1967-01-27

FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS EIGHTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Eighteenth report of standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, in English and in French-Mr. Gray.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, last night in committee I said that if permission was received from the premier of Quebec, the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the premier would be made available to the house. I learned, just as I came into the house, that the consent has been received but it is limited in this way. The last letter the Prime Minister wrote to the premier deals with several subjects still under discussion. It is proposed, therefore, to table only the extract dealing with Bill C-231. The correspondence will be ready for tabling in a few moments. I wonder if I could have the agreement of the house to table that part of the correspondence as soon as it becomes available.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

On the orders of the day:


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether, in accordance with the consent given by the house, I may now table the copies of the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the premier of Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table the documents in question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for Skeena asked the Minister of Labour to table some correspondence between members of the maritime trustees and the Minister of Labour, and the interim report of that board of trustees. I should like to do so now in English and French.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the parliamentary secretary leave to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, before you call orders of the day I wonder whether I may direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour relating to correspondence he tabled today. The correspondence which was tabled is not that to which I referred when I asked the minister for it. I asked whether he would table correspondence between the government and the trustees with respect to their reappointment. All we received is a document relating to the one year extension of the term of office of the trustees but nothing about the other matter. Will the parliamentary secretary look into this question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will discuss the matter with the hon. member for Skeena after orders of the day.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I do not wish to interrupt the advice which is now being given by the former minister of finance to the present minister, but I wish to direct a question to the present Minister of Finance and ask him this. In view of the statement made in the Ontario legislature yesterday by the minister responsible for financial and commercial affairs regarding Ontario's intention
12328	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry to legislate in the banking field, does the hon. gentleman intend to review the position taken by the federal government with regard to amendments to the Bank Act in particular?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: I do not think it will be necessary to consult with my former colleague on this-


Michael Starr: Former?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: The truth is out.


Mitchell William Sharp: This is a case in which he was a former colleague and now, I am happy to say, is a present colleague.


Mr. Knowles:: What was he in the meantime?


Mitchell William Sharp: He was a very highly respected member of parliament.
To be specific in answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Ontario, the government does not intend at this stage to amend the Bank Act along the lines suggested by the hon. gentleman. It is, however, our intention to proceed with some dispatch in connection with the deposit insurance legislation, which I think will help greatly to improve the standards of financial management of the trust and loan companies and other deposit taking institutions. I do hope that the province of Ontario, like the province of British Columbia, will make it mandatory for all deposit taking institutions to be insured by the federal agency.


Michael Starr: Does the minister not feel this would be an appropriate time for the federal government to act in accordance with the recommendations of the Porter commission and bring other lending institutions under federal regulation, and not push forward with this band aid type of approach with respect to deposit insurance?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I said previously in the house when similar questions were directed to me, I do not rule out the possibility of action along those lines. However, I think it is important that we should proceed with legislation which can be helpful now. I do not want to found our legislation upon any interpretation of the ambit of banking jurisdiction which might be found by the courts to be invalid.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: In
the light of the minister's statement that the

DEBATES	January 27, 1967
government will proceed with dispatch with the deposit insurance legislation, would the hon. gentleman use his good offices with the leader of the house to have that legislation brought forward immediately so it may go to the finance, trade and economic affairs committee where we can proceed to examine its many facets? This is very important.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I hope we will also have the co-operation of all parties in the house for some agreed apportionment of time so we can do that very thing.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Finance tell us whether he has had any response from other provincial governments such as that which he has received from the premier of British Columbia with regard to deposit insurance?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I am having the views of the provincial governments canvassed at the present time. I can say, however, that we have had an excellent response from the trust and loan companies.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question while we are on the subject of banking. It is one that either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance may wish to answer. Has the government made any protests to the United States in reference to the proposed legislation dealing with Canadian chartered banks doing business in the United States, which legislation has now been announced officially?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker. It would be improper for us to make a protest in respect of legislation that has not even been introduced.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was going to suggest that this was more a related question than a supplementary.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is a very important banking question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he and his colleagues have given consideration to amending the bill regarding the Bank Act in such a way as to be able to refer the clause defining banks more widely than now
January 27, 19S7

and including the banking operations of institutions other than banks, to the Supreme Court of Canada for a constitutional decision.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government had considered this question when the revisions to the Bank Act were introduced, but for the reasons I have given decided to proceed now with the Bank Act in its present form. I might point out to the hon. gentleman, who of course is much more learned in the law than I can pretend to be, that it is impossible to define a term of the British North America Act, and all we could refer to the supreme court would be some legislation, or some action that we propose to take under the ambit of the banking clauses.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, apparently I failed to make myself clear. That is precisely what I thought my question was intended to convey, to have a section or a part of the act applied to institutions other than banks. Then I asked the minister whether he would consider doing that and refer it to the Supreme Court of Canada under the Supreme Court of Canada Act.


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not think it would be appropriate to apply the Bank Act to these so-called near banks. I do not believe that would be a proper procedure, and that is why the government decided not to put a section into the Bank Act which would apply the Bank Act itself to all of these deposit taking institutions.


Colin Cameron: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that we have had at least six or seven supplementary questions, and I suggest to hon. members that we move on to another subject.



INQUIRY AS TO DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister with reference to the proposed Caribbean conference which is to be held at Saint Lucia shortly. Are any discussions to take place at that conference with respect to an international agreement on the price of sugar?

Inquiries of the Ministry
The Prime Minister will remember that a year or two ago when I suggested we should follow the example of the United States and Great Britain in getting a guaranteed price range for sugar which would provide some price stability to the Canadian consumer, the former minister of trade and commerce suggested that the world price was too high. It is now the lowest it has been for several decades. Is the government pursuing the question of an international agreement for sugar, and will such a policy be discussed at this forthcoming conference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are actively pursuing the idea of an international sugar agreement, which I think is the best way of dealing with the problem and helping our friends in the Caribbean at the same time. But in the absence of a program along those lines we will be discussing with the governments at the conference, which is to be held on the official level, other ways in which we might possibly be able to assist the sugar producers of that part of the world pending the working out of an international trade agreement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether any discussions have been held with the government of Jamaica, and what progress has been made if such discussions have been held.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This subject has been discussed with all the governments in the West Indies and will be discussed at the conference which opens either today or on Monday. When the deliberations at the conference have been completed, perhaps we will be able to make a report to the house which will throw some light on the progress which has been made.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to go back to the question raised by the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam concerning the negotiations with Jamaica. Did the Prime Minister inquire of the Minister of Trade and Commerce why Canada dropped negotiations with Jamaica last fall when the world sugar price dropped?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was because we were trying to proceed on the international front, and also because certain proposals we had made to Jamaica and other West Indies governments in order to assist them in this matter had been found to be impossible to work out in terms of our GATT agreements.
12330	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL SECURITY



CALVIN MACDONALD-APPEARANCE BEFORE ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Solicitor General. Has Calvin Macdonald requested permission to appear before the national security commission, and has the government granted him this privilege?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This would be a question for the commission to decide. I have been informed that on January 20 and January 25 of this year the commission advertised in all the major newspapers to the effect that anyone who wished to appear before the commission to present a brief could do so. That, of course, would include the gentleman in question.



AMENDMENT OF LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE GREATER CONTROL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Although the list of proposed legislation was lengthy, there was an important omission. Does the government intend to introduce amendments to the Food and Drugs Act which would establish more effective control over the use of new drugs? LSD would be an example.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have to discuss this matter with the minister. I doubt whether there would be an opportunity in the early part of the year to deal with this matter, but there may be an opportunity later in the autumn.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I regret that his colleague the former minister left the chair beside him, because he may need his advice. I should like to ask the minister if he can inform the house whether any official of the government-a cabinet minister or a cabinet minister's predecessor-did in any way communicate with the officials of the First National City Bank of
[Mr. Pearson.)
DEBATES	January 27, 1967
New York with regard to the purchase of the Mercantile Bank prior to the purchase?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would have to study that question very carefully. It is rather like the debate which has been going on in the committee of this house. I think these matters should be clarified in that committee and that the Minister of Finance should not on the spur of the moment be asked to answer a question which is phrased so carefully.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the proposed march on Ottawa by union leaders representing some 20,000 unemployed automobile workers in Oshawa, St. Catharines and Windsor, would the minister reconsider the suggestion proposed by the hon. member for Ontario on January 24 that the auto pact be referred to a committee of this house so that all aspects of this pact could be discussed?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, like other members of the house I have great sympathy for those who I hope are only temporarily dislocated as a consequence of an adjustment of automobile production to current market conditions. I am looking forward to seeing the delegation when it comes here.
Perhaps after hearing what they have to say and after discussing the question with them would be the best time to determine what should be done.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether, in view of the initiative taken by the premier of Ontario in connection with an over-all study of confederation and the constitution and his invitation to other governments to meet with him, and in view of the initiative previously taken by at least one other province in this regard, he
January 27, 1967

will urgently consider accelerating the federal government's study of this matter? The objective would be of course to enable a parliamentary committee to be established at an early date so that parliament could give consideration to this matter so as to insure in turn that the federal government is not caught short when the provinces have com-leted their studies.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we expect to have our studies completed in time for any constitutional conference which could usefully be called after all the preparatory work has been done at the federal and provincial levels. As soon as the federal study has been completed by the government this matter will be submitted to a parliamentary committee.
I should point out that the statement of the premier of Ontario on this question did not visualize a constitutional conference, but rather a meeting the nature of which is not clear in my mind, but at which the constitution as it is at present would be discussed. I hope shortly to be in touch with the premier of Ontario by correspondence to find out what he had in mind when he made his announcement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister indicate to the house in general terms his projected timetable in respect of this study? When might we expect a committee of this parliament to be established to study this question under the proposed timetable?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think it would be possible to do that until the autumn at the earliest.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the Prime Minister reconsider that timetable in order that we will not be in the position of not having completed our study when the provinces come forward with a formal position? Surely it would not be desirable for the federal government to be left without any position at that time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think the provinces will have completed their study before the federal government and this parliament have considered the matter. However, that will be a matter for them to decide. I can think of nothing more unproductive than the impression that a constitutional conference will be held shortly to revise our constitution before all the preparatory work has been carefully worked out.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister say whether in respect of this important matter the government is withholding any action until it receives the report of the B and B commission, after which it will chart a course?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not holding up our work at all and is not a factor involved in our desire to complete this work as quickly as possible; and that includes consideration of all aspects of this vital matter and its reference to a parliamentary committee.


Michael Starr: In view of the answer given by the right hon. gentleman, will he indicate what the government intends to do with the report of the B and B commission when it is received?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of his absence perhaps his parliamentary assistant or the acting minister will answer it.
My question is based on charges that one Jeremy Akerman was discharged from a senior position on the fortress of Louisbourg restoration project as a result of political activities on behalf of the New Democratic Party. Will the minister institute an investigation into this very serious charge and make a report to the house?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the question as notice on behalf of the minister. I am sure he will look into this matter.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Let me preface my question by saying it relates to a production crew making a film called
January 27, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry "The Fox" at the Kleinburg studios near Toronto. Will the minister make inquiries into the demands of the I.A.T.S.E.-the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees -who are insisting that the New York local provide part of the production crew for this film? There are competent Canadians who could do this job.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I will inquire into this matter, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question put to me yesterday by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Forrestall). His question concerned housing conditions for immigrants. The cities to which I referred as experiencing housing difficulties are Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor, Kitchener and Vancouver.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Secretary of State.
Is the minister aware that in this very centennial year of confederation, the National Film Board does not have documentary films on confederation, more particularly on the Confederation Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question of the hon. member constitutes a form of representation and I wonder whether he considers it of such urgency. If he wishes, he could possibly bring it up at ten o'clock.


Gérald Laniel: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. [English]



DIVORCE


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


Justice based upon the announcement in the speech from the throne in Ontario that that legislature will conduct a public inquiry into divorce. In view of the fact that the committee of this house is well along in its study, will the inquiry in Ontario in any way slow down the introduction of possible legislation in this house?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it will. The work that is being done by the committee will be very useful to the government in bringing down legislation.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put a question to the hon. member for High Park in his capacity as joint chairman of the committee on divorce. I see he is absent at the moment so I will put the question on record.
I would like to know if the province of Ontario has made any application to appear before the joint committee on divorce.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works, but possibly the acting minister might take it as notice. It is prompted by a reported statement by the premier of Prince Edward Island to the effect that a pending report by a leading consulting engineer is expected to question the department's design for the Northumberland strait causeway as not taking into account the ice hazard. Since this project is a dominion responsibility, will the minister advise the house whether significant design changes are in contemplation and whether any delay in the completion of the crossing will result therefrom?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice and bring it to the attention of the minister.



ARRANGEMENTS FOR TAKING PHOTOGRAPH OF HOUSE IN SESSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, it was
January 27, 1967	COMMONS
indicated in a note I received from Your Honour today that you were going to take a picture of the house on February 8. I want to inform you that the agriculture committee will be away from the house during that week. I am sure you will agree that without those handsome farmers there would be a great vacancy in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: I assure the hon. member that I have no intention of taking a picture. But his representations have been noted, and I am sure an appropriate change can be made to the proposed arrangements.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State. I would like to ask the hon. lady whether she is aware that a few days ago a member of the West German Bundestag was in Ottawa and reported at that time that he had wired the C.B.C. to ask if they would arrange an interview for him on television because he was appalled by the incompetence and biased interview of this man von Thadden and felt that the whole picture had been distorted by this incompetence. Would the hon. lady inquire why, if the C.B.C. received this communication, they have not replied to it?


Hon. Judy LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I heard such a rumour in Toronto. As a member of the House of Commons, the hon. member must be aware that many people would like to be on C.B.C., but the C.B.C. does not put them on just because they request it. An individual must have some newsworthy value in order to be put on television. I have no idea whether in fact this man did communicate with them and they decided not to use him on a program. I will check this. As I say, I have only heard a rumour.


Colin Cameron: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. lady at the same time convey to the C.B.C. the very grave misgivings and apprehensions of many Canadian citizens about what I termed earlier the grossly incompetent and biased interview on T.Y.? It was a disgrace to Canada and the C.B.C.
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY



REQUEST THAT ECONOMIC COUNCIL CONDUCT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I would have asked it yesterday but there was not enough time for backbenchers. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the suggestion of Professor Neufeld, of the department of political economy of Toronto university, that the Economic Council of Canada should be given the responsibility for engaging in research in the specific area of profit-wage-price developments and in short term economic developments in general? I am aware of what has been done, and no doubt Professor Neufeld is, but I wonder whether the minister is considering further research.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is of a very general nature and should be placed on the order paper.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Complon-Fronienac):: I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour but, in his absence, I shall put it to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General.
Does the minister intend to provide direct assistance to home building?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will agree with me, I am sure, that this question, being of a very general nature, should be put on the order paper.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Did the minister while in San Francisco confer with officials of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation in respect of having their company extend its operations into Canada?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The answer is no, sir, I did not.
January 27, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago the Postmaster General indicated that he would be making a statement in the house about the Hudson's Bay Company and its relationship with people in outlying communities served by their stores. I wonder whether the Postmaster General could tell us what has taken place in this respect.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked my department to make an investigation into this matter and I have also asked the Department of Justice to report on it. As soon as I have received this information I will be able to make a statement.



CANADIAN FOOTWEAR FACTORIES PUT OUT OF BUSINESS BY IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Has the minister received recently a brief from the Footwear Bureau of Canada alleging that in the last two years 26 footwear factories in this country have been put out of business by imports? If so, has a policy decision been taken on the matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: I shall have to inquire, Mr. Speaker. I do not recollect whether I have received such representations.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the right hon. Prime Minister whether he had received a telegram from the council of the city of Sept lies, Quebec, with respect to their protest regarding any increase in the St. Lawrence seaway tolls and asking that some opportunity be given them to make representations. The Prime Minister indicated at that time that he had received such a telegram and

would acquaint the house later with the terms of his reply. I wonder whether he is able to do so now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did receive the telegram, Mr. Speaker, and an acknowledgment was sent. I have discussed the matter with the Minister of Transport, who will be replying in greater detail shortly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Transport be able to acquaint the house with the nature of his reply when that statement is made?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be very happy to do that, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge ("Kootenay Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that some members of parliament have undertaken to grow beards for the centennial year, I would ask whether this is an official centennial project.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is a very good idea. I am only sorry that I cannot do it myself.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance following the short statement he made in the house last night at seven o'clock concerning the Montreal City and District Savings Bank. Has there been any change in the situation since last night, and has normal business been resumed?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, just before I entered the house I made inquiries of my officials and it is their understanding that the situation is somewhat improved. It is most regrettable that there should have been this run on a bank which is so conservatively run and which I know will be able to meet all its liabilities.
January 27, 1967



TRANSPORTATION


John Whitney Pickersgill: the third reading of Bill No. C-231, to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof, and to enact other consequential provisions.
He said: Mr. Speaker, 1 regret inflicting myself once more upon the house and I will be very brief, but I did promise last night that the Prime Minister would table, if the consent was available, the correspondence with the government of Quebec regarding part III of the bill, and I have done so. I have some extra copies in English and in French if any hon. member wishes to peruse it.
I also promised the hon. member for Lapointe that I would attempt, if I could, to provide certain statistical information for which he had asked. I am sorry to have to say that the information was of such a detailed character that although my staff has been working on it-and perhaps I am not at my brightest this morning anyway and might not have been able to absorb it even if I had received it-it has not been possible to put it in a form in which it could be presented to the house. It is not strictly relevant to the bill, but I intend to give the hon. gentleman a detailed reply in another way.
I want to say one or two words about the bill itself. It seems to me that this bill, which I think we can safely say has not been railroaded through parliament, has had a passage that has been attended by some unexpected events. However, 1 think I can say that, notwithstanding the considerable number of amendments that have been made to it, it is my opinion that the amendments have been improvements, and I would not have been willing to accept them if I had not thought so. In some cases they were very substantial improvements. I believe that members in all parties and on all sides of the house have contributed to the improvement of the bill, and I say this with the greatest sincerity.
Some hon. members, while speaking on clause 1 in committee last night, indicated a few misgivings about the bill, some them rather serious. I do not pretend for one minute that this bill is perfect. I do not pretend that we may not want to make some amendments to it quite soon. But I think it is about as good a measure as we could have agreed upon collectively at this particular time. I do
Transportation
confess that with respect to the patchwork-if I may put it that way-that we had to do on clause 74 yesterday I am not quite as happy as I am about the rest of the bill. Perhaps I am not quite as happy about the circumstances that brought it about and I may even be a little scarred still, but I try to bear my scars cheerfully.
There is one matter about which I do feel a little concerned, and I think it would be only fair for me to express it to the house. I am referring to my concern about the wide open implications of clause 15 (1) (e) which is now really unqualified by anything else in the bill. Since this clause is mandatory and imposes a duty upon the commission, it does seem to me it is just possible that it would give carriers a little more freedom to bring matters before the commission than we really intend to give them.
I think if that is the case the situation was helped very considerably by the reintroduction into the bill by an amendment moved by the hon. member for Medicine Hat of the provision I had suggested earlier, giving ministers of the crown the right to be represented at any such hearings. However, I would really wish to see a little more restriction upon this freedom in the bill. I would prefer to see an express provision that there should be public hearings when the commission is acting under clause 15 (1) (e) and perhaps under one or two other subclauses of clause 15.
I know that in construing a statute one can pay little attention to what goes on in the legislature where it was enacted. But 1 would still hope that notwithstanding the fact that there may be that imperfection, the commission would never make any determination under that clause and under one or two others without having public hearings. I feel that is very important, and that all interested parties should be permitted to attend.
In making this point I do not really seriously anticipate much difficulty, and I will not ask one of my colleagues to move that the bill be sent back to the committee to try to make another improvement to it. I think we have about reached the limit of human endurance, and I will not do that at all. I made the point because I thought I should express my misgivings in case, before too long, it might be felt that these imperfections-if I am right in regarding them as slight imperfections- might have to be corrected.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)


Mr.   Ball@Carleton: Leave something for the Senate.

