister, to refresh his memory.
I do, however, have some correspondence relating to the proposed extension of the Canadian National Railways north from its most northern point in British Columbia; that is, north from Hazelton presumably and, hopefully, into the Yukon. I would very much like to have the minister interpret this correspondence for me, so I can understand just what it means. As a result of correspondence I had with the president of the railway and the inference contained in his letter I wrote to the minister and his colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I know of his interest in this matter.
The Minister of Transport wrote me a very interesting letter dated May 13. I will not bother to make specific reference to the letter I wrote, but the letter I received contained three paragraphs, the first of which acknowledges my letter and my proposition. The second paragraph was a recitation again of the minister's impression from what he saw when he was in Prince Rupert and Kitimat. I should like to quote this paragraph because it
May 29, 1967

is germane to the whole matter I want interpreted. The minister stated:
When I was in Prince Rupert and Kitimat I was greatly impressed by what I saw and heard about potential developments and on the 3rd of May-
That is an important date to remember. The letter continues:
-when I was in Montreal, I spent some time with the president of the Canadian National discussing a great variety of railway matters of which this was one.
I am happy to be able to assure you that the Canadian National are very much impressed by the prospects and are giving them the closest examination.
At first blush this letter would seem to indicate that there was favourable disposition to the extension of the rail line northward from Hazelton. I read the letter in that way and thought the minister was stating that the Canadian National was very much impressed also, and was likely to go ahead with this rail line development.
I had received a letter from the president of the Canadian National which prompted me to write to the minister in the first place, as a result of which I received the letter dated May 13. Again I will not go into great detail but I should like to read the last paragraph in which the following is stated:
The situation has not changed since the last time it was looked at but, as you would be aware, the Department of Northern Development and the Department of Transport, in the ordinary course of events, keep in close touch with any such potential developments.
That was what prompted me to write to the minister to ask him what he knew about this situation. The revealing thing is that the president of the Canadian National Railways wrote me that letter the day after the minister was talking with him in Montreal, as a result of which the minister said he was told they were very much impressed and making a close examination of the situation.
It is surprising to me, Mr. Chairman, that the day after that conversation the president should write me and state that things had not changed since the last time the situation was looked at, and suggest that I write to the Minister of Transport, because he knows more about these things. I also wrote to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and his reply was typical of the feelings of a government that believes in being on a merry-go-round all the time. He said he did not know anything about the situation but that he would send my letter to the Minister of Transport.
Supply-Transport
I should like the minister to interpret what he meant in his letter of May 13, and I should like him to indicate whether there is any prospect at all of the rail line moving northward from Hazelton.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course there is a prospect of it, but there is no certainty. That is exactly what the letter meant and what it was intended to mean. That is exactly what I think anyone would normally interpret it to mean.


Frank Howard: I should like to ask another question, and I hope the minister will give me time to get ready for the answer. Perhaps the minister would give his reply in French so I can get a reasonably decent interpretation in English over the translation system. The answer he has given me is just another example of gobbledygook on the part of this government. As the hon. member for Timiskaming asked very succinctly yesterday in respect of railways, how is it possible to go in two directions at once. The hon. member was kind enough not to put on record the answer he received. The answer simply was that it is possible, if you are a Liberal, and the minister has just substantiated that fact.


Mr. Sherman:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question arising from a situation which I feel is one of international discrimination. That may not be the case, but I should like some enlightenment. However, I notice it is ten o'clock and if the Chair and the committee are agreeable I shall call it ten o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, if there are no other members except the hon. member for Winnipeg South, as I understood the case to be, who wish to speak on this item, I wonder whether he could make his point briefly and let me reply. With that indulgence perhaps we could carry the first item.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I indicated on Friday afternoon that I intended to speak about fill in lake Ontario on item number
one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Call it ten o'clock.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Jay Waldo Monteith: Could the house leader
give us the business for tomorrow, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. MacEachen:: Tomorrow we intend to call the estimates of the department of the Secretary of State.
May 29. 1967

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.



BROADCASTING-POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION OF REPEATER STATIONS

Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, last week I put a question to the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) to determine to what extent the C.B.C. was disposed to make the necessary arrangements to promote French culture across the country, in short, to encourage the extension of the French fact from one ocean to the other.
According to statistics open to anyone, Canada has a population of 20 million people, 94 per cent of whom are reached by television.
After a thorough inquiry on broadcasting in Canada, the Fowler Commission said this:
-the C.B.C. is a vital factor of the Canadian radio-television system and the most important definite tool available for the development and maintenance of unity in Canada.
On page 37 of the same report, the following is stated:

We believe the C.B.C. has failed, and is failing today, to discharge adequately its duties to foster understanding between the two main cultural groups in this country. With rare exceptions, it does not produce programs that would assist English speaking Canadians to understand the attitudes and aspirations of French Canada. Equally the C.B.C. has failed to convey to French Canadians the doubts, uncertainties, ignorance, and good will of English Canadians concerning the "French Fact". The C.B.C. has itself made the following statement about its programming performance:
"The present schedules do not permit an adequate amount of intercommunication between French and English speaking Canadians; an adequate reflection of the diversified pattern of life, ideas and opinions from the various regions of Canada; an adequate development and utilization of Canadian writing and performing talents; or a proper diversification of foreign television entertainment."