January 27, 1967
Transportation


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Carleton, whose aspirations, if I read the press correctly, may be somewhat similar to mine, has suggested that we leave something for the Senate. Perhaps he, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and I might all go there together. It would certainly be a livelier place.


Mr. Churchill:: May I ask the hon. member a question. Has he proposed my name to the Prime Minister? Let us have not just words; let us have some action.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1 suggested to the Prime Minister that if the hon. gentleman was given the tools he might finish the job. However, all joking aside, I think in a bill of this magnitude it is possible that there may be the necessity for a sober second thought about some of the verbiage used here and there, and although I hope the other place will not scrutinize very much the substance of the bill, I do hope they will scrutinize its form in order to make sure that it is couched in good English and good French and that it means what we intend it to mean.
I think it would have been most ungracious of me, sir, in light of what I sometimes think were the many quite undeserved and charitable things that have been said about me at various stages during the course of this long debate if I did not acknowledge in turn the very genuine appreciation, occasionally perhaps slightly mixed with irritation, that I have felt throughout the passage of this bill, both in the standing committee and in the committee of the whole in this house. I do think, the whole record taken together, we can all feel that we have, perhaps not in speed but pretty well in every other respect, given a fair example of how parliament ought to work in producing good legislation.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to join with the Minister of Transport in emphasizing as well as I can that when parliament does do a good job, as it has done with this transportation bill, the country should know about it. I think during this session in the handling of the medicare discussion, in the handling of the guaranteed income supplement proposal, and particularly in the handling of this transportation bill, we on both sides of the house have demonstrated to the whole country that when parliament puts its mind to it it can do a good job.
I have had something to do with railway legislation such as that which is now before
[Mr. Bell (Carleton) .1
us for a good many years, Mr. Speaker. When the royal commission report was submitted to the previous government in 1962 it was our task to make the first drafts of a transportation bill. At that time the bill dealt primarily with railways. It was our concern then how we could manage the railways more efficiently and yet allow for the maximum of freedom.
So far as the rationalization concept was concerned, we felt at that time that this should be kept within the power of the elected representatives of the people in the central government of Canada and that we should deal directly and co-operatively with those provinces that do have rationalization problems. To that end, Mr. Speaker, an informal agreement was reached with the provincial premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba as to the course we would follow in the procedure of rationalization.
It is on this question, Mr. Speaker, that I still have some lingering doubts about this bill, but I have said enough already in this house to indicate what those doubts are. Therefore, in summarizing the first part of my remarks I should like to say that this parliament has demonstrated that it can take a very involved bill, affecting a large section of the economy of this country, and draft legislation which admittedly is venturing into an unknown field in turning over vast delegated powers to a board on a problem we know very little about. In this respect we have made a good effort to produce a bill that will give some guide lines to this new board.
Using round figures, Mr. Speaker, over 40 amendments were proposed to the draft of the bill as submitted to the standing committee in 1966. In the committee in this chamber approximately a further score were added, and some were turned down. I think this is reason for complimenting the government for being flexible, on the one hand, and above all for pointing out that for the most part the opposition has been constructive and has tried to be helpful to the government in producing a better bill.
There is one matter, Mr. Speaker, about which I still wish to place a caveat on the record. As I mentioned a few moments ago, the government to which I belonged intended to carry out the rationalization provisions of the proposed operation of the railways in Canada through the co-operative efforts of the provincial governments and the federal government.
January 27, 1967

In the bill as it is now a new principle has been brought in which turns the powers of the elected representatives over to a delegated board which is to carry out these rationalization provisions. On behalf of our party I stated on second reading and in committee that we reluctantly accepted this principle in an effort to try to achieve the efficiency in the management of our transportation system that a modem economy required.
In our amendments we tried to do two things under the general principles about which I am talking. On the one hand we tried to strengthen the hand of the board in order that it could better do its job. Simultaneously we tried to keep in the hands of the elected representatives-in other words in parliament, the House of Commons and the Senate-a little more control over this board to which we delegated such vast powers.
The caveat I want to register, Mr. Speaker, is that I still feel it would not have done any harm and would have strengthened the bill considerably had we given that board the power to direct as well as to recommend. In view of the pressure of the subsidies, we could have given to that board considerable authority to express to railway management that where there were ways to run the railways better and save money and thereby keep tariffs down, and perhaps the board could have got its way more effectively with the railways had it been given power to direct. We lost that amendment, Mr. Speaker, but we make no apologies for having made the try.
Simultaneously with trying to strengthen the power of the board to do its job properly the hon. member for Peace River also moved an amendment to set up a more sophisticated means by which parliament could control one of its agencies, whether it be a crown corporation or a board. This proposal too was voted down in committee. I think that was a mistake, and I hope it does not turn out to be fatal. I know that in theory the standing committee on transportation has the right to examine the workings of this board. I also know that because of the lack of skilled professional help at the command of the standing committee there is not a great deal that laymen can do.
[DOT] (12 noon)
For two or three years after passage of this bill, because of the interest aroused in its preparation over the last few years, a number of members will take an active interest in this
Transportation
matter and maintain their knowledge. Ultimately, from apathy, from human nature, the interest will drop, and I am afraid the board will have tremendous powers without full and proper control by parliament. Nobody will be interested enough to look at it, to exercise the control that is needed.
If a government wants to play games it is possible, under the rules of the house, to delay the setting up of a committee until far into the session. At that time other things occupy hon. members and little may be done. We should prefer that a standing committee be set up in such a way that the government could not interfere with the way the board is brought under review. We should like to have that committee under the chairmanship of an opposition member. We started that principle in the public accounts committee some eight years ago and it has worked very well. I think it would work just as well here.
Third, we should like to see that committee buttressed by at least three highly qualified individuals able to deal with technical matters that the ordinary layman member of the house cannot deal with, in order that the chairman of the committee and the committee may be aware of what is happening on the board. It is in this area that trouble will arise. The interest of the House of Commons will not be maintained, and as a result I can see the board becoming a power unto itself. There will be no machinery or capacity to check and control it, unless there is a serious uproar here, in the house.
All this was dealt with in committee. I do not have to rehash it. I have made my point. This party is concerned about our handing over tremendous powers to this board without there being more sophisticated means to strengthen our committee to control that body.
Another point I want to raise in summary has to do with the Crowsnest pass rates. This matter is always dealt with emotionally because for over half a century thousands of Canadians have depended on this rate structure to operate their industries and make a living. It has not been repeated often enough in this debate that at the beginning a contract was made. That contract has been modified over the years, but its essence was that if a group of men built a railway, certain things would be done. The railway, the Canadian Pacific, received tremendous land acreages, valuable oil and mineral rights, forest lands,
*

January 27, 1967
Transportation
huge sums of money and monopolies in certain areas. In return it was to carry our grain seaward at a fixed rate.
With advances in automation and engineering, instead of an engineer and crew operating a train of 25 box cars they now can operate a train with 100 box cars. The sooner the railways realize there is modern equipment, the better. Modern, enlarged cars are available, with improved techniques of grain handling in the prairie areas and terminals the cost will be kept constant. Change will keep it constant. The railways cannot argue they are losing money on the Crowsnest pass rates. They have used this argument as a constant propaganda pressure on the people of western Canada. They have tried to maintain the myth that they lose money on these rates, but the truth is that they do not lose money.
The 1964 bill introduced by the government said that if there were losses under the Crowsnest Pass rates there would be a charge on the treasury. In this bill, the 1966 bill, that section has been taken out. When I raised this matter on second reading the minister said the section was taken out because there are no losses on the Crowsnest Pass rates; yet the section having to do with the review was included. My colleague for Winnipeg South Centre moved an amendment to that, and the majority of this parliament spoke with him. Owing to the tradition that Mr. Speaker always maintains the rules, the parliamentary wish prevailed, and I hope that matter is dead, dead, dead.
The pact was made. The railways got their part of the contract; they shall honour their obligation under the contract. The other day, looking at evidence showing the peripheral advantages the railways got as part of the agreement, I saw that one of them was rights to minerals. One peripheral operation alone has assets today of approximately $400 million. I will not mention the value of oil and gas rights which will increase as the years go by and as discoveries continue. I do not mention the value of the tremendous forest tracts the railways have and still enjoy. I could list all the things the railway got, and I have little use for those who say that because the railways got all the cream and they are down to the skimmed milk, we should make a new contract.
The Crowsnest pass rates are a part of our national structure, and I hope discussion of them is over. Parliament has spoken. The bill will get through. I hope nobody raises this
	j
issue again. The people of western Canada thank opposition members of parliament for the amendment which was carried.
On the question of maximum rate control and costing we are moving into the unknown. I can only say that the best chance all Canadians will have is if we give the board the power to obtain competent personnel to deal with costing and work out a system of accounting, that we may know what things cost, and that we need not accept the figures of the railways. If this could be done, if competent staff could be selected by the board, many of us would feel relief. We know we are not competent to deal with these questions. Few people in Canada are competent to deal with costing and maximum rate control matters. It is in the field of freight rates that the battle can be lost. I hope the board gets people competent to deal with these matters, that we may feel protected.
I will not talk about the public interest, the general public vis-a-vis the shipper. That has been adequately covered in previous discussions. This matter concerns quite a few people. We shall see what will happen.
Finally, the government will be responsible for the selection of the personnel of this board. I need not warn the minister-rightly or wrongly, I hate to lay the blame on an individual-but the attitude of the Canadian public toward the Board of Transport Commissioners is not good. We feel, whether by its rules and regulations, the precedents it follows and so on, it has always accepted the railway position. In selecting this new board dealing with railways, air, water, buses, trucks, and pipe lines the government will be on the spot to produce the type of commissioner, at the top, in whom the people of Canada can have confidence. We hope that in the next few years a staff will be collected around this individual capable of coping as an equal with the giants of the transportation industry. This is an old, old sore on the social hide of the Canadian people.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
Here is an opportunity for the minister and his colleagues to realize that they have had a good run for their money in the house with regard to this bill. We have fought the hon. gentleman where we thought we should fight; we have been constructive where we thought we should be constructive. We have tried to help the minister. Now will he help us and the Canadian people by giving us a board which will address itself effectively and with sincerity to the task before it, and act as a
January 27, 1967

reliable referee between the general public and the transportation companies?
We can only hope that if we get such a board the railways will be able to function efficiently, the air lines will be able to give full service to the public, and all the other dorms of transportation will be able to operate in an effective way for the betterment of this country. Certainly the principle of integrating all transport service is a new one for us in Canada. It seems logical, and in the light of the arguments which have been advanced we have agreed to delegate this power to a commission. Now we have done so it is up to the government to produce the type of board having the competence needed to make this bill a lasting success.


Mr. Norman Fawcett (Nickel Belt):: During the time this bill was before the committee of the whole house I personally did not become too involved in it. I think hon. members will agree that I did not take up the time of the committee for very long. However, at this point I should like to make a few comments on the measure.
I should like to say at the outset, as far as the general concept of the bill is concerned, that the members of my party, together, I think, with hon. members in other parties, are agreed that the time for setting up a commission which would have jurisdiction over all modes of transport was long overdue. In my opinion this is the most important factor in a good gransport policy for a country such as ours. But the minister will have to watch these matters very carefully in order to make sure the commission is applying itself properly to its primary purpose, the co-ordination of all the different modes of transport in such a manner that they will work in conjunction with one another rather than against one another as happens now, in so many cases, to the disadvantage of the general public.
I was a member of the standing committee on transport and communications, and I will say at once that I commend the chairman of that committee for the excellent work he did. I do not think it would be right if I neglected to say, too, that the minister himself has been very helpful all along. At times he seemed to bend over backward in order to get along not only with the standing committee but the committee of the whole house. I might also say a word of commendation to my hon. friend from Springfield who carried the ball for our party on this issue, for the contribution he made to our discussions. All hon.
Transportation
members will agree, I believe, that he is to be commended on the way he carried out this task, and that while doing so he offered a number of very worth-while suggestions.
It is not my intention to discuss the bill at great length. During the committee stage I indicated that in my view there was a deficiency in the legislation. I still believe this deficiency exists. It has to do with the consequences of the abandonment of branch lines. The amendment I moved in committee would have provided some relief for employees adversely affected by rail line abandonment to the extent that they were required to relocate or, in extreme cases, lost their jobs altogether. It was a matter of great regret to me that this amendment failed to secure acceptance.
I have an amendment here-I do not think I need go into it too deeply-which expresses what I have said previously on this subject, and I intend to move it now, seconded by my hon. friend from York South. I have a limited number of copies in English and in French for distribution. It reads as follows:
That Bill C-231 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for reconsideration of clause 42 in relation to the matter of compensation to employees adversely affected by railway abandonment or rationalization.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether before the motion is put to the house it would be too hazardous for me to raise a point of order. I do not wish to take any unnecessary time in arguing the point of order, because it would appear to me that this amendment is in substance the same as an amendment which was moved in committee of the whole, at which time it was ruled out of order by the chairman on the ground that it was beyond the scope of the bill, inasmuch as the bill does not deal with labour relations or industrial relations.
My position, substantially, is that the judgment made in the committee on this matter was sound. The bill in no way deals with any aspect of the relationship between the employees of any carriers and the carriers themselves. It seeks to lay down broad policies with respect to the relationship between the government and transport companies, between shippers and transport companies, but it does not in any way enter into the field of labour relations. I submit it would be wrong to attempt to direct the committee to do something which the chairman of that committee ruled as being outside the competence of that committee. To do so would, I suggest

January 27, 1967
Transportation
-unless Your Honour does not agree with the decision already taken-clearly be asking the committee to do something which was considered beyond the scope of the bill.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, like the Minister of Transport I shall be brief because we have spent quite some time on procedural matters this week, but it does seem to me that this amendment is within the four corners of the kind of amendments that are in order on third reading. Citation 415 on page 287 of Beauchesne's fourth edition states:
When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular.
There are a number of other citations which spell out that point. The minister does not quarrel with that, but he contends that the amendment is beyond the scope of the bill because it deals with something which the bill does not include.
I remind Your Honour of the earlier discussion we had in committee of the whole on this matter. I think the situation was different, but some of the points that were made then apply now. I also remind Your Honour that clause 42 of the bill has a subheading which reads "Abandonment and Rationalization of Lines or Operations." In other words, the subject of abandonment and rationalization is in the bill. I also remind Your Honour that the resolution preceding the bill, as recorded at page 7743 of Hansard for August 29, 1966, listed many things that the bill would do and concluded with this phrase:
-and to provide further for other matters consequential upon or related or incidental to any of the foregoing.
I submit that if abandonment and rationalization of railway lines is one of the subjects of the bill, and if one of the purposes of the bill is to provide for matters consequential upon or related or incidental to any of the matters in the bill, then surely it is appropriate to ask for consideration of the consequences to employees of abandonment or rationalization of railway lines.
When we were in committee of the whole one of the arguments advanced was that the kind of amendment which my colleague moved at that stage might involve the expenditure of money out of the treasury, and thus it was not open to a private member to move it. We are not now at that stage. We are at

third reading, where it is possible to move that the bill be referred back for consideration of a matter, it being recognized that such a motion, even if it passes, is not compulsory and therefore does not run up against the problem of finance so far as a private member is concerned.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, there are many precedents for this and there is much that could be said, but I do not think we want to go into it at length today. My notes, which I have looked at quickly in order to refresh my memory, tell me that on the Canada Pension Plan legislation we were allowed to refer it back on such matters as the amount of the old age pension and the age at which it would be paid. Likewise we were allowed to refer the medicare bill back to the committee of the whole for reconsideration of the effective date and one or two other matters.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the kind of amendment now proposed by my colleague is similar to those amendments and that Your Honour should, and I trust will, find it to be in order.


Hon. John N. Turner (Member of the Adminisiration):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address myself briefly to the point of order. I would point out that in citation 415 in Beauchesne's fourth edition there is also subparagraph (4) which reads as follows:
On the third reading of a bill, an amendment to refer back to the committee of the whole must not tend to change the principle approved on the second reading.
When one relates this citation and its principle to the argument adduced by the Minister of Transport, it is our submission that the amendment goes beyond the principle of the bill which has to do with rates, tariffs, and regulation. The amendment deals with a subject which is foreign to the substance of the bill in that it refers to the relationship between the railways as employers and the employees, a matter involving negotiation, conciliation and other matters falling within the ambit of a labour bill.
I do not argue for a moment that the substance of what the amendment proposes is not important and will some day, and some day soon, have to be brought before this house, but what I do adduce by way of submission to Your Honour is that it is foreign to the principle of this bill and therefore inadmissible under citation 415(4) of Beauchesne, and is irrelevant because it does not deal with the main purport of the bill.
January 27, 1967

I might also recall to Your Honour's attention that a similar attempt to make such an amendment in committee, to which the Minister of Transport referred, was ruled out of order by the chairman of the committee and, if my memory serves me right, that decision was upheld by the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might be allowed at this point to read the motion of the hon. member. Would the hon. member indicate who is the seconder of the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis).