Those are the words of the Fowler Commission which clearly show that the C.B.C. has not yet attempted to bring closer together the two main ethnic groups which make up Canada.
And to that end, I suggested to the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) that

the C.B.C. could build-it would be a fine centennial project throughout the country relay stations which could retransmit French programs produced by the French network of the C.B.C. and enable several elements of our country to become acquainted with a culture that seems strange to them in some respects.
Canada has a population of 20 million people, 50 per cent of which is less than 26 years old. And because of a surprising broadmindedness shown by the younger generation its interest in strengthening Canadian unity, since the old fanaticisms are due to disappear, I think that it would be important for the French culture to span Canada from one ocean to the other at a cost that would probably be less to the government than that of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, also responsible for promoting the French fact.
A repeater, as it is called, costs around $50,000. The operating cost is nominal. It would only be necessary to install repeaters in all the English-speaking capitals of the country, as well as in the main English-speaking centers which could precisely rebroadcast the French program of C.B.C. This would' permit the young people who learn French in school-somewhat as we have learned Latin when, after years of studies we are not even able to order a meal in Latin, just like in English schools where French is taught, when the time comes to turn to practice, to converse, practically nothing is remembered-to broaden their knowledge.
Therefore I make this suggestion to the Secretary of State to see what she thinks of it.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I understand full well the feelings of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette). I am sure he will admit, as he probably does, that the government and the C.B.C. are fully aware of the situation he dwelt on.
He himself has quoted excerpts from the Fowler commission report which was specially appointed to look into the field of broadcasting and television in Canada. Now, all the members of the house, and especially the hon. member for Lotbiniere, surely know that the government has published and tabled in this house in 1966 a report, a white paper on radio broadcasting.
That report was reviewed in detail by a committee of the house, which, in turn, reported to the house. The centennial project of
May 29, 1967

the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and of the government, especially in this regard, is to introduce a bill on broadcasting, and, as soon as the business of the house allows, the measure will be brought forward.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member for Lotbiniere and my colleagues to refer to paragraph 13 of the white paper dealing with the mandate of the C.B.C -and I quote:
Under the present Broadcasting Act, responsibility is assigned to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation tor the operation of a national broadcasting service.
And further, at the bottom of page 15, one reads:
It should serve the two official-language groups and the special needs of geographical regions, and it should actively contribute to the flow and exchange of information, entertainment and understanding between cultures and between regions.
That is drawn from the present government policy on this matter. As for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, you know, Mr. Speaker, that it operates with the funds made available to it by parliament, after planning well in advance the work it must undertake or it considers undertaking. Those re-transmitting satellite stations will be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)



PUBLIC WORKS-HAZELTON, B.C.-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ACTION

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the community of Hazelton in British Columbia is the centre, perhaps by definition, of a rather goodly number of communities surrounding it. I am referring therefore to more than just the community of Hazelton itself. This area is in a very bad way economically. The base of the economy has been the logging and sawmill business. In recent times the bulk of the payroll in the area emanated from a fairly large sawmill. This sawmill has ceased operation, and in fact about the middle of the month, the 17th or 18th, and perhaps on both of these days, the capital assets of the company that were moveable were sold at auction. Those parts of the sawmill which were integral to its operation were moved out of the area. As a consequence, the one prospect that existed for the stability of the economy has now disappeared.
Many people, in anticipation of expanding activity, moved homes and families there. They are now faced with the prospect of
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion moving out again at the end of the school term. Those who are more tenacious are desirous of staying, in the hope that something additional will develop. The drain on social welfare payments will be increasing if a large number of people stay and if economic prospects do not improve.
As I understand the philosophy of the government, and I am not now desiring to argue about it, it is that of pump priming; that is, if public works can be used at a time of economic collapse or decline to stimulate the economy, even though it may only be for an interim period, then that is the sort of situation that should prevail. The minister's government has enunciated this thought on a number of occasions in the past.
Last year the estimates contained an amount of money for the construction of a federal building in the area. This project was cancelled because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) made a spurious bogey out of inflation. This proposed federal building disappeared from the estimates. As the matter stands now the building is scheduled, according to the latest information I have been able to obtain, not for this year's activity when it could be most helpful, but for the next fiscal year.
When we were dealing with the estimates of the Department of Transport, I raised the possibility of extending the Canadian National Railway from this point northward because that would be another stimulus to the economy of the area. I have been in communication with the Department of Industry and asked it to look at the situation to ascertain what could be done to promote industry to locate in the area. As we all know, this is a time consuming process and it may be many months before the Department of Industry accomplishes anything worth while, if in fact it is able to accomplish anything at all. There are local groups which have been in touch with industrial concerns in other parts of the nation, and indeed in the United States too. There are one or two prospects of economic activity there, but this is some time in the future.
I think that this is the ideal moment for the minister to put into effect his pump priming philosophy, as I have heard it called, in the Hazelton area, and make a start right away on this federal building. Even though the amount of money involved may be relatively small compared with other projects, nonetheless it will be helpful in an area which at the moment is in the doldrums economically
May 29, 1967

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and when the prospects in front of the poeple there are very bleak.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with considerable attention to what the hon. member has had to say. As I understand his argument, it is not that there is anything wrong with the plans of the department as such to proceed in the normal way, but rather that because of the special circumstances which have now arisen in this community owing to the shut down of the sawmill there the hon. member would wish the department to accelerate its planned program to put up this post office building. The hon. member would like the work commenced now because of the employment that it would provide. That seems to be the whole point of his argument.
If I have correctly summarized his point, may I say I will be very glad to look at this

matter. As he has indicated, no provision is made for this project in the estimates this year. There is of course the ever-pressing problem that seems to be constantly with us, that of finding the money to pay for these things. The taxpayers have to provide the money, and in the normal course this money would not be forthcoming for another year.
However, Mr. Speaker, in view of what the hon. member has said tonight I will re-examine the situation to see whether there is any reasonable prospect of expediting the matter and starting work right away, provided there are no other counterbalancing considerations which would take precedence. In any event, I will undertake to make a thorough examination of the matter in the light of what he has said tonight, and that I will make an announcement in due course.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.20 p. m.
May 29. 1967



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
The C.B.C. has entered into agreement with the broadcasting organization in the U.S.S.R. -the U.S.S.R. council of ministers committee for radio and T.V. broadcasting-under terms which can be summarized as follows.

[Stage Direction]
Under terms of the agreement, concluded on April 26, 1967, both parties will exchange radio and television programs of interest to Canadian and Soviet listeners. The radio program exchange will include selected literary, scientific-educational items, sport and children's programs, as well as taped recordings of classical, folk and modern music, operas and concerts. The television exchange will include short film features depicting happenings in both countries, as well as musical, sport, documentary and children's items.
Under the agreement, both parties will attempt to establish an exchange of staff with the sender meeting travelling expenses and the recipient covering living expenses within the country. The exchange of radio and T.V. programs will be conducted on a no-charge as well as on a commercial basis. Purchase and sale of T.V. material and films, as well as of musical recordings and other radio and T.V. programs, will be conducted by both parties on the basis of further agreements. Those exchanged on a no-charge basis will be used by each party at its own discretion. However, these programs will not be made available to a third party and will not be used for commercial purposes. Changes and/or cuts in programs are not to distort their content.

[Stage Direction]
(a) General:
A supplementary agreement to the above allows the C.B.C. to make television documentary films in the U.S.S.R. Both parties can take the initiative in proposing subjects for filming and the subject area and scenario plans of a film must be jointly agreed upon.
Particular attention will be given to topics promoting Canadian-Soviet relations. The C.B.C. has agreed to give consideration to the recommendations, comment and proposals of representatives of the Soviet committee regarding content of these films in the interest of making accurate and objective films about the U.S.S.R. and its people.
(b)	Composition of Crews:
The Soviet committee will facilitate the entry into the U.S.S.R. and the participation in the filming, of a complete C.B.C. camera crew, producer and reporter, except in cases where the C.B.C. chooses to provide less than a full crew. The duration of the filming will be agreed upon in advance and will be based on shot lists proposed by the C.B.C.
(c)	Processing:
Soviet radio and T.V. guarantees the processing in the U.S.S.R. of exposed film. The C.B.C. reserves the right to negotiate on the processing in Canada of exposed film whenever technical reasons appear to make this desirable.
(d)	Broadcasting of Programs:
(i)	In Canada
When the work on the film in Canada has
been completed, the C.B.C. will send the final version of the film to Moscow for viewing by authorized officials of the Soviet committee. The purpose of such viewing is to permit the committee to see the final version of the film produced by the C.B.C. and to comment upon it. Under the agreement, there is no power of veto. However, before broadcasting the final version, the C.B.C. has agreed to take into full consideration the Soviet comments.
(ii)	Abroad
Approval of both parties is required for distribution outside Canada.
(e)	Financial Conditions:
Financial conditions involved in filming and distribution are to be the subject of separate negotiation and agreement.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 30, 1967