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Fawcett), seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) moves:
That Bill C-231 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for reconsideration of clause 42 in relation to the matter of compensation to employees adversely affected by railway abandonment or rationalization.
The Minister of Transport has taken exception to this amendment on a point of order which has been supported by the Minister without Portfolio. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre bases his argument in support of the validity of the motion on citation 415 (1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which states:
When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre claims that the use of these words "in any particular" supports his contention that this amendment should be accepted. I cannot agree with him in spite of the fact that Beauchesne reads as has been indicated by the hon. member. Obviously there must be limitations on the type of amendments that can be moved on third reading. For example, the proposed amendment must be relevant to the bill which it seeks to amend; it should not seek to give a mandatory instruction to the committee, and it should not contradict the principle of the bill adopted on second reading. I point out these last two as examples of what these amendments should not do.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has restated the argument which had been made in committee to the effect that the subject matter which the hon. member for Nickel Belt would want the committee to reconsider is within the scope of the bill. I remind him that there has already been a
Transportation
judgment of the Chair in committee to the effect that this proposal is outside the scope of the bill. The hon. member is now trying to do indirectly what could not be done in committee in view of the decision of the Chair.
A decision was reached that this proposition is outside the scope of the bill, and for this reason I cannot see how the house can direct the committee to consider an aspect of the matter which has already been ruled out of order by way of decision of the chairman of committees. For this reason I regret very much that I must rule the amendment out of order.
[DOT] (12:30 p.ra.)


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a very brief comment on third reading of the bill which is before us. I appreciate, of course, that the amendment is not before the house, but I do wish to indicate that there are in this bill some very serious omissions.
As I understand the bill it is the hope of the government, and certainly the hope of the railways, that when it becomes law the railways will have more revenue. The question is, where is that addition to their revenue to come from? A great deal has been made of the suggestion during this debate, particularly by the minister-and I also have seen statements by officers of the railways to the same effect-that the railways will obtain more revenue as a result of increased competition between various modes of transport. I have very grave doubt as to whether that will result in any very large increase in railway income. I have very grave doubt whether there are sufficient areas where there will be genuine competition between the modes of transport and where the railways really will be able to benefit from the alleged increase in competition.
Time, of course, will prove whether one is right, but as I see the bill as a whole its real object is to provide the railways with added revenues by virtue of (a) abandonment of lines, (b) rationalization of lines and operations and, (c) payments from the treasury, some on a temporary basis and some on a permanent basis to recompense the railways for any losses they may have as a result of rationalization or as a result of other things which the bill covers. I submit that a realistic view of this bill will show not that the railways will receive more money as a result of the alleged increase in competition, but that they no doubt will make a killing out of the

January 27, 1967
Transportation
three areas I have suggested-abandonment, rationalization and the federal treasury.
I do not at all agree that it is a good thing for Canada to have a transportation policy which reduces the extent of regulation of the rates, tariffs and operations of the carriers. I do not at all agree that it is possible in a modern economy and in a modern society to permit transportation operations to be carried on more by the laws of the jungle rather than less. This, however, is what the minister wants to do, and in doing it he takes the greatest possible care, in every part of the bill, to make certain that as a result of his law the carriers will not suffer. In situations where they suffer losses as a result of carrying grain or other products because public policy demands it, or in situations where they refrain from abandonment because the commission might think it is not in the public interest, the federal treasury may be dipped into. I do not say it will be in all cases. This is a matter of argument. It will be a matter of judgment and discretion; but in every case where the result of the bill may be a loss to the railways, the minister has provided compensation for them.
The bill, however, contains not a word about compensation for the workers who may be adversely affected by rationalization or abandonment. It contains not a word about compensation to the communities which may be literally obliterated by the railways as a result of rationalization or abandonment of lines. It provides not a word about compensation for the shippers, and particularly the farmers who undoubtedly will suffer a very considerable loss in many cases as a result either of abandonment or rationalization. It seems to me that this is as one sided a piece of legislation as could be conceived in the ambit of transportation. It is almost deserving of the term class legislation. At every stage of the bill and on two separate occasions the minister sought to make sure that the companies will not only be compensated in some areas which possibly could be understood, but also, if it could be shown that they have suffered losses through the statutory rates as a result of the application of public policy, inquiries will be held.
While the amendment which the minister finally did get accepted by the Chair and by the committee of the whole house did not give the minister precise permission to establish an inquiry and did not give the railways the precise opportunity to request such an inquiry, nevertheless it did adopt, as the minister

said, a suggestion of mine that the commission already had that power under clause 15. Obviously it is the intention of the minister to have an inquiry into the Crowsnest pass rates to find out whether the railways are suffering losses as a result of them and to have a recommendation from the commission which would cause the governor in council to consider compensation. That is what the amendment which is now in the bill clearly implies, even though it implies it in a roundabout way by saying that the compensation will not be paid if the railways have increased certain rates. This exception underlines the intent that where the exception does not exist they will be paid compensation. So at every stage in the bill they have made provision for this.
The minister was accused by some hon. members of having made an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway that these things would be in the bill. The minister denied this and, of course, I accept his word without hesitation or reservation. But, none the less, I have no doubt that the minister has bought lock, stock and barrel the argument of the Canadian Pacific Railway with regard to the right policies. I accept his word that he has not made any agreement with them, but he has accepted their philosophy; he has accepted their theory of the right kind of transportation policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would allow me to say that I did accept the views of a most distinguished Canadian who recently died-one of the most respected residents of western Canada-and his fellow commissioners. I refer to Mr. M. A. MacPherson. I do not think Mr. M. A. MacPherson had his ideas injected into him by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company any more than I have had.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the late Mr. M. A. MacPherson was not a member of parliament and obviously is unable to say whether he should take responsibility for the minister's bill. I respectfully suggest to the minister that he cannot escape his responsibility by what he has just said. I repeat that by the terms of his bill it is obvious that the minister has accepted the philosophy of the C.P.R. concerning what the transportation policy should be.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
Over the years when I have served on conciliation boards and in arbitration proceedings I have heard spokesmen for the C.P.R. state all the philosophies embodied in
January 27, 1967

this bill. They have said "We have always been under strict regulation to which the bus, ship and air line companies are not subject. Give us more competition with them and we will do something for you." They always say "We lose hundreds of millions of dollars over the years because of the uneconomic passenger service we must provide under public policy. Do something about that; let us rationalize and abandon branch lines and we will then be healthy."
This has been what officials of the poor, poverty stricken, penniless C.P.R. have told us. They have always claimed that the C.P.R. loses hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of the Crowsnest pass rates, and have always said to us serving on various boards that this is why they cannot pay their workers decent wages. They have said they would be glad to do so because they are as interested in their welfare as we are. They say "We weep for the fact that the railway workers have lost their position in the labour force in Canada", and they say they are as deeply concerned and weep as copiously about this as anyone else.
Having said all that, the officials then ask us to give them back the hundreds of millions of dollars they have lost because of the Crowsnest pass rates and because of the uneconomical passenger service and they will do justice to their employees. I have heard these officials say this since 1952 when I first had something to do with these conciliation boards.
The minister has embodied provisions in this bill in respect of every one of their claims, without exception. He has made certain that when this poverty stricken C.P.R. suffers a loss as a result of public policy, or can show such a loss by using the kind of cost accounting it indulges in, the people of Canada will compensate it from the federal treasury. I have never been able to accept that position, and I have said in reports to which 1 have been a party, and in some which I wrote and signed in person, that I could not accept the proposition that the C.P.R. is separate as to its rail operations from the rest of its activities.
As a citizen of Canada and as a member of this parliament I cannot accept the idea that there is something sacred in respect of the total empire of the C.P.R. with which rail operations must not be associated. As has been said time and time again, the C.P.R. came into existence historically as a result of tremendous financial and land grants from 23033-781
Transportation
the people of Canada. Those grants enabled the C.P.R. to become established, and it was the revenues from rail operations and those grants that enabled the C.P.R. to acquire an air line, a huge mining and smelting company, oil operations and a tremendous amount of industrial and financial activity which now makes the C.P.R. one of the largest and richest corporations in this country.


An hon. Member:: What a shame.


David Lewis: I think it is a shame to exploit the Canadian people for that purpose. I am only concerned at this point, however, with the false proposition that it is fair, reasonable and just to compensate the C.P.R. for its losses in rail operations without taking into account any of its profits from the rest of its operations because that is taboo. When one deals with labour relations and employees of the C.P.R. he is limited to a consideration of the revenues and costs relating only to its rail operations. One must not look at the economy of the company as a whole but must only look at its rail operations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That also applies to the setting of rates.


David Lewis: Yes; as my leader says, when the C.P.R. asks the Board of Transport Commissioners to increase its rates that board is limited to a consideration of their cost accounting and their figures in relation to rail operations, and must not consider or take into account other revenue. I don't agree with this.
At one point during the debate in committee of the whole house-and he will correct me if I am wrong or misrepresenting him-the minister said the government had made a definite decision not to include in this bill anything in respect of the labour relations of the railway companies. 1 am sure I remember that correctly. The minister admits that he made a definite decision to compensate the railway companies for their losses but to do nothing about the losses which the employees of the railways companies will suffer as a result of the implementation of this bill, and nothing about the losses to the communities and farmers which will result from its implementation.
I hope for the sake of Canada that the minister will be proved right in his feeling that there will be added competition which will benefit the society and economy of Canada, and that I am wrong in my conviction, on the basis of my understanding of

January 27. 1367
Transportation
Canada's transportation system, that this attempt to reintroduce the law of the jungle in the transportation world, to reduce the amount of regulation and to encourage the railways to dip further into the treasury, will not serve the transportation economy of this country well.
It is my feeling that all this will present us in years to come with precisely the same claims, complaints, difficulties and injustices that this parliament has heard about transportation policy for many decades. It is my view that there have been serious oversights in the minister's consideration of this problem. Perhaps when I say "oversights" I am being too kind. The minister has drafted a bill on principles which are outdated. He has been far too lenient and soft so far as the railway companies in Canada are concerned, particularly the C.P.R. On the other hand, the minister has been far too cavalier about the real problems facing the communities, the workers of the railway companies, and the farmers in Canada who will be adversely affected by the provisions of this bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to speak at any length, but I do want to say a few words at this stage. We have been considering this bill of great magnitude, and we all know about the years of work and effort of royal commissions, committee members, various ministers and government officials which was undertaken to produce this bill. It is one of the most important and copious bills ever to be dealt with or considered by this house, but I do not believe for one moment that it will cure all the ills of the transportation systems in Canada.
Problems in relation to transportation are going to stay with us for the next hundred years, just as they have been with us for the past hundred years. People will continue to refer to one place in this house as the railway committee room, or perhaps that name will be changed to the transportation committee room. That is a clear indication of the tremendous interest of the parliament and people of Canada in this subject.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
This is an attempt to solve some of the problems, but I expect that year after year problems of transportation will be raised in this chamber. I expect there will be amendments to this bill year after year, that there will be further committee study and that people will be wrestling with this problem, no

matter how young they may be or how many new ideas they may have with regard to how things should be run in Canada. This is a problem that has confronted us for a hundred years, and it will continue. Whether the minister and the government have made an advance on the present situation only time will tell. I am not convinced that the solution presented to us in the bill is necessarily the best one. It will now have to be given a trial, because the house has reached the point where it is approving the bill.
I do not like the idea of the large commission and the czar who will preside over it. I do not know who that will be, but I just do not like the general idea. I think ministerial responsibility has been decreased by this creation; parliamentary control has been diminished. It has been bad enough in the past asking questions of the Minister of Transport, who says "Well, I will convey your question to the management of the C.N.R. and see what sort of answer I get." We will now be even further removed from control over transportation. So I am not very impressed and am not too hopeful that anything spectacular has been achieved. I recognize that freight rates will rise. I think it is safe to predict that the people in the Atlantic provinces and the western provinces of Canada will be paying more for transportation services. I think there is an element of inflation involved here.
As a resident of western Canada I cannot really rejoice in what has been done. I think there will be a continuation in the future of subsidization by the government. That is the history of transportation in this country. I doubt very much that the subsidization factor has been removed. It is faint praise that I have for the bill. It is faint praise that I have for the government for the way it organized the business of the house in regard to this bill. The minister was eager and anxious to get it completed last fall. He introduced it at the time of the special session when we were called back here to discuss an entirely different matter. He urged us repeatedy in the day and a half just before Christmas to pass the bill and get it out of the way. Of course all that was just nonsense.
The only sympathy I have for the Minister of Transport is in respect of the excessive ill usage to which he was subjected by his colleagues in the government in compelling him to wait all last fall before bringing this important measure before us. He had to give way to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who had a bill that will not become
January 27, 1967

effective until 1968. That is the only sympathy I have for the minister. I thought it was ridiculous of him just before Christmas-I have referred to Hansard to see what he said at that time-to suggest to us that by sitting all night or another day before Chrismas we might pass the bill and then we might get certain advantages. He is gradually learning by experience. I think he has learned the lesson that a bill of this magnitude requires careful study by the house. That careful study has been given.
One thing in which the opposition may take some pride is the fact that we prevented the minister and the government from instituting an investigation of the Crowsnest pass rates and leaving the impression abroad that there is something wrong with those rates. The two methods which the minister devised were rejected by this house, one the mandatory instruction to the commission to investigate the rates and the other the indirect permission to the railways to make application to the commission, when it would become mandatory for the commission to investigate them. That was thrown out by the combined efforts of the opposition in this chamber.
I do not doubt for one minute that the government may institute an inquiry into those rates if they are foolish enough to do it. But it has to be by way of governmental responsibility, and that is just where I want the responsibility placed. Let the Liberal government institute that inquiry, and the people of western Canada will know what answer to give them. The opposition performed a valuable service to western Canada by the action it took.
No bill in my experience has pursued a more tortuous route than this one. It was introduced and then withdrawn. It was reintroduced in September and referred to a committee. It was amended 60 or 70 times in that committee. I have the greatest sympathy for the legal draftsmen who prepare bills for this house. I understand something of the nature of that difficult work. They must have been driven frantic by the instructions received from this minister. A bill that has to be amended to that extent at the committee stage must have been very badly conceived in the beginning.
Not content with that amendment in the committee, we had amendment after amendment in committee of the whole house. No bill has suffered more amendment in the course of its progress through the house than this one. No bill has had more words expressed 23033-7811
Transportation
about it by the minister piloting it through the house than this one. If there is a page in Hansard dealing with this bill on which the minister did not make himself heard, it is an exception. This will stand as a record for all time, and I hope as a guide to other ministers to take a different course of action. But this minister is verbose, has to be very active and likes to wear himself out in the process. Of course we assisted him in so doing.
He may now rest on his laurels, but I do not want him to be carried away and think he has accomplished something that is simply wonderful, because I think it is a very bad example of how to put legislation through the House of Commons and I hope nobody else will imitate it.


Mr. Bell (Careleton):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the hon. member not think we will be lonely for the minister when he goes to the other place?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Some people will be lonely for him; but he rather accepted my idea this morning to make a point of taking me with him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is making that proposition more seductive every second.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to be with the minister if he continues in parliamentary life. This bill will be referred to the other chamber, and I expect they will suggest amendments that will have to be introduced. So the bill will be coming back here in order that we may incorporate the amendments that will be proposed by the other chamber. This is the nature of the bill. In any case, I think the minister has a number of left-over amendments that he did not have time to propose in committee of the whole house. He will now transfer them to his colleagues in the other chamber and they will come back by that indirect route. Yesterday afternoon the minister was searching for a particular amendment that he was going to put forward. He seemed to have a whole sheaf of amendments that had not been dealt with. So I think we will see the bill back in this chamber.
I should like to make one correction. When I spoke earlier on the bill and was talking about the Crowsnest pass rates I stated that I

January 27, 1967
Transportation
thought after the period 1919 to 1922, when those rates were suspended for a time, they were reintroduced by action of the Senate. This may have been an erroneous recollection of an article which I read in the Winnipeg Free Press. I cannot imagine the Winnipeg Free Press being wrong, so it must be my faulty recollection of the occurrence. If somebody in the other chamber when dealing with this bill will give the history of the Crowsnest rates, then if I have made a mistake it will be corrected and 20 years from now when these rates are discussed again everybody will be on the right track.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
I simply want to conclude by saying that the activities of the House of Commons in this chamber and in the committee which considered this bill are a clear indication of the way in which this house operates, and I do not think that any fault can be found with parliament with respect to this bill. There are those who argue that everything should be done in two or three days, but when we are dealing with a bill of this nature and size, one which will affect virtually everyone in Canada and deals with the transportation system, which is vital to our existence, we are fully justified in taking the time that we have on this bill, with the sole exception of some of the repetitious remarks made by the minister.
Yesterday the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) had some strong words to say with regard to the news media of this country. I think those remarks were justified and I say this for the foEowing reason. About two and a half years ago the members of the press gallery conducted an informal poU and asked their members to answer the foEowing question:	"Which member of the House of
Commons could be most easEy spared?" I was the winner of that poE although I thought it would have been won by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). However, I won it easily. Last fall it appeared to me that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) was creeping up to take over my position, and yesterday when I heard the hon. member for Acadia I was a Ettle alarmed because I thought that here was another member trying to squeeze me out of my position. In this period when the leadership in many fields is in question I want to make sure that my leadership in that particular poE is sustained. Therefore I agree with what the hon. member for Acadia said for the benefit of my friends in the press gaEery and I think they might very well read his words.

I would not use some of the expressions that he used but he was trying to draw to their attention and that of other people in this country that parEament as an institution performs a function which is essential to Canada, and although it may seem to the outside observer that the work we do is rather slow and ponderous the fact is that it is essential and that it is carried out with the freedom of speech which is so desirable. I am prepared to grant that now and again some time is wasted. But the essential work of the country is being done here through the means of the freedom of speech which prevails in this chamber. Nothing can be concealed that we can stir up and discover. Statements that are distorted can be corrected. Unfortunately this is not the situation with regard to some other things in our society. We have been performing here faithful, honest and hard work, and although this session has lasted now for 195 days I chaEenge anyone to say and be believed that we have been spending our time wrangling and indulging in ineffective debate. The minister and I can exchange a few humorous remarks without becoming bad friends. He has my respect.
I do not like all the things that the minister does, but we have been doing honest and hard work which should be recognized in this country. As the hon. member for Acadia said yesterday, the news media failed to give their attention to what has been going on in this chamber during the last two weeks with regard to a major change in the method of dealing with transportation, a change which will vitally affect everyone in this country. So far as the news media are concerned, we have seen and heard nothing but skimpy reports of this debate.
With those remarks I uphold parEament as an institution and I strive to maintain my position in the informal Gallup poE that may be taken in the future in the press gaEery.


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) for having complied so graciously with the request we made yesterday and for having tabled today the correspondence exchanged between the Quebec government and the federal government on transport problems, and more specifically the imphcations of BiE No. C-231.
On consulting the various letters exchanged, we note that certain passages are most revealing. For instance, in the first letter sent to aE the premiers, dated August 4, 1966,
January 27, 1967

the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson) said, as shown on page 2 of his letter:
-it would be desirable for discussions to be held between officials of the federal and provincial governments in an exploratory fashion.
In the previous paragraphs of his letter, the Prime Minister referred to highway safety problems, and to the possibility of standardizing highway and interprovincial regulations.
[DOT] (1.10 p.m.)
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the date on this letter which the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) drafted and sent to the provincial premiers was August 4, 1966. In his letter, he of course expresses the hope that federal and provincial government officials hold discussions with respect to these problems. Now, when we look at the time the federal government chose to introduce its resolution in this regard, we find that it was during the month of August, and the bill itself was introduced on August 29. What immediately comes to mind is the fact that, while the right hon. Prime Minister proposes that discussions be held with respect to the problems arising from any piece of legislation, at the same time, without waiting for these discussions to be held, he puts a resolution before the house, and introduces the bill itself on August 29.
An answer from the Quebec premier, Hon. Daniel Johnson, dated October 13, raises important considerations and I quote:
I shall not try to hide from you that, whatever may be the promises of future consultation, the government of Quebec looks most unfavourably upon the fact that the federal government wishes to acquire the right to exempt an undertaking from the jurisdiction of the provincial boards so as to place it under the authority of the future Canadian Transport Commission. Already, in 1954, Quebec had objected to the discretionary powers the federal government reserved itself under section 5 of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act: in our opinion, this was holding back with one hand what one was giving with the other. It seems now that our opinion was well founded. Indeed, the whole arrangement of 1954 is presently being questioned again.
And, Hon. Daniel Johnson, in his letter of October 13, continues with these words:
In fact, I was very surprised by the haste in which this measure concerning motor vehicle transport was submitted to parliament. Your letter dated August 4th, 1966 emphasizes the necessity of holding federal-provincial discussions so as to determine how we can best settle the problems that face us in this field. I wonder how such discussions could possibly be useful now that the federal government has already decided beforehand what would be their conclusions. If your government sincerely favours provincial consultation, it should necessarily proceed to such consultation before making its decisions, not after. The
Transportation
presentation of such a measure as the one provided for in Part III of Bill C-231 might eventually be the result of our discussions but it could certainly never be the preliminaries to them. For this is putting the cart before the horse.
Therefore, the government of Quebec asks you, as a token of good faith, to strike out of Bill C-231 Part III dealing with extra-provincial motor vehicle transport so that the discussions you proposed in your letter of August 4th. 1966, may take place in normal conditions. For. in such a critical field as this, it is only by holding discussions in the best of circumstances that one may hope to reach solutions satisfactory to the legitimate interests of every government and the common good of all citizens.
Mr. Speaker, from the letter of October 13, we see that the Quebec premier rightly accuses the government of the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada of putting the cart before the horse, by inviting on August 4 the provincial representatives to meet the federal officials in order to discuss and set up jointly standards for the field of transport. Then, before the provinces had had time to answer, the federal government, putting the cart before the horse, moved the resolution in the house and the bill, nicely cooked up, completely ready, was introduced on August 29.
We note, in his letter of October 13, the Quebec premier's well-advised comments on this way of going about it. On October 20, 1966, the right hon. Prime Minister replied to the October 13 letter of Hon. Daniel Johnson.
Among other things, he said this:
It was in accordance with this exclusive federal jurisdiction that the federal parliament took action to confer upon provincial agencies the authority to act as agents of the federal government in regard to movements of this sort-
In this paragraph, as well as in the previous paragraphs, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister refers to the federal legislation which had been introducted and passed in 1954 and which left with the provincial agencies, the authority to legislate and to regulate in the field of motor vehicle transport.
And, in another letter that the Quebec premier wrote to the right hon. Prime Minister, on November 15, 1966, the following considerations are removed, and to do that, Hon. Daniel Johnson says this:
-expressed very serious doubts regarding the use of such meetings, if the latter take place, after the federal government's decisions have all been made irreversibly. It would seem, judging by your answer, that such is the case.
Indeed, after reading your letter of October 20 concerning Part III of Bill C-231 regarding the national transport policy, I understand that your government does not intend to comply with the

January 27, 1967
Transportation
request I made in my letter dated October 13, 1966, asking you to delete, as a token of good faith, this part of the bill.
Under the circumstances, I do not see to what purpose officials of our two governments could meet to discuss cooperation. Your government seems determined to follow the policy it has established in this field as in others, regardless of the provinces' views. What good could there be in holding repeated meetings that would lead nowhere?
Those, Mr. Speaker, were the views exchanged between the Quebec government and the federal government. I had a hunch, even before I could read that correspondence, that things had been handled here, in Ottawa, in the usual way.
A few years ago the federal government was wont to refer to the friendly and open relations that should exist between the federal and provincial governments, and that procedure was called co-operative federalism.
Well, with regard to several pieces of legislation, the central government took unilateral action so often that the spokesmen of the Liberal government in Ottawa no longer dare use the expression co-operative federalism, either in this house or at official dinners, because they have never put it into practice. No matter how well that expression sounds, its application proved awkward and inefficient, precisely because of the dishonesty of the federal Liberal government.
It is being asked not to deal unilaterally with many administrative problems in Canada, either on the fiscal, political and administrative levels, or with regard to social security.
Neither the central government nor the ten provincial governments should live as bees, each in its own hive. There should be cooperation between intelligent human beings, between men of good faith. It is apparent once again in the case of this bill that the federal government had made all the decisions, that everything was cooked up-the resolution and the bill-at the very moment the letter was being sent, pro forma, to the provinces, seeking their co-operation, consultations with them and close understanding. Everything had been prepared and cooked up and the bills introduced almost at the same time as the prime minister's letter to the provinces was being written.
Well such is the process that increases tensions in Canada, first between Canadians and between the provincial governments and the central government.
[DOT] (1.20 p.m.)
It is the wrong way to do it. I call it autocratic federalism. The central government decides by itself unilaterally puts the

provinces before a decision it has taken alone and, after it has got its bearings and is firmly in control, only then does it ask for their co-operation. It is ridiculous, it is even insulting for the provinces, because when dealing with them the central government does not consider the provincial governments as sovereign and independent governments in their field, in a spirit of true federalism, but rather acts like a father who looks condescendingly at his little girls, alone, immature, under age, and takes all the decisions alone, just like parents who decide for their children who are still under age or too young to have judgment and intelligence. The father does not consult children of seven or eight, or four or five; he decides everything and then tells the children what he has decided.
That is what the federal government does and unfortunately that attitude has become widespread in the last few years here in Ottawa. It emphasizes tension and misunderstanding between the provinces and the central government, and particularly between the Quebec government and the central government's relations with the rest of Canada.
When I talk about the Quebec government, I am not referring to any political party, I mean the successive Quebec governments. It was the same thing when a Liberal government was in power in Quebec and right now it is the same with the Union Nationale government.
I submit, sir, that there must be an end to these hypocritical, insulting and injurious practices in the relations between the central government and the provincial authorities.
I do not intend to take up the constitutional aspects of the issue again today; these were dealt with at length on September 6, 1966, as may be seen on pages 8074 and following of Hansard.
This correspondence does not bring out the constitutional aspect so much as it reveals the attitude of the central government in the matter. We understand, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian constitution, supported by certain Privy Council rulings, has granted jurisdiction to the central government in the field of interprovincial, extraprovincial and international transport. The constitution itself and rulings such as the one handed down by the Privy Council in the Winert case in 1954, acknowledge this jurisdiction. It is not so much the costitutional aspects as the way of dealing with the matter, in practice, that comes out in the correspondence between the
January 27, 19G7

Transportation
right hon. Prime Minister and the premier of Quebec.
Now, we know that, in fact, for a hundred years now, the central government has left to the provinces legislation and regulation in the field of motor vehicle transport. Indeed, a federal act passed in 1954 even recognized the practice. This act entitled Motor Vehicle Transport Act confirmed this; sections 3 and 4 sanctioned the agreements whereby the central government left to the provinces legislation and regulation in that field.
Today, through Bill No. C-231, the central government wishes to recover its constitutional authority. That is clear to me. But what a way to go about it, Mr. Speaker. The province of Quebec has legislated, has instituted a system of rules and regulations, and now the federal government wishes to retrieve, with a view of placing them under the Canadian Transport Commission, the modes of transport by air, water, truck and pipeline as well as by motor vehicle.
The central government has a right to have such a philosophy, but its approach to the problem is to be rejected. After letting the provinces, including Quebec, legislate and regulate on the matter for so many years, the federal government, before bringing in such legislation, should have had discussions, and consultations, in the precise spirit of the letter that the right hon. Prime Minister wrote on August 4. Instead of making such meetings possible, of discussing for the very purpose of making this return, this recovery, possible and instead of negotiating certain areas on which the provinces have a right to continue to legislate, such as the issue of licenses, traffic control, in a word, several areas of the trucking field, the central government, by the way it proceeded, had its legislation all concocted at the time they wrote a letter, as a matter of form, to the premiers of the provinces.
Such a procedure is insulting, harmful, and does not contribute anything toward solving the problem uniformly or restoring proper balance in the trucking industry across Canada. Furthermore, the procedure is wrong and protests recently lodged by the Quebec government and the Quebec leader of the opposition are warranted; as a matter of fact, I think they should be repeated here in this house to show the government and the minister that it is not good procedure to put the cart before the horse.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Has the hon. gentleman taken into account that the Prime Minister in his correspondence and I in the house have said quite clearly, that the government had no intention whatsoever of transferring the application of this jurisdiction from the provincial agencies acting as agents of the federal government until after the fullest consultation with the provincial governments, that all we are doing here is providing stand-by powers in case certain actions of the courts leave us without any law whatsoever, as we were left without any law whatsoever in 1954? All this was carefully explained.
I wonder whether the hon. gentleman has taken those explanations into account? If he has, does he see any reason for this parliament not exercising its clear and undoubted jurisdiction, which he admitted it had?
[DOT] (1:30 p.m.)


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just made a point that cannot in any way be reconciled with the argument I was developing. Of course, the minister is repeating the same assurances that were given in the correspondence with the premier of the province of Quebec. Well, all the assurances given by this government are such that they are likely to cause concern to the Quebec government.
And how funny it was yesterday, in this house, to hear the Minister of Transport state, with the zest for which he is famous, that no member in this house was more mindful than he of the respect of the letter and spirit of the Canadian constitution. I found that statement extremely amusing, Mr. Speaker. And it is certainly not the kind of statement which the minister made yesterday and seems willing to repeat today which will dissolve all our fears about the letter and the spirit of the Canadian constitution which the minister and the present government are claiming to respect. As a matter of fact, that commitment is not borne out by the facts in this session or particularly during the last two years the present Liberal government has been in office. Mr. Speaker, the minister has assured us during this session that no other hon. member has more respect than he has for the spirit and the letter of the Canadian constitution, but he is a member of a government which has presented to us bills which are absolutely contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Canadian constitution.

January 27, 1967
Transportation
I am referring for instance to medicare, to the increase in old age pensions and the rest. In the field of mining, for instance, on the continental shelf, all sorts of tricks and means are being used, though natural resources clearly and explicitly belong to the provinces to take them away from provincial jurisdiction. In fact, the provinces are being hamstrung by dragging the question before a court which is not empowered to rule on constitutional matters in Canada.
They also have, in the course of the present session, through the establishment of a cultural centre, infringed upon the field of culture and education which is under the jurisdiction of the provinces according to the letter and the spirit of the Canadian constitution.
Here is a government and an hon. minister who have co-operated during this very session in scuttling and despoiling the spirit and the letter of the Canadian constitution. When the hon. minister rises, as he did yesterday and today and, with talent and charm I must say-because he is very charming- gives the hon. members in this house and specially the province of Quebec, the assurance that there are no grounds for anxiety, well then, I say that if we consider some legislation which this government has introduced during this and other sessions, for instance on school allowances, on student loans and also that political program of handing out scholarships to students, this is spoliation of the Canadian constitution, both in letter and in spirit. The assurance given by this government cannot dispel our anxiety in the province of Quebec as far as observance of the constitution.
And as to the provisions of the Canadian constitution that must be observed, in the field of transport, it is not so much the constitutional aspect as the method of the present government in putting the cart before the horses that we are discussing. It is the method that needs to be pointed out and criticized, for it is to be blamed for trying to face the provinces with the fait accompli while, for diplomatic reasons, they had been invited at the same time to meet the provinces to discuss and arrive at decisions knowing full well that all decisions had been arrived at and that the resolution and the bill had already been drafted and cooked up. This way of doing things, I feel, is unacceptable in the field of a well balanced relationship, in good faith and equality, each in his own area, between the

central government and the provincial governments.
I understand quite well the stand taken by the Minister of Transport who says that the federal government has jurisdiction under the constitution and judgments of the Privy Council. This is all very well, but before preparing his bill, he should have discussed the withdrawal and extension of the right to legislate of the provinces in certain fields of highway transport. It is just like in civil law, Mr. Speaker. Let us imagine that the minister, probably to play a trick on me, steals my car and puts it in his yard. I have no right then to go on his property with my friends to retrieve my car, because this would be a trespass under criminal law. In short, the car actually belongs to me, since I have the ownership and registration papers, but I cannot go on his property to retrieve it. What I must do, Mr. Speaker, as you know very well, is to send a summons preceding a seizure under a prior claim. The provisions of civil law are based on the honesty and intelligence of man, of the human being, from his adolescence. The basis of the law is the common sense and the sense of justice of human beings. That is how the federal government should proceed.
If it wants to take over the jurisdiction allotted to it by the constitution with regard to interprovincial, extraprovincial and international transport, I am not against it. I respect the constitutional powers of the central government as much as those of the provinces, but I object to this off-hand and insulting procedure. If it had only met with provincial representatives, especially those of the province of Quebec, in order to discuss and prepare this legislation, we would not be faced today with the situation whereby the Quebec government is asking for the removal of Part III of a bill prepared without consultation and discussion. The Quebec government is asking the minister to defer, to remove Part III from this bill, that is, from clause 28 to clause 36, precisely because in certain fields, the Quebec government has enacted regulations and passed pieces of legislation on which persons of good faith ought to agree.
Before taking over, in what I call an offhand manner, that constitutional authority, the minister should have given a formal notice. The funny part of it is that the Prime Minister gave such a notice in his first letter of August 4 to the provinces, asking them to meet in order to discuss all those problems.
January 27, 1967

But before sending that notice, he had already prepared his resolution and his bill without giving the provinces an opportunity to discuss the matter.
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)
Thus, this is absolutely superficial and did nothing but emphasize the tensions between the Quebec government and the central government, when it would be so easy during this centennial year to show less arrogance, less inclination to act unilaterally to get the Canadians, the governments closer together and to give Canadian federalism a real sense of balance, understanding and respect for one another, in short to act with more tact and intelligence.
I am not sure of it, because the letters do not mention it, but I think that the members of the Quebec legislature, even some Canadians, are worried also about that administrative monster which is being created through this Canadian Transport Commission which will in fact regulate the whole field of transportation in Canada.
Whether in the fields of air, sea and road transportation, it is giving much power to a transportation commission set up by the federal government because it will regulate means of transport including the trucking industry in Canada and in Quebec whereas the C.N.R. which operates a trucking service comes under the same creating body, the central government. The members of that commission will also be appointed by the central government.
This, Mr. Speaker, leads us to wonder if that national commission, that administrative monster, will be able directly or indirectly to administer with true objectivity the field of transportation in Canada.
It would have been important among other things, for the federal government to discuss those matters before presenting a bill already drafted.
Those are the various points I wanted to submit once again to the minister. I do not know whether I have convinced him. He shakes his head negatively. Obviously, he does not understand easily.
Mr. Speaker, I felt I had to report on these provisions contained in the correspondence between the Quebec government and the federal government, and even if the hon. minister cannot understand, even if he refuses to change his attitude, I think the time will come very soon when circumstances will force him and some of his colleagues to treat 23033-782
Transportation
the provinces differently, and particularly the province of Quebec.
Of course, I do not know whether the minister often has the opportunity to go to the province of Quebec and to stay there longer than five or six hours, which is the length of time a banquet lasts. However, if we have a summer recess-although we are beginning to despair-I advise him to spend a week in several places in the province of Quebec and to talk with people of different ages belonging to different classes of society. He would then find it much easier-and this goes for several members here-to understand the Quebec point of view and the respect of the spirit and letter of the Canadian constitution, because in fact the constitution is the tie that binds us to the rest of Canada. Past infringements upon the constitution and the constant spoliations which took place during the present session were not calculated to bind Quebec to the rest of the country.
On the contrary, such spoliations can only widen the gap between the province of Quebec and the rest of Canada. That is why I would very much appreciate it if the minister would change his attitude toward my remarks. I understand that we could get together and discuss the main issues; however, there were no such discussions between the federal government and the province of Quebec on matters covered by this bill. I would want him to realize that, in this as in many other fields, the province of Quebec is not trying to put grit in the bearings, on the contrary, it wants to create a new climate and work in a spirit of good will, understanding, comprehension, on a equal footing, each in its own sphere of jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, that is why, in closing, I would ask the minister to voluntarily remove Part III of this bill, discard or postpone it until he has met with the Quebec representative.
After such a discussion or dialogue, the whole of Part III could probably be approved, with some minor changes being made through amendments which he would perhaps gladly introduce himself.
If the minister would agree to do so, that is accede to the request of the Quebec government to postpone Part III of the bill, it could perhaps afford the unique occasion, in this Canadian Centennial year, to see finally each side abandon its rigid attitude and, in good faith, in a friendly and brotherly way, enter into an open, honest and fraternal dialogue, precisely to create a climate of good will and

January 27, 1967
Transportation
good faith in a field as important as transportation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: The hon. member for Matapedia-Matane.


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be agreeable to the house that we break now until 2.30 and resume the debate at that time.


Thomas Miller Bell: We agree, but I hope that the minister's colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), who has become quite an expert on parliamentary procedure outside the house, will not misunderstand this luncheon adjournment and say we are weakening and not doing our job, as he said in Halifax about our recess.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am weakening anyway.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it
agreed that we suspend our sitting until 2.30?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Consequently I do now leave the chair.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. The hon. Solicitor General.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I understand there has been the usual discussion about dispensing with the private members' hour today. In order that hon. members may govern themselves accordingly, I wonder whether it would meet the wish of the house that I ask for unanimous consent to dispense with the private members' hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, it will indeed be an easy task for me to join my congratulations to those which have already been offered to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) regarding the mastery with which he conducted this debate for the passage of Bill No. C-231, which represents one of the most complex and most useful pieces of legislation which parliament has had to study over a long period of time.

These compliments paid to the minister were not accompanied in certain quarters by the praise which he deserved in his case- having conducted the debate in a masterly fashion-especially as he introduced a bill which represents a worthwhile endeavour for the solution of a problem which Canada has been facing for a very long time, that of competition between the various means of transportation.
In this bill, the minister has to take into account certain definite objectives: First of all, to ensure to the Canadian people, as efficiently as possible, the best transport services.
Second, he had to consider financial problems involved specially in the field of railway transportation and, lastly, he had to take into consideration the legitimate interests of each part of the country.
How to reconcile, in the same piece of legislation, objectives that seemed to be clashing between the efficient services to be given to the people and the financial problems that were very real for the Canadian tax payers and, how to maintain the balance between the advantages that would result from the different methods of transportation available in each part of the country.
In order to reach this three-fold objective, the bill that was before us has set up three basic principles: the first is related to co-ordination. In order to reach this aim we had to agree that it was essential that each method of transportation in the country should not be considered in an isolated manner, but, compared with the others that can possibly be used. Hence, creation of a commission whose duty will be to coordinate the various sectors of transportation in the country, based on the three principles I just mentioned
The second method, established in this legislation, concerns competition. To provide for a greater efficiency of services and dispense the public sector from the great financial expenses it always assumed for the means of transportation, it was essential, within certain statutory frameworks to maintain competition between the various methods of transportation.
Third, a method of financial stability had to be established for each means of transportation.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Hence, three general goals, and this gave us Bill No. C-231 which, as has been said, is not a perfect bill, for it does not meet perfectly
January 27, 1967

any of the three objectives I mentioned, but which as in many other fields in the country, constitutes the most realistic compromise which could be established in the circumstances, taking into consideration the three objectives I mentioned, the best public service for the taxpayers who do not pay indefinitely unlimited expenses, and finally for the areas which, economically differ from one another, but could maintain themselves in a certain balance by compensatory transport rates.
We then have before us a bill which, in my opinion, will provide a great improvement in the means of transportation compared to what we have had until now. I think that the hon. minister is to be commended for the ability he has shown in piloting this bill. We should also congratulate him for the type of legislation he introduced in this house and, especially, for the new methods that will now be used in the field of transport.
But, Mr. Speaker, if I rise up now to take part in the debate on third reading, it is not to come back to the substance of this bill since many speeches have been made in committee and in this house; the members and public opinion are well informed about this transportation bill.
I would like especially to deal with a very important point raised several times during the debate and which was again brought to light by the publication this morning of the correspondence between the federal government and the Quebec government, concerning the responsibilities of each government concerning motor vehicle transportation. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) took part personally in the debate expressing his views on this problem of "federal and provincial jurisdictions".
My remarks will bear on two main points. The first, namely, the constitutionality of the government action in introducing this bill, and Part III which deals with interprovincial motor vehicle transportation. The second, the procedure followed by the government with regard to this bill.
Both the Quebec premier and the member for Sherbrooke have expressed doubts about the constitutionality of Bill C-231 in respect of interprovincial transport, and about the procedure followed by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the hon. Minister of Transport in presenting the bill to the house and about the discussions proposed to the Quebec government.
First, the problem of the constitutionality of Bill No. C-231. The right hon. Prime
23033-782i
Transportation
Minister, in his second letter to the premier of the province of Quebec, namely that of October 20, 1966, which was tabled today in this house, reminds the latter of the position taken by the government as regards the constitutional problem. In the second paragraph he says:
The provisions which are contained in Part III of the bill and which would make it possible for a federal government agency to engage in regulatory activity in the field of interprovincial commercial road transport, are fully in accordance with the exclusive constitutional jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. This has been established by court decision beyond all doubt, when it was ruled that a commercial motor carrier movement between provinces constituted an undertaking "connecting the province-
These words are quoted since they are taken from the 1954 judgment of the Privy Council.
-"connecting the province with another and extending beyond the limits of the province and therefore comes within the provisions of section 92(10) (a) and is solely within the jurisdiction of the Dominion".
Further on the Prime Minister pointed out that if agreements had been signed between the federal government and the provinces, so that they could establish regulations within their own territory as to motor vehicles coming under their "jurisdiction", those provinces had done so only under powers delegated by the central government to the provinces, but this could never have meant relinquishing under the constitution itself the rights belonging to the federal government as regards the control of highway transport between provinces or between this country and other countries.
What was pointed out in the first letter addressed by the Prime Minister of Canada to the premiers of the provinces, on August 4, 1966, was the advisability of discussions, not in order to establish the federal government's constitutional rights to legislate in the matter, since those rights were already very clearly established in the constitution and had been reaffirmed by a judgment of the Privy Council, but so as to allow, at the official level, a discussion on the application of federal regulations that might arise out of the legislation contemplated at that time.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the federal government did not want to discuss with the provincial premiers its constitutional right to introduce a bill before the house to regulate motor vehicles crossing provincial boundaries, but to establish a working agreement at the departmental level, for the efficient enforcement of federal and provincial regulations in

January 27, 19G7
Transportation
the respective field of jurisdiction of each authority, as referred to by the Prime Minister in his letter, dated August 4. The object of the letter was to provide harmonious application of regulations which would be determined by the federal government on the one hand, and by provincial authorities on the other.
It therefore was not a question of holding discussions with provincial authorities, as the premier of the province of Quebec seemed to imply. Provincial authorities were not going to be asked to grant the federal government permission to insert Part III in its bill, which clearly establishes or reasserts rather, the constitutional rights of the federal government with respect to interprovincial highway transportation. It is unfortunate that the letter dated November 15, 1966, sent by the premier of Quebec to the Prime Minister of Canada reveals the Quebec government leader's complete ignorance of the problem referred to in the Canadian government leader's previous two letters. On November 15, 1966, the premier of the province of Quebec wrote the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada, and I quote:
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Under the circumstances, I do not see to what purpose officials of our two governments could meet to discuss co-operation. Your government seems determined to follow the policy it has established in this field as in others, regardless of the provinces' views. What good could there be in holding repeated meetings that would lead nowhere?
This letter dated November 15, 1966, written by the Quebec premier, lays down conditions which, in my opinion, no decent Canadian government can possibly accept; neither are they acceptable to the House of Commons, which is made up of representatives from all parts of the country, appointed to legislate in fields which under the constitution come within federal jurisdiction.
At no time, Mr. Speaker, did we in the Liberal party show any reluctance, and I was happy, then, to be associated with that party as a member of the government. At no time would we have refused any province whatsoever the right to exercise its rights in the fields which the constitution placed under its jurisdiction.
The same is true with regard to joint programs, where we made our biggest effort towards decentralization. Why? We did that because we recognized that the province had a very clear jurisdiction over those matters. We had initiated legislation, we had administered those fields for several years. If a province

made known its desire to exercise its own jurisdiction over that field from then on, we were quite pleased to agree to withdraw from such field and to grant fiscal compensation in exchange.
But to those who could understand, at the time, that the recognition in fact of the Canadian constitution, in fields under provincial jurisdiction, of that basic position, did that mean that, in all fields where we had until then exercised our jurisdiction, under our constitutional rights, if a premier of a province-be it the province of Quebec -wrote to tell us to withdraw, that we would do just that?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party, which has been for co-operation in the federal field, is the same Liberal party that will not agree to relinquish the rights conferred upon it by the constitution, at a time where a provincial premier, in a letter, expresses doubts about the constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


René Tremblay: The Privy Council performed the function of a constitutional court for a long time; handing over its responsibility to the Supreme Court provoked a great deal of comments. I know that many people have suggested the creation of a constitutional board so that an independent body, at the level of the provincial and federal governments, would rule on the constitutionality of bills. It is an open question and anybody is entitled to his own opinion.
But, Mr. Speaker, until this new constitutional board is created, it is essential that, at both federal and provincial levels, the authority of the highest constitutional court in the land, that is the Supreme Court, be respected. If any doubts arise in the minds of provincial officials concerning the constitutional right of the federal government to legislate in any field, the only acceptable procedure to follow is to refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada.
But until a judgment is rendered, any provincial government can introduce any bill which in its opinion, relates to its constitutional rights, just as, on the other hand, the federal parliament, on the government's initiative, can draw up or prepare any bill which, in its opinion, comes within its rights under the constitution. And the only impartial judge is the present or future board; but it cannot be any political authority, either federal or provincial.
January 27, 1967

Mr. Speaker undoubtedly the federal government, in this instance, both under the constitution and by virtue of a judgment by the Privy Council, had the authority to legislate on part III of Bill No. C-231. Undoubtedly, problems will be raised following the enforcement of that part and the right hon. Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport recognized that fact by stating positively that that part would not be enforced as long as discussions had not been held with the provinces.
But, it would not have been proper for this government at any time to have discussions with one province in particular to see whether it could go ahead and introduce in this house a bill whose subject matter, undoubtedly in my opinion, comes within its jurisdiction.
Mr. Chairman, it is because this position is quite clear constitutionally, and because of very serious problems of administration and implementation of that policy, that the right hon. Prime Minister on August 4, wrote to the provincial premiers. I come now to the second part, which was questioned by the hon. member for Sherbrooke namely the procedure followed.
The Quebec premier, as the hon. member for Sherbrooke, seemed to indicate in their statements that the right hon. Prime Minister had acted improperly or with a lack of consideration for the Quebec premier in that respect.
In the light of the statement I have just made, it seems quite obvious, now, that the procedure followed was the normal procedure.
In a letter dated October 4, addressed to all the Canadian provincial premiers, the right hon. Prime Minister said that it would be desirable for discussions to be held at the official level with regard to the implementation of certain parts of a transport bill dealing with problems of interprovincial highway traffic. Therefore, it is not the beginning of a constitutional discussion but simply preliminary negotiations which seem essential to the implementation of Bill No. C-231.
We do not know the answers from the other provincial premiers, but the position of the Quebec premier is, from the start, a stand on principle. After reading those letters it seems that the Quebec premier questioned again the constitutional problem itself, or even the propriety for the federal government to legislate and enforce regulations in the
Transportation
field of road transport moving between the provinces, especially with regard to traffic safety.
The sentence I read in the letter dated November 15, 1966, addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada by the premier of Quebec seems very clear in that regard. It seems that the Quebec premier, not having prevented the government from introducing its legislation, including part III, on interprovincial transportation, says: Now that no co-operation is possible, that a meeting of our officials would be useless and that you will proceed unilaterally.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Well, I think this stand taken by the Quebec premier is, in my opinion, unsound on the constitutional level and deplorable from the standpoint of federal-provincial relations. In fact, the present government, after having worked for many years on decentralization in fields where the provinces had an explicit jurisdiction, exerts in a unilateral way, as it is normal-the provinces do the same in their field-its jurisdiction in the field of transportation, and calls upon the co-operation of the provinces for its application.
And now one of those premiers is denying his co-operation, because he has not been asked his advice and because he considers the bill as being an encroachment upon provincial rights.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that the procedure followed by this government was the only one consistant with the responsibility which it must assume on behalf of the Canadian people and all the provinces in a field within its jurisdiction, in order to emphasize the fact that if some co-operation must exist between the provincial and federal governments, that co-operation should never reach the point where it would be understood as being a surrender of the responsibilities entrusted with this parliament and this government under the constitution.
Therefore this procedure was normal and constitutional; second, it was wise, for all the provinces were asked to co-operate before the implementation of this part of Bill C-231.
The attitude taken by the premier of the province of Quebec was most unfortunate. The last letter from the Prime Minister of Canada in this correspondence was dated December 7, 1966. It left another door open, for in it the Prime Minister said that it was unfortunate that the government of the province of Quebec had not agreed to choose

January 27, 1967
Transportation
officials to whom it would explain the implementation of Part III of Bill C-231, but he hoped nevertheless that the premier of Quebec would change his mind and agree to co-operate.
If I had to make a wish, Mr. Speaker, I would wish that the premier of Quebec, who has just assumed a heavy responsibility and who must govern Quebec alone and during a very difficult period, would see future discussions between his government and the federal government in the light of mutual respect of fields of jurisdiction. This goes for us as much as for him. I would also wish he would remember that what the Canadian people in Quebec and in all the other provinces want is efficiency from every level of government in its own sector. They want constant co-operation between these levels of government because no modern policy can be implemented efficiently in isolated cases and without cooperation between all levels of government. If the premier of the province of Quebec would change his mind on this subject, I think he would serve the interests the population of all the other provinces which I am sure supported the efforts of the present government to promote decentralization in fields under provincial jurisdiction. This includes all the joint plans. In any case, the Canadian people will not allow the present or any other government to abandon its responsibilities in sectors which are vital to a prosperous country.
I hope the premier of Quebec will understand that if he is concerned with the interests of the people he governs, we as representatives of the people of Quebec on the federal level, do not intend to betray the interests of these people nor those of all the other Canadians.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the previous speaker, the former postmaster general, on a well informed address. I hope I will not be misunderstood when I say that I detect some similarity between his speech and activities and the methods which brought about the return to the cabinet of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gordon). In other words, it might be said that he is also preaching for a recall.
I seldom intervene during third reading and I will try not to take advantage of the fact that the minister cannot reply to anything that I say at this stage of the debate.

My remarks are somewhat similar to those of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). They will not be quite as laudatory as some that have been made. Last night we seemed to form quite a happy mutual admiration society and the minister continued that trend today. It almost sounded to me like a swan song.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will leave that to the hon.
gentleman's leader.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am one of
those who predicted in the first instance that the minister might be leaving transport. But I am confused; I cannot figure out where he will be going if he is leaving. The other night when we were talking about the review of transportation in the maritimes the minister forgot himself in the heat of the debate and said that this will be up to another minister of transport. This is on the record.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was looking to the
decades ahead.


Thomas Miller Bell: If that is so then the minister fell into the trap. In other words, the review of transportation in the maritimes will take place some decades in the future, and that is just the point that I was trying to make. The minister cannot have it both ways. The review was supposed to take place in a year or two whether or not the minister leaves before that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He might become chairman of the commission.


Thomas Miller Bell: My other comment, which is in a similar vein, is that if there is anything which helped the bill to pass it is the fervent prayer to which the minister kept referring, particularly last night. This may be a lesson which he should pass on to some of his colleagues, for instance, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). His prayers seem to have worked.


Mr. Pugh:: He is a wolf in sheep's clothing.


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not know whether the minister is a wolf in sheep's clothing, as has been said by an hon. member over here, but some credit is due in regard to this legislation and I do not think that we as members of parliament should try to take too much credit for carrying out our duties. I believe that we should pay tribute to the civil servants and officials for their perseverance and, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South
January 27, 1967



Centre said, our parliamentary process can also be praised. Perhaps the minister could take aside his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), when the latter returns from his wanderings and preaching outside the house about activities here, to tell him that there are some things in the parliamentary process which are working.
With reference to the amendments to the bill which have been mentioned by other speakers let me say that I was amazed at their number. I do not know how many there were but there must have been well over a hundred. It seemed to me that the minister had an amendment for everybody who made a speech and the tougher the speech the bigger the amendment was. Nevertheless, not all of this is bad.
Reference has been made to the reporting of this debate by the news media. I agree with what has been said. I think that the newspapers in the maritimes and western Canada rose to the occasion after their interest was provoked and did their job well but the national newspapers in central Canada, which are now being sold in the extremities of the country and are bragging about their great influence and position in Canadian affairs, should smarten up. They have not devoted much time or space to this important subject and the reason for this can only be that either they are too lazy or too busy to write about this legislation which is so beneficial to central Canada or they are embarrassed even to mention it. I am not enthusiastic about the manner in which they have reported this subject which is of national importance. If mention is made of "bunny girls" in parliament, word is flashed across the country and headlines are made, but if a speech is made about a serious matter, something with which we will have to live for the next 50 years, our friends in the press gallery say that there is no news value in it.
Having said that I will now make quick reference to four points. So far as the 17-man transport commission is concerned, we are in favour of it. As many of our members have said, it is a big board. We are worried about its bureaucratic nature but we hope it will simplify the methods of dealing with our transportation problems.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The minister made a great case of the amendment moved last night by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), with reference to the minister employing experts
Transportation
to attend commission hearings on his behalf. I do not think this is a very important matter; to me it is of minor significance. I believe that the minister would have done so anyway whether or not it was provided for in the bill.
I also think he is trying to imply that the government and the cabinet are removed from the commission. But, Mr. Speaker, there will still be politics involved in the transportation commission. We cannot divorce it from politics and I am not sure that we should. I was one who favoured this watchdog amendment that was brought forward, but one of the worries I had was that it attempted to take politics out of transportation, and you cannot do that. I am not talking only of party politics but also of regional politics. The minister has made speeches about this question and I think he knows what I mean.
We are in favour of this commission, Mr. Speaker, and hope that it will do a good job. We have confidence in the members of the commission. We do not think that they needed all the directions that we gave them, but some of the words we inserted in different clauses will be of help to them and will give them an idea of the way we were thinking.
Second, may I say that I feel that not enough attention was given to the brief which was submitted by the representatives of the province of Manitoba. It was an excellent brief and I hope it will be remembered by those interested in transportation for years to come. It was a massive brief; it was thorough and in my opinion all-Canadian. It dealt with the position of the maritimes, the west, the early days of our history and the obligations which were incurred when promises were made under confederation.
One of the things which impressed me about it and which I looked up again this morning was that the brief pointed out that the old seaway canal system which was constructed early in our history was valued in those days at a sum in the vicinity of $250 million. When the $300 million-odd spent on the St. Lawrence seaway is added this means that over $500 million has been invested in the waterways system of central Canada. This indicates, of course, that transportation is not all one-sided; it does not have to be paid for in that instance too.
The Crow rates have been mentioned and I cannot improve upon what has been said about them. Hon. members have chided the minister in his humiliation and have said they hope he has learned his lesson. I can only say that I have always been aware of the importance of the Crow rates to western Canada.

January 27. 1967
Transportation
However, I did not realize their significance until one day an hon. member was speaking in this chamber and referred, I believe, to the religious significance of the Crowsnest pass rates, at which he drew probably the biggest hand of any of the members who took part in the debate. So in view of this spiritual comparison in regard to the Crowsnest pass rates I do not believe that the minister or anybody else had better start thinking about changing them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suppose what the hon. member is trying to say is that the minister had to eat crow.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am glad the minister is in a good humour; I think this is because he sees an end to the legislation.
I also think we should recognize that in its brief the Canadian Pacific Railway pointed out very forcibly that there was, if I may use its words, a shortfall of revenue from the Crow rates, and it demanded reimbursement from the government. This was probably the main contention of the brief. It is quite right that we did have a battle on this issue, which has now been resolved.
We tend to make the railways, particularly the C.P.R., whipping boys in legislation of this nature, and I for one do not want to be misunderstood in this regard. I am very proud of the C.P.R. as a private enterprise Canadian institution. I do not agree with the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) who has attacked the C.P.R. and its policies many times. I am not saying that everything it does is right, but when I do say something that appears to be critical of the company in instances such as those we have discussed it is because of the relationship of the C.P.R. to the government and because of my responsibility as a member of parliament in regard to this relationship as it affects certain of their activities, though not all of them.
The big issue put forward by the province of Manitoba-I mentioned it half a dozen times to the minister but never really got any satisfaction-concerned the proposed section 336 and the lack of any limit on the rates, particularly those applicable to bulk commodities. The representatives of the government of Manitoba pointed out that in their opinion there would not be any economies from heavier loading of bulk commodities. They further pointed out that the relationship of the contribution of such loads to the total variable cost was out of line with the surveys they had taken, with waybill analysis, and the like.

I mentioned that in its many briefs to the committee, particularly with respect to passenger service, the C.P.R. referred a great deal to its responsibility as a private enterprise development company in Canada and to how it must not misuse our resources. The brief pointed out that it should not be compelled to continue to provide passenger service when it was uneconomical and unreasonable to do so. I say that this is right and I agree with the C.P.R. on this as a general proposition. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I throw back to them the point that, in the case of large bulk commodity shipments there might be such misal-location or misuse of resources. I would also point out that in the province of Saskatchewan rates on potash and the like might go sky high. The industry might be able to survive for a while, but there would not be any declaration as a captive shipper and the money required to meet other competition later would have to be derived from the economy of the west, from labour reassessment, and the like. I think that is an important point and it was one of the main contentions put forward by the province of Manitoba.
My third point, as you may have guessed, Mr. Speaker, concerns the maritimes and what we have been able to accomplish for that region of Canada. Let me tell the minister I am not happy with the treatment given to the maritimes by this legislation. I think there has been a whittling away of our position, such as it is. We are anxiously waiting for the completion of the transportation survey, to which I alluded at the beginning of my remarks, and we hope and pray that something good will come out of it. In the meantime we have been forced to fight a tough rearguard action to hold on to what little protection we do have in this legislation.
It will only take me a moment or two to try to summarize the other matters which were dealt with. The minister, and I give him credit, after three amendments had been moved followed through on the matter of flour and I think we do at least have the same protection on flour shipments from eastern Canadian ports that we formerly had. In clause 59, which was amended during the latter stages of consideration of the bill, there is the phrase "to route traffic through Canadian seaports". This could be of some benefit to us.
Clauses 1 and 16 were also amended and contain the phrase "undue obstacle to the movement of commodities through Canadian ports". These were the two substantial
January 27, 1967

amendments that we feel, if interpreted generously and wisely, will give the ports the protection they already have but no more. Let us be clear about that. We are not getting anything more; we are simply holding our own. The compensatory rule in section 334 still causes apprehension. The minister, in a statement which I will not repeat, excluded the compensatory rule from the changes within the present law. That sort of thing may be all right.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Referring again to clause 1, I brought up the original proposal by the Maritimes Transportation Commission which has the effect of preserving any sort of statutory protection or rate now in existence. Unless I have misunderstood, it means that any future minister or government seeking to change the legislation cannot do away with the Maritime Freight Rates Act unless parliament agrees. In other words, there is a binding precedent that the change ought not to be made unless everybody agrees to it. In this respect the situation is not too bad. I have misplaced a quotation and will not subject the house to it. It is to the effect that the maritime provinces do not think this bill good or bad but that we are apprehensive about it.
The fourth point has to do with the position that we take as a party. I have said that we approve of the super board, though we fear it. The watchdog committee was turned down. It may be that the right men in the right places will make the board work. Perhaps our transportation problems can be considered in their entirety by this board. However, the whole legislation is an invitation to raise freight rates in the east and west. Like it or not, we are at the mercy of the railway companies. I refer to the year-end report of Mr. Donald Gordon, now engaged in another type of activity, in which he said:
While the legislation is not likely to provide any immediate financial benefits to the railways, it will when enacted remove outmoded restrictions and regulations which have hampered them in the past and place upon them the responsibility of paying their way in a highly competitive situation.
The situation is wide open, unless I interpret that statement wrongly. Yet I remember Mr. Gordon saying in Moncton and Saint John, "Do not worry about freight rates." As surely as I stand here, within a few months freight rates will go up. This will create further pressure on our financial system and will be highly inflationary. The $100 million will have to come from somewhere. I am pleased
Transportation
to see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) sitting in the house. Perhaps he can discuss the matter with the Minister without Portfolio from Toronto. As I say, these increases will impose extra burdens on our highly inflated economy.
No matter what anybody says, we have tight money in the maritimes. Higher freight rates will hit us hard. What will happen to us I do not know. I suppose the only thing to do is what the minister did last night, pray and hope that the new legislation, this pig in a poke, sight unseen-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, for the hon. member to suggest after all these days that this legislation is sight unseen is to misrepresent all that has happened, including the participation of the hon. gentleman himself and the good work we have done here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, the sight unseen reference has to do with the report relating to the maritime provinces which we are awaiting. In closing my remarks let me say that we have been asked to pass legislation that actually does not affect us except that there will be a deterioration of the maritimes' position because of this bill. But we are asked to go along with it as good Canadians, as we were asked to go along with the seaway and many other things. The inference is that, if we are good boys, in two or three years the government will get around to acting on the new transportation report and we may get something then.
As one maritimer to another-I should say, as one maritimer to a pseudo-maritimer-I can tell the minister that this bill is not going over very well in the maritimes. That is why I cannot support the legislation. The government has to live with it but I for one will be able to say, "I told you so."


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few brief remarks at the conclusion of this constructive and cooperative debate. I rise particularly to correct the remarks of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt) last evening affecting the application of the principle of the bill. I am pleased that the hon. gentleman is in the house; I was astounded by what he said because he is a doctor of economics.
Other members of other parties have expressed misgivings about certain aspects of the bill. I think there is no question that as the result of experience over a period of time

January 27, 1967
Transportation
there will be considerable amendments to the policy enunciated in this bill. I am sure also that all shippers, whether producers or not, will watch with great interest the administration of the policy embodied in the bill and the administrative changes related to the bill. We shall be referring to this matter when a report is made to the house from year to year.
As I said before, I rise particularly to deal with my good friend from Macleod.


Mr. Kindt:: Good.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As found on page 12299 of Hansard the hon. member is recorded as saying:
I am quite familiar with the facts which the hon. member for Kootenay West has given. I am aware also of the representations of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. Let me say that federation, in turn, represents some small fruit farmers and the others in British Columbia. I represent 6,000 wheat farmers and I am protecting the interests of the wheat farmers of Alberta.
I now bring to the hon. gentleman's attention something contained in the minutes and proceedings of the standing committee on transport and communications of October 17, 1966. The representative of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture made representations. As found on page 1874 of the committee report Mr. L. A. Currie, chairman of the feed and grain committee, said:
Gentlemen:
We appear before you today to suggest ways in which legislation regarding railfreight rates and freight assistance on feed grains can be improved to the benefit of both the farmers of British Columbia and the government of Canada.
We represent the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, which organization's over 14,000 members contains practically 100 per cent of the farmers and farm organizations purchasing and growing feed grains in the province of B.C.


Mr. Patterson:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very glad to have the endorsement of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson). He knows that, as is usual in my observations in this house, what I am saying is strictly the truth. In this connection I have some agricultural statistics published by the Social Credit government of British Columbia, which will prove the point I am making. I want to say that never once have I found anything wrong with their regular statistics published in connection with production in the province. The only time I have had reason to doubt their statistics was when they concerned the cost of the Columbia treaty projects. This is what it says,

here, under the heading "Agricultural Statistics, 1965":
Estimated Cash Receipts from the Sale of Farm Products, 1964-1965:
Wheat, oats, barley, flaxseed, potatoes, fruit, vegetables, other crops	$ 48,751,000
Cattle and calves, hogs, sheep and lambs, dairy products, poultry, eggs, other livestock and products	$109,433,000
So the total estimated receipt for farm products in 1965-the last year for which I have the figures-is $158,184,000.
In the light of these figures which I have given at the request of people connected with the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture, I am sure the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt), with his usual courtesy, will willingly retract the statement he made last night, a statement which was widely misunderstood in British Columbia.
The British Columbia Federation of Agriculture is pleased that the minister has seen fit to include in this bill provision for a study of freight rates paid for the carriage of grain used by producers in British Columbia. They welcome it and look forward to having the opportunity to present their views to the commission when it considers this question. This is all I have to say now. I am looking forward to hearing a few remarks by the hon. member for Macleod.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I am
most happy to have an opportunity to say a few words in response to the statements which have been made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). I would not for one moment wish to take away any political advantage from him. He felt at liberty to bring in the views of the Federation of Agriculture and point out that the federation had 14,000 members, compared with the 6,000 big farmers in my riding who are raising wheat. I have no quarrel with the comparison. I do not even complain that the hon. member for Kootenay West felt unwilling to confine the comparison to his own riding in which, I happen to know, there are a large number of small chicken farmers-people who raise chickens and who buy Alberta wheat in order to feed those chickens. I have nothing against that.
I would not mind what he said in any way, had he confined his remarks to his own riding. I have every sympathy for his chicken farmers and fruit farmers who raise a few chickens and want wheat from the prairies. I have no objection to that. I have no objection to their wanting our wheat. In fact I am very
January 27, 1967

pleased they are buying Alberta wheat in order to feed their chickens.
The point I was making was an entirely different one. Let me put it on the proper basis so that the hon. member's chicken farmers will not feel offended. I was saying that under this bill a study is being made of Crowsnest pass rates to British Columbia for the purpose of comparing those rates with other freight rates, so that interested people can point a Anger at the level of the Crowsnest rates. My remarks centred on the fact that this device is a springboard for a study to be made, in the course of which it will be shown that the Crowsnest pass rates are extremely low. It will also be pointed out, through publicity, that somebody is subsidizing the farmers in my riding and elsewhere who ship their grain at the Crowsnest rates. This is what we do not want to happen. This is why we do not want a study made. This is what we say may take place following such a study. I was cautioning the minister against having such a study made. If only a comparison of rates is involved, what would be the need for an elaborate study? The rate under the Crowsnest pass agreement is in the neighbourhood of 22 cents, and anyone can get on the telephone and And out what the rates are on grain to feed those chickens about which the hon. member for Kootenay West is talking.
The matter goes much deeper than that. Hon. members opposite intend to use this study as a device for bringing back the baby which was thrown out with the bathwater, when their amendment on this subject was defeated. The minister has told us that no costs will be shown. I hope he adheres to that undertaking, because if he does not I will be the Arst to call his attention to the fact that he has dragged in all these other matters which we feel should not have been brought in.
It was with these things in mind that I felt it necessary to rise the other day and make the observations I did. I still feel I was jus-tiAed in doing so. I do not want to offend the hon. member for Kootenay West, because he is a good friend of mine, but I just wanted to set the record straight.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: I want to say in as few words as possible that it is still difficult to decide how to receive this legislation and, in the end, how to vote in regard to it. There are as many facets to this bill as there are clauses; in fact, there are more. I
Transportation
want to say to the minister and his supporters that some of the features of this legislation are commendable and can be accepted and praised; but there are others which, to put it mildly, are very difficult to accept. In fact I would say, as I have said on repeated occasions, that some of the assumptions upon which this legislation is based are ill-conceived. Clause 1, which sets the tone for the rest of the bill, is based on assumptions that in Canada today there exists sufficient transportation competition that we can rely on competition as a natural regulator or protector of the public interest, and protector of the users of transportation services. Insufficient evidence has been given to warrant that kind of assumption.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
It may well be that in some parts of the country, where population density and industrial activity are high, there is sufficient competition in transport to warrant greater reliance on that factor than we have been able to place upon it in the past; but this is not the case with regard to vast areas and regions.
In speaking to this bill the minister has expressed an excessive degree of solicitude for the railways, especially in view of the fact that their revenue and earnings position is improving, and is likely to improve in the foreseeable future. As the population of our country grows and productivity increases, the railways will be in a much better revenue and earnings position. Therefore it is unnecessary to express the kind of solicitude for them that we have done in this legislation, which gives them ample opportunity to apply to the public treasury for support, when they perform a particular service as a matter of public policy and do not earn enough money performing it to satisfy them.
The minister is to be commended for agreeing to amendments to several clauses, amendments which have improved the bill. The legislation contains certain features that are an improvement over existing statutes which deal with transportation, but there are still objectionable features in it. This underlines the problem which many hon. members face in deciding how to vote on a bill which contains many commendable clauses as well as some that are objectionable.
This bill's provisions with respect to maximum rate control were objectionable from the start. The minister refused to agree to some amendments that were offered and, as a

January 27, 1967
Transportation
result, the bill still contains a kind of maximum rate control provision which is meaningless and a denial of common sense. This provision allows the railways a huge mark-up to the extent of 300 per cent or 400 per cent on the haulage of bulk goods, something which has been pointed out not only by hon. members but by hired transportation experts. I, and many other hon. members, simply cannot support such a provision.
The difficulty we have in this regard is compounded by the fact that we were denied access to information which, in our opinion, could have helped us to make an evaluation in depth. As a result our evaluation has really been superficial. We did not have all the necessary statistical material.
Whether it is intended or not, one of the most damning aspects of this legislation will be its effect on the economy of natural resources generating regions which are areas that produce primary products. Western Canada, northwestern Ontario and the mari-times, all areas which produce natural resources in the raw state, commodities and goods which, to use the jargon of the industry, are heavy loading, will be penalized or adversely affected by this legislation. Of course the legislation will take effect on a transitional basis, but once it is fully in force it will have a deleterious effect on the economies of the regions I have mentioned.
With respect to the debate which lasted for a few days on what the minister intended by the proposed new section 329, I wish to say that I voted for the amendment to delete that new section because I felt its net effect over a period of years would be a subversion of the Crowsnest pass rates. But I do no want to associate myself with anyone who may have ventured the opinion that the minister, by design, was attempting to subvert those rates. All his assurances were certainly to the contrary, and as originally worded the provision could not possibly be interpreted to have that design.
However, an incidental effect of it might have been that over a period of years, if a study showed that these rates caused a loss to the railways which had to be made up by public subsidy, there would have been growing public pressure on the government to do away with them. There was some logic in the arguments on both sides of the question, but in fairness I should say I could not find any specific intention on the part of the minister to tamper with the rates to the end of eliminating them.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, a lot will depend on the calibre of the persons appointed to the new Transport Commission. We take it for granted that they will be selected on the basis of competence and experience in the transportation field, but much will depend upon them because of the considerable amount of discretionary power granted to them by this bill.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
With regard to the clause of the bill which deals with branch line abandonments and railway rationalization I feel rather strongly that the commission is in a position to save and protect the economic and social interests of the residents of western Canada if the commission chooses-and I assume it would -to exercise the authority it has with full regard for the social and economic aspects of a community when a main artery of transportation is abandoned. I persuaded the minister, his colleagues, and other members of the house, to accept an amendment which will give the commission specific terms of reference so that when applications for abandonment are being considered it also will have authority to make recommendations to local governments, provincial governments and the governor in council if there should be increased costs in respect of road building. In this case the commission would have authority to recommend to the federal authority or any authority concerning the way in which this extra cost can best be shared when provision is being made for new and alternative transportation services by way of highways, and so on.
By this amendment the commission also has authority to take into consideration the extra cost of production to farmers, and the losses in respect of investment. It has authority to make appropriate recommendations to the governor in council or any appropriate authority concerning how best to deal with these problems of increased cost of production, and other problems. So in my opinion, in many clauses in this bill the commission is given the necessary authority and scope. I hope, as I believe all hon. members do, that over the years it will exercise this authority in prudence and with the best judgment.


Mr. Raymond Rock (Jacques Cartier-Lasalle):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on third reading of Bill C-231, particularly in respect of clause 78 concerning the grade crossing fund, I should like to say that on December 20 and January 9 I asked the minister certain
January 27, 1967

questions. I asked him to study an amendment which I had brought forward concerning clause 78. I should like the minister to tell me whether this type of clause would have been accepted. Also, does the government intend to vote any supplementary amount to the grade crossing fund in the event that it should be depleted during the fiscal year? I wonder whether it would be possible to give the new commission sufficient power to initiate a plan to eliminate grade crossings, so that we would not be faced with the necessity of waiting for the roads department of a province or a municipality to take action.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Lawless, director general of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, has asked the minister that a meeting be held in the future concerning changes which might be made to the grade crossing fund, which I believe has been inadequate since 1958. I should like to ask whether the minister could explain what protection there is in respect of the commuter service under this new legislation vis-a-vis abandoned railroad tracks.
I wonder whether the minister in his concluding remarks would be able to answer some of these questions?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, which perhaps is not a genuine question of privilege, you might allow me to say how glad all of us are to have the hon. member for Jacques Cartier-Lasalle back after his lengthy illness, which prevented his taking the same part in the work of the committee of the whole that he did during the hearings of the committee on transport and communications, when he was most helpful. Unfortunately under the rules I am not allowed to speak, but I will personally give the hon. member an answer to his questions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I shall detain the house only a few minutes. I rise to speak not on any matter of substance in respect of this bill but rather with regard to a matter of form. Were I to speak to a matter of substance, the minister probably would guess that it would have to do with the pensions of retired employees of the Canadian National Railways and the pension arrangements of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Frankly I do not see how I could relate these subjects to this legislation. I plan, however, to raise these matters again on another occasion.
The point of form to which I should like to draw attention has to do with the set-up of
Division
the bill on page 2. In the middle of that page in capital letters there is a heading and then a subheading in small capital letters which reads:
PART i.



CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION.

[Stage Direction]
I should like to suggest that that heading and subheading are in the wrong place. The way it is now it would appear that clause 2, namely the title, and then the clauses relating to interpretation and application, relate only to Part I of the bill. The fact is that the title and the interpretation and application clauses refer to the entire bill, not just to Part I. I contend therefore that the heading, "Part I, Canadian Transport Commission" ought to appear after clause 5. In other words I suggest it should appear just above the subheading in italics, "Constitution of Commission". Even if we were in committee of the whole I am not sure whether this would be a proper amendment. I suspect it is simply a matter of adjusting the lay-out of the pages. It may be that this is a situation in respect of which the parliamentary counsel could make the necessary adjustment when he prepares this bill, after it is finally passed, for its final printing by the Queen's Printer. I simply bring this to the attention of the house in the hope that this matter of a change in the form might be made so that if the bill does pass it will appear in a sensible form so far as this part of it is concerned.
Mr. Fulion:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson).


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MacRae:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith).


Mr. McCulcheon:: I was paired, Mr. Speaker. Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Speaker, I wish at this time to protest at the shortness of the time allowed for hon. members to come to the chamber from their offices. When the bell began to ring I was engaged in a long distance telephone call from Europe. By the time I had finished that call the bell had ceased to ring. I do not think a proper opportunity was given at this time for hon. members to respond to the bell.


Mr. Scott (Victoria (Ont.)):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Southam:: Mr. Speaker, in regard to what the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Alkenbrack) said, I also found it impossible to make it over here with such a short bell.



INTERPRETATION ACT


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: moved the second reading of Bill No. S-9, to revise and consolidate the Interpretation Act and amendments thereto, and to effect certain consequential amendments to the Canada Evidence Act and the Bills of Exchange Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Because of the largely technical nature of the bill it was my intention and that of my department to send it to the committee on justice and legal affairs. This was the procedure that was followed in the other place. Since this is a very technical bill I think that the time of the house would be saved if we could send the bill to that committee and I would ask the consent of the committee to do just that.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Munro:: I was paired, Mr. Speaker. Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. McLean (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
[Mr. Knowles.)


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, the course suggested by the minister is one which would certainly meet with approval on this side, particularly in the light of the very strong article which appeared in the December issue of the Canadian Bar Review written by a very distinguished counsel, Gordon F. Maclaren, Q.C. an article which I think requires study. Such a study can only be given by a standing committee of the
January 27, 1967

house. We would certainly be agreeable to this committee rising and reporting progress and we would suggest that a motion be presented then to commit the bill to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs.


The Chairman:: Is that course agreeable to the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the subject matter of Bill S-9 be referred to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: the second reading of Bill No. C-204, for the establishment of a Canadian Film Development Corporation.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, if the minister would like to make a few remarks I would be quite willing to defer to her, but it is my understanding that she would rather wait and perhaps make her remarks later on. It is an unusual situation to find the Secretary of State speechless. However I will take advantage of that situation and make a few remarks on what I believe to be a very important bill.
I have been very disappointed by the fact that the government has seen fit to let this particular item languish on the order paper for such a long period of time. Indeed it could be said that not only has it languished on the order paper for a long period of time but it has languished in the area of political promise for a long time. We have now reached the stage at which we were three years ago when the minister's predecessor promised in somewhat specific terms that a new corporation would be set up, the responsibilities of which would be to encourage a feature film industry in this country and to which, I think, an initial sum of $10 million would be granted. That was in 1964, and here we are in 1967 finally coming to grips with this matter.
It may seem perhaps to many hon. members in the house and to many people across the country that whether or not a feature film industry is established in Canada is not a matter of terribly pressing concern. After all,
Development of Film Industry we can leave the chamber at this very moment and go down into the heart of the city where we can find half a dozen places where feature films are shown. I could even tell you the names of three or four of the films that are showing at present, being myself a feature film fan. We might think that there is no pressing need for the establishment of a feature film industry and in particular for the government to take an interest in this question. However, I think that if we compared ourselves in this regard to many other countries in the world we would be shocked to discover how much we have neglected this area, considering Canada's position in so many other cultural endeavours, and considering also the overall strength of our economy and our privileged position in terms of affluence and education. There has been a shocking neglect in this field. I remember that when a few years ago, upon visiting South Korea, I went for a walk in a park one Saturday afternoon, I suddenly discovered there a full fledged film crew in action. I watched them for a few moments and turned to my host, a Korean gentleman, to ask him what was going on. He told me that one of the South Korean film companies was making another feature film. I looked at him incredulously and asked: "Do you mean to tell me that you make feature films in South Korea?" to which he replied "Certainly; doesn't everybody?" I had to admit that as far as I knew in 1961 the thought of establishing a film industry in this country was by and large ignored and thought superfluous.
From the beginning we have relied basically on two areas for our feature film entertainment, the United States and Great Britain.


Robert William Prittie: And France.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The hon. member reminds me that we have also relied on France. What has this meant to those of us who have grown up in Canada over the last 30 or 40 years? It has meant that throughout a whole generation we have identified ourselves with certain alien cultural values and certain entertainment personalities, and subconsciously adopted standards that are not basically our own but which exist in other countries. We have never had the privilege, which a great many countries have had in the last 30 years, of identifying ourselves with fellow Canadians through that extremely important cultural instrument, the film. I think it is true to say that basically most people regard feature films as a source of entertainment. However, my belief is that feature films
12366	COMMONS
Development of Film Industry are one of the most powerful and subtle influences on the development of the values of a society, a continuing influence in the setting of certain standards and goals. If one does not believe this, he should visit some countries overseas which have been exposed for the past few years to American feature films and learn from them what is their understanding of North America. The response would be alarming.
We in Canada who have continued to view the feature film productions of other countries have identified ourselves with their values and established goals for ourselves which are not necessarily concurrent with what life is like in this country. There has been a continuous impediment to our development of a national image and a national identity. I am not saying this in a narrow, restrictive, or partisan sense, but I think it has been a great failure on our part to have overlooked year after year the necessity for establishing a feature film industry.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
For many years we have considered as very important our Canadian broadcasting system. It is well known to hon. members of this house that hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in establishing this communications link, this heart throb, if you like, for the Canadian nation. We have also taken a considerable amount of trouble to do similar kinds of things under the National Film Board in other kinds of less direct but still, on the whole, cultural fields. But when it comes to the feature film industry we have been greatly negligent.
I suppose the blame does not fall on the head of any one person or any particular government, because as far as I know no government has ever taken this question seriously. I was investigating and looking into this particular matter some months ago, Mr. Speaker, and I chanced upon what I consider to be one of the real ironies of our development as a nation. Apparently shortly after the second world war, during the period 1945-47, there was some interest in Canada in the development of a feature film industry. There was a real desire on the part of some to see a feature film industry get off the ground. Actually this would have been a good time to think about starting a feature film industry, because after the war there had been neglect of this proposal and there was a kind of vacuum into which a new industry could have moved.

DEBATES	January 27, 1967
It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that five of the major film producers in Hollywood got wind of this possibility of a loss of market in this country. They were disturbed that some of the extra revenue they received from runs in Canada would be lost to them, and so they approached the then minister of trade and commerce, I think it was, with a proposal. The proposal was that instead of actually going to the trouble of giving some special protection to, and assisting the development of, a Canadian feature film industry, these five major Hollywood producers would fill the vacuum, so to speak, and would make two concessions which would prevent any difficulties from developing, and would also ensure that some kind of Canadian image was carried on in film making in North America.
As I understand it, their two concessions were as follows: First of all they agreed that every year one of the five producers would come to Canada and would make a 15-minute travelogue on some aspect of Canadian life, and this would be a major concession; there would be some kind of Canadian identity at the movies.
That was good enough, Mr. Speaker; but they decided to go a little further and to establish something called, I think, a Commonwealth office in Hollywood, where they would have a couple of resident script writers. These resident script writers were to review all of the scripts of the shows to be produced. They would read the scripts, and if they found a line or two that ran something like: "I was talking to my mother in Seattle by phone the other night", a chap would sit down and would rewrite it in this way: "I was talking to my mother in Vancouver by phone the other night", to make sure that occasionally there would be some geographic references to places not only in the United States but also in Canada. This was the kind of concession that I understand was agreed to by the government of that day in order that the five major producers of films could carry on their distribution in this country without impediment.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, after many years, we are now in 1967 on the verge of paying some real attention to the development of a feature film industry in this country. As other speakers have said when dealing with the resolution preceding the bill, I think in the first instance we must give the minister a very real vote of praise in taking the initiative in this matter. We sympathize with her in part for the way in which other members of her
January 27, 1967	COMMONS
government have found other things so much more pressing that the resolution had to languish on the order paper month after month. Only at the end of the day, on a Friday afternoon, when those who have been able to do so have taken off by plane or train, are a few of us left to deal with this matter. This is not something to be left to the last, let me assure you, Mr. Speaker. This is an attitude that will only ensure the eventual dismissal of those things which we should like to think are uniquely Canadian.
Having voiced those words of gratitude to the minister for bringing this bill before this house, I think I must also say that the bill leaves a great deal to be desired, because at this point it has really recognized only the fact that Canada needs to have its own feature film industry. It does not go very far beyond that recognition, I am afraid.
It is all too easy, and it has been all too easy in the past, for governments-not only this one but other governments-to say that the answer is simply to create a foundation, to give that foundation money, and everything will be off to the races. It just does not happen that way in most cases, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure it will not happen in that way with one of the most competitive, and I think one of the most complex, industries that functions in the world today. As I say, I do not believe this is true, but I think that if it were true the minister would see that merely setting up a foundation which occasionally would hand out money and awards through some kind of subsidy to a production company to ensure the development of a selfsufficient and worthwhile feature film industry would only be the height of naivety.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that in what this bill spells out we are taking the first step in creating an agency which becomes concerned about the problem. But this is not the first bit of legislation which I think will be necessary, if we really believe that a feature film industry should be encouraged to develop in this country.
I have some fear about this because the government has shown, by its willingness to let this matter languish for a period of time, that it considers this is not really an issue of priority. I am afraid that we do not have a cabinet at present which can be called a cabinet of "swingers". Perhaps the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) is the only swinger of the group, but it does take more than one or even two swingers to make a thing like this go; and I think she will have to have some
Development of Film Industry converts if we are to put muscle behind this ambitious proposal.
For instance, Mr. Speaker, I think that if we are to be serious about the establishment of a feature film industry in this country something must be said about distribution, certainly something more than simply saying that the film will have a certain amount of content and that certain agreements will be entered into. Many countries have found distribution to be the overriding problem facing film producers. You see, Mr. Speaker, in many cases the problem is not getting together enough money to make a film; the problem is what is going to happen to the film after finally it has been produced.
We know that in Canada the whole question of distribution comes amazingly close to what may be termed a monopoly. I think unless we have some answer to this problem, and unless we have some knowledge of how these films are going to get from the producer to the distributor to the exhibitor, then we will only do a very small part of the job and in a very short time we will frustrate the very people we are trying to encourage in this embryonic industry.
I think too that it would be pointless, particularly in this country or in this house, to think we can do everything to ensure the development of this industry. Because this is a federal state some of the questions that will face us in the encouragement of this industry will of necessity have to be resolved by provincial legislatures and provincial governments. I think this is an area in which the minister and her colleagues must take some lead. If she is serious about seeing not just half a dozen films made for centennial year, or for next year, or until the money runs out, but seeing an industry develop in this country, then the provinces must be encouraged to take the necessary steps to ensure that the final product is shown.
If the minister does not do this, I think the situation will be very similar to the situation which occurred last year and which was featured in a report in the Toronto Star. I do not have the date of the clipping I have from the Star, but let me read some of the problems encountered by one person who apparently was able to get the money to put together a film worth looking at, a film called "Nobody Waved Goodbye". This film was made by a man called Don Owen, and this is what Robert Fulford had to say about it:
But now consider "Nobody Waved Goodbye", by Don Owen, perhaps the best feature made so far in English speaking Canada. It was a Toronto film.
January 27, 1967

Development of Film Industry by a Toronto director, about life in Toronto; and it was treated shamefully by the movie exhibitors of Toronto.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
A leading exhibitor, who saw it privately, declared that it was "a piece of junk from Hicks-ville". It was booked into the New Yorker theatre, in the dead week before Christmas. It had practically no advertising. It came and went.
But when it went to New York the critics liked it so well it created a sensation. Their reviews astounded even the film's admirers in Canada. Finally it was brought back to Toronto and received a proper booking.
The point is this: If we are to depend on the good faith and the warm-hearted nationalistic interests of the exhibitors, we are far from realistic. I am convinced that unless we encourage-and I use the word encourage advisedly-exhibitors to display these films, we are involved this afternoon in an exercise in futility.
We know too well that in dealing with exhibitors the major control cannot be exercised by this house; that must be a provincial responsibility. It seems therefore not only sensible but ultimately necessary that if the machinery for this industry is to go forward the minister at the earliest possible date-and I always hate to suggest this-must call a federal-provincial conference.


An hon. Member:: Not another one.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I will rue the day I suggested this. On this point I see no way around the roadblock, unless the provinces can be made responsible for grappling with this problem. Unless the provinces are willing, as the minister seems to be, to take positive steps we shall gain little from passage of this legislation.
I think, also, that if this is to be realistic endeavour, the corporation to be established by this legislation must of necessity have liaison and links with the provinces. I might say, as an aside, that since some of the provinces have become seriously interested themselves in producing motion pictures, there may be important reasons for having closer links between the provinces and the corporation.
It would be irresponsible to create an agency like this unless we are able to envision its relationship to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. At the present time the C.B.C. is the biggest producer of motion pictures in this country-not necessarily feature films, but of motion pictures. It produces three or four times the film footage the National Film Board produces. One of the tragedies is that a great deal of C.B.C. film produced is only a

one-shot affair. Most films produced are shown once, then discarded, and not too tidily in most instances, in some attic or cellar where they are mislaid.
Yet I think the motion picture industry in future in this country will have to think seriously of its relations with the television industry. How many hon. members were impressed, as I was, by the September 28 report of the Ottawa Citizen of last year which said that the United States television companies signed a $92 million deal with the film companies to show $92 million worth of American-produced feature films on television? There is no mistaking that more and more television companies-and in this country the major television producer is the C.B.C.-will be anxious to produce feature length motion pictures to show in first instance on television, and then to continue showing them across the country in theatres. This will involve a serious consideration.
It seems strange to me that the corporation to be established by the proposed legislation bears a greater relationship to the National Film Board, by provision of a commissioner, than to the C.B.C. which actually produces three times the film the National Film Board produces. We must look into this question seriously.
I want to refer to something the minister said in her closing remarks some months ago, when speaking on the resolution. She said that if the exhibitors do not seem anxious to display or distribute these films, certain questions about a quota would have to be taken up. Presumably that quota would apply to the number of foreign films to be imported into the country. That is the kind of negative approach that will be harmful to the development and encouragement of a feature film industry in this country. I suggest, rather, that we think of the ways we can encourage the expansion of Canadian produced feature films. We should think, in this instance, not of ways to force people to exhibit Canadian films, but of the other side of the picture: What positive steps can be taken to encourage exhibitors to become interested in showing Canadian films?
I think that the "Eady" fund is at least one very potent way to adapt what Great Britain has done, that revenues gained from the exhibition of United States motion pictures can be turned to the advantage of those who produce Canadian feature films. It seems extremely sensible that revenues gained from showing foreign made products should in some way
January 27, 1967

subsidize or stimulate the development of our own feature film industry.
For 30 or 40 years we have willingly exported, year after year, millions of dollars of wealth, to be entertained by motion pictures not produced in this country. It seems eminently sensible for us to take steps to ensure that some revenue gained from showing foreign films is put toward developing and encouraging a Canadian feature film industry.
In closing, I say that we are making this grand venture into the feature film industry at an auspicious time. Great interest was sparked by the announcement of the former secretary of state. We now have producers, writers and technicians, and we can develop this industry in this country. The time is ripe for us to take this step, and from our discussions here we should formulate the strongest legislation possible that will enable us to do this job.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, earlier today, speaking on another bill, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) made remarks about the way parliament works and how long it takes to achieve something. I agree with much of what he said. The public does not fully understand that, under the legislative process, consideration cannot be rushed. I confess, nevertheless, that I am amazed at the time this legislative item has taken to come this far. The hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald) referred to the fact that the former secretary of state, the hon. member for Outremont-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lamontagne) made a public pronouncement as long ago as 1964. I believe an interdepartmental committee had been at work for some time before he made that pronouncement. We last had the bill before us on June 20, 1966, and here we are, on January 27, 1967, getting second reading. It is an extraordinary operation and I think we could somehow organize our business a little better.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Hear, hear.


Robert William Prittie: I noticed last year that a report on films for Canada's centennial year was presented to the Centennial Commission on April 1, 1966 by Robert Anderson Associates Limited. On page 5 of this report the following appears under the heading "Feature Films":
A noticeable gap In 1967's film spectrum is the lack of films of epic proportions-theatrical feature films. If such films are to be made, they will occur
Development of Film Industry only as a result of early government implementation of its announced plans for a Canadian Film Development Corporation to assist in financing and distributing Canadian feature film. Producers are poised and waiting. If the government were to advance this legislation on its order paper, there would still be time for feature films for 1967.
I would be rather late in 1967, following this legislation though I am pleased to see that, as the previous speaker mentioned, some independent film producers are at work in Canada. Seven or eight months having elapsed since we last discussed this measure, there is bound to be some repetition. During the debate on the resolution a number of hon. members raised the question why Canada has not had a feature film industry in the past. The hon. member for Prince gave the answer to some extent. The principal reason is, of course, the relationship between English speaking Canada and the United States. During the discussion at that time I mentioned that those countries which had been obliged to produce their own films developed their own film industries. Sweden is a good example. That country has a film industry which has turned out very many fine films. Indeed two weeks ago, there was a week of Swedish films shown at an Ottawa cinema. The industry in that country came into being because nowhere else was Swedish spoken.
To give another illustration: When the C.B.C. began its television network in the French language there was no material available. France had not begun production at that time, so it was necessary to produce the material locally. This was done, and today Montreal is, I am told, the leading centre for the production of television programs in the French language.
There have been other reasons for Canada's failure to develop a feature film industry. One of them is the fact that distribution facilities in Canada are not under our control. In addition to distribution facilities, personnel and money are needed. Personnel are not lacking. There are in Canada people with sufficient technical ability to produce films-they have been doing so in other parts of the industry for many years. Many of our people possess the requisite acting capability; they are acting on television, now. There are still enough capable people here, though unfortunately some were attracted by prospects in the United States or in France.
Then again, producers find it difficult to raise money for their projects. I wish to quote briefly from an article which illustrates this point. This was taken from the Ottawa

January 27, 1967
Development of Film Industry Citizen of November 11,	1965, entitled
"Canada cool to foreign film makers".
Montreal (CP)-Claude Giroux, Montreal-born president of Allied Artists, the U.S. film distributors, says Canada offers no inducement to film makers to make movies here.
Mr. Giroux, a leading figure in the United States, movie industry, is attending the 98th technical conference of the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers.
He said in an interview Monday that Canadian banks are conservative and lack knowledge of the film industry. They know nothing, he said, about production guarantees which are given by foreign distributors.
"When you go to the banks and say 'here is a guarantee from an Indian distributor and an Italian distributor and a French distributor to pay $100,000 each when the picture is finished-now lend me $300,000 and I'll make a film here' they get a glassy-eyed look.
"They don't understand that making a film is like building a house. You get a construction loan and a completion bond and after that you convert it into a mortgage."
What is needed, he said, is a film agency similar to the industries. Such an agency would be knowledgeable about films and would therefore be in a position to endorse guarantees, he said.
This bill will, to some extent, solve the question of raising money, one of the factors which was hitherto been lacking.
In the course of the debate last June, the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam), I believe it was, said he had some knowledge of the film industry and suggested the figure of $10 million mentioned here did not amount to very much. I do not know whether it is sufficient or not, but I do know that some of the smaller European countries such as Sweden, Czechoslovakia and Denmark have turned out very good motion pictures on small budgets, pictures which have made a good deal of money for their producers. One such production has been running in Ottawa for a number of weeks. It is called "Dear John" and it is, apparently, a small budget picture. They just used a bedroom most of the time, but it seems they have the necessary ingredients for success.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Robert William Prittie: The question of distribution and the desire of the industry of some kind of guarantee being given for the distribution of films produced in this country by Canadian film makers has already been mentioned. This is most important. Speaking last June, the minister said that co-operation by the exhibitors and the established companies would be expected. I notice that in writing up the debate the Globe and Mail of June 21 made this comment in a headline: "Import quota hint if Canadian movies are not shown more often".

I think this was implied in the minister's speech last year and I would certainly agree that if this co-operation is not forthcoming all possible steps should be taken by the government to make sure that Canadian films, assuming they are good ones, do get the exhibition facilities which they deserve, not only here but in other countries of the world, and that if necessary we should use import quotas for this purpose. After all, many other countries do this.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer. It concerns the relationship of the National Film Board to the established private film producing industry in Canada, however expanded that may become. A week ago today I addressed a question to the minister. The representative of one of the international unions, in this case the International Union of Film Photographers, had protested the fact that the National Film Board and the C.B.C. were co-operating to make a film-the particular film he had in mind was entitled "Waiting for Caroline". It is being filmed in Quebec City and in Vancouver. He was protesting on the grounds that by making this film the National Film Board was exceeding the mandate given to it by parliament.
I understand the C.B.C. and the National Film Board have made arrangements to produce three feature length films. In reply to my question the minister said this, as reported in Hansard of January 20, page 12037:
I have seen Mr. Cole of I.A.T.S.E. and listened to his complaints. He did complain that the present activities of the National Film Board were not within the provisions of the act. As the hon. member knows, as a minister of the crown I am not in a position to give a legal opinion, but anyone may look at sections 9 and 10 of the National Film Board Act and see that this sort of endeavour falls within them.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The minister continued on the next page:
Mr. Cole has demanded that a collective agreement be signed with his local in Toronto, a demand which the film board has rejected on the grounds that the board will not instruct its employees to join any particular union. In fact, I am informed that the employees of the film board have joined other unions, particularly Be Syndicat General du Cinema.
Mr. Cole has also threatened to prevent distribution of a film now being prepared, and has even threatened to disrupt further an infant industry which all hon. members have indicated they would wish to see flourish in this country. It seems to me that it would be a most short-sighted approach on the part of cameramen and other individuals associated with film making, to cause a disruption which would sabotage the efforts of government and prospects for the industry to grow in Canada.
January 27, 1967

I am not too concerned at the moment as to who organizes the film crews, but I must confess I was surprised, when the committee on broadcasting and films made a visit fairly recently to the National Film Board, to find out that the employees of that board had not been organized. But whether they are organized by the international or the C.S.N. is not our business.
I have not tried to get a legal opinion, since the minister replied to the question, to see whether or not the National Film Board is operating within its mandate. Philosophically I have no objection to the National Film Board co-operating with the C.B.C. to make films. The public has put money into both corporations and probably should get a good return on it, but I pose this question: If indeed the act is not clear, can we not make it clear? If the interpretation of the act is that the National Film Board cannot make feature films, then we know where we stand. Further, if it is the wish of the government and the C.B.C. that their facilities could be used for that purpose to assist the C.B.C., then perhaps the act should be changed.
However, I suggest that when the feature film industry in Canada gets off the ground we are apt to receive more complaints of this type. In fact the same complaint appeared in a publication which I received the other day, "Canadian Film and T.V. Industry," published in Toronto, which incorporates "The Canadian Moving Picture Digest." Whom it represents I do not know, but it made this same complaint about the mandate of the National Film Board. I shall have more to say when we discuss the various clauses in the bill, but that will conclude my remarks for now


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that this is a direction in which we should be moving and, even though it has been somewhat delayed, I congratulate the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) upon bringing forward this piece of legislation. The film industry is the kind of industry in which, as a nation small in population, we should be involved, because it demands high quality, high degrees of technical skill and artistic talent, and does not involve great use of natural resources. In addition, if we can manage to sell our film production abroad it would alleviate greatly our balance of payments problem. As it is, since this industry began we have made our contributions both in money and in talent to

Development of Film Industry almost every other part of the world except Canada.
I am pleased with some of the clauses in this bill, particularly the one which suggests that certain qualifications will have to be met, namely
-that the completed film will, in the judgment of the corporation, have a significant Canadian creative, artistic and technical content.
I am sure this will lead to problems for both the minister and the corporation. I am sure that not long after films are completed someone will rise in this house and demand why Canadian tax money has been used for a particular film. I wonder how the determination on the adjective "Canadian" will be made in conjunction with the words "creative, artistic and technical content".
I also wonder about the quality of films produced. I am sure applications will be received from people who have always had a burning desire to create the ultimate in what is known as avante garde, or underground, or modern films. I am sure these people will also apply for funds. Somewhere along the line the corporation will have to develop sufficient nerve to say no to some of the applications it receives. In fact it may be called upon to say no to a completed film.
I would remind the minister, without making any comparisons, of the embarrassment General Franco had in Spain when, a few years ago, he invited back to his country all of the creative talent which had earlier been driven out of it. One of the people who went back was the very famous and talented director Bunuel who then proceeded, without the knowledge of Franco or his government, to produce a film that was one of the most fiercely anti-clerical films ever made anywhere. General Franco and his agents learned too late about this film which was produced under their very noses. The film was smuggled out of the country and presented at one of the great European film festivals. There it won all of the awards, which is not at all surprising considering the nature of the film.
We shall have to watch the content of films as specified in this bill. There is no reason why "Doctor Zhivago" could not have been made in Canada, but I suppose it would not have had Canadian content within the meaning of this bill. I only hope our film industry will not be so restricted.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I would also urge, although this may be in contradiction of some of the remarks made by
January 27, 1967

Development of Film Industry the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald), that not too much insistence be laid on total provincial involvement. Let us not fragment this industry before it is born. I suggest much of it will be centred in my own province, British Columbia, because of the tremendous natural advantages which it has for this type of industry. I believe the government of Canada should be quite prepared to go ahead with a subsidized industry which is centred mainly in one province, should that be the case. I know there are a variety of other industries which are highly encouraged by the government and which happen to be centred in provinces such as Ontario and Quebec. It is not beyond imagination that this industry could play a very important part in British Columbia. For the benefit of the hon. member for Prince I might suggest, for instance, that even "Anne of Green Gables" could be successfully filmed amid the beauties of British Columbia.
One other advantage which I think the development of a privately encouraged or subsidized film industry could have would be the gradual phasing out of the C.B.C. from some of its film making activities. A while ago we heard about established film companies making films for television. We have heard the suggestion that in Canada it should be the other way around; that is, that our television industry should make the films for our motion picture industry. I think the reverse should be the situation.
If the film industry as such is to develop, then I think the C.B.C. should be one of its customers and not one of its main suppliers. We will have more to say in respect of this bill when we study it clause by clause. I believe the idea is worth while. There will be serious problems for this industry and for the department which shepherds it along, but I hope that they will be successful.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on this bill and to point out first what is probably a misprint in the French version of the bill. On page 3, paragraph (b) of subclause 2 of clause 10 is shown as paragraph "(d)" instead of "(b)" and I am wondering whether it is a misprint or a new way of drafting a bill, unless the hon. minister is considering the inclusion between paragraphs (a) and (d) of unforeseen provisions. Anyway I wonder if it could not merely be a misprint.


In any case, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that the intention shown by the government to give assistance to the Canadian feature film industry-and the word "Canadian" is stressed in the bill-should precisely be that, namely to promote more interest in the production of Canadian feature films on the part of our film-makers and artists.
Some time ago, perhaps a year and a half ago, the C.B.C. had a film produced by Seaway Films Limited, of Toronto, which apparently had entered into an agreement with the Associated Television Limited, of London, England, a private television station there, to produce a Canadian film on the St. Lawrence Seaway. They were to produce 30 one hour films, a venture which had cost the Canadian people $3 million. As the estimates provide $10 million apparently earmarked to promote the Canadian film industry, I wonder whether that amount will really be enough to develop and encourage that industry.
Those who are in the film industry will be in a position to judge whether this initiative can really promote this kind of industry in Canada or whether this is not merely a superficial attempt on the part of the minister to show to the artistic world that the government is interested in this field of Canadian artistic activities.
I note, however, that the hon. minister left out certain details which I feel are very important. For instance, the clause dealing with the objects and the powers of the corporation does not say anything about dubbing a film. And yet, film dubbing appears to be one of the most important considerations here in Canada, for it will enable Canadian films produced in the English language to be translated for distribution to theatres catering to French speaking viewers. The bill should provide that this dubbing will be done by French or English Canadian actors and actresses, or Canadian artists, at least.
If the hon. minister does not insert this provision in the bill, we will have to watch imported films, translated and dubbed by foreign artists, like those being shown every day on our television sets.
Here I wish to refer once again to this movie shown over the Canadian television network in which a well-known Quebec comedian, Mr. Rolland Bedard, performed. A French actor had dubbed his voice in Paris. Thus, we were presented with the peculiar situation where the voice of a French Canadian actor, performing in a film shown
January 27. 1967

to a Canadian audience, is dubbed by a Parisian actor.
I am wondering if this anomaly could not be corrected through a minor amendment that the minister could move on his own. Nevertheless, I do not move it myself as an amendment, but rather as a suggestion. In my opinion, the minister should add, after paragraph (a) a provision to the effect that the dubbing of feature films produced in Canada, be done by Canadian artists, both English and French speaking. In doing so, I think we would be spared this unpleasant and deplorable practice of seeing Canadian films subsidized by our country, by our government, and by our taxpayers, being dubbed by foreign actors.
I also think that the minister should have stated in the bill that all films being financed by this Crown corporation must answer to certain public moral standards.
A few minutes ago the hon. member who spoke before me referred to some European, Swedish or Norwegian films that have been translated for Canadian viewers. But, I believe, the example mentioned by the hon. member does not represent exactly the type of film we would want as far as the morals described are concerned.


Robert William Prittie: Never.


Georges-J. Valade: There are certainly good films that come to us from those countries. We hope that the Canadian film industry will produce good films; because when we look at films on television and in the movie houses, too often do we find that we are being snowed under by war films of low moral standards.
These films encourage violence among youth, crime, free love and even prostitution.
All those films that clutter up our cinemas are surely not of a kind to help our young people to orient themselves toward the future imbued with the moral standards we expect of them.
Therefore, I hope that the minister will see to it that this assistance we want to extend to the film industry will not be merely confined to helping producers whose sole concern is making profits. The Corporation should rather provide guidance in the production of moral, artistic and cultural films. That, to my mind, should be the motivation of a crown corporation such as this.
Much more could be said about this bill, Mr. Speaker. It may not be elaborate, still it provides certain guiding principles. For my
Development of Film Industry part, I think we are doubling, perhaps tripling, our help to the Canadian film industry.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The C.B.C. is financing the production of films. The National Film Board also produces a number of films, and I wonder why an amendment has not already been brought to the Canadian Arts Council Act, so that the funds would be paid by the National Film Board, since such is the name of that organization. The words film and cinematography are synonyms and, from a practical point of view, if the word "cinematography" was substituted for the word "film", I do not see that it would make a difference. I wonder why the government has not already considered altering the present structure of the National Film Board, so that a branch of that organization would specifically look after the development of a Canadian film industry.
Mr. Speaker, we realize that we are still dealing with another corporation. We are increasing the number of crown corporations, we are involving state intervention in a field where I feel we could encourage in a very unobstrusive and discreet way those who would like to launch out in the film industry.
If, whenever there is a dearth in an area of economic activity, the government were to establish a corporation to take the initiatives which the people themselves should take but are reluctant to take because they fear to take the risks, the government should take the risks instead.
I wonder if there again, we are not complicating things or even competing with existing industry. There are movie concerns in existence, some of which have been successful and others which have not succeeded, probably because their management or their production was of poor quality.
A government organization could step in and finance the film itself, without regard for the management, because the film may be very good and the management very bad. Then the government would be financing a production and not a poor administration. Therefore, it seems to me that it can, through indirect means, through already existing agencies, give assistance to those who proved that they were really able to produce quality films. In my opinion, this would serve at best the Canadian movie industry.
Therefore, if she is agreeable-and I shall not insist on some amendments I have mentioned a while ago, since the members of the house seem to have properly put the helm over as regards the previous legislation-the minister could at least give me her assurance
12374	COMMONS
Development of Film Industry that the dubbing of films produced in this country shall be done by Canadian actors and players and that the moral standards shall be respected in all the works to be financed by this crown corporation.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make in respect of this bill. Let me first say that I am very much in favour of the principles embodied in the bill. We have observed the very excellent example in Canada over the past years of the development of Canadian talent by the Canada Council. As a result of its efforts a great deal of talent from many communities has come to light.
The Canada Council has accomplished three things. It has found a great deal of Canadian talent in many communities where many peo-ble probably thought talent did not exist. It has devoted its efforts over a wide area, and has looked for talent in areas beyond the reach of other government agencies associated with the arts. It has also given opportunities to many small groups which, without this assistance, certainly would not have had the opportunity to accomplish the very fine goals they have reached. If the proposed corporation handles itself in the same manner as the Canada Council, I think the feature film industry in Canada will progress in the same way as many other areas of artistic endeavour have progressed, through the assistance of the Canada Council.
It seems to me that the C.B.C. in recent years has followed the opposite trend, by bringing increasingly questionable material to the attention of its viewers. The C.B.C. has recently become no more than, to use Mr. Ouimet's words, sleazy and slipshod. I am thinking particularly of the production "Harvest of the Sea", which has been a source of embarrassment to the fishing industry in Canada, and has also embarrassed the Department of Fisheries. I have in my hand a letter written by the deputy minister of fisheries to Mr. Alphonse Ouimet. The deputy minister says in this letter, among other things, the following:
Representations have been made to my minister by the fishing industry of Canada protesting that considerable damage may have been done to the country by the poorly researched script which in some instances presented the industry in a very poor light. There is also the fact that the program made almost no reference to the work carried out by the Department of Fisheries of Canada and the Fisheries Research Board of Canada;-
[Mr. Valade.l
DEBATES	January 27. 1967
He then states:
The commentary leaves much to be desired. It more than implies that Canada has done nothing about conserving and managing its fishery resources.
Later he states:
This department was not consulted by anyone connected with the program to verify facts;-
Later he said this:
It would seem to be obvious, also, that the C.B.C.'s farm and fisheries department would have been in a position to provide constructive advice to the producer.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Finally the deputy minister wrote:
It is regrettable that what could have been an informative program should be so marred by lack of research and inadequate preparation, and that the orderly development of Canada's fisheries, which is achieving a great measure of success, should be ignored.
One result of this bill will be the creation and development of a trend in the opposite direction. Perhaps this will improve Canadian film productions and assist in the development of Canadian talent in respect of feature films and documentaries. Surely this is a move away from what is becoming an ingrained difficulty in respect of this crown corporation.
In conclusion let me compliment the minister for bringing this bill to the house. I support it wholeheartedly, but I should like to ask one question about it which I think the hon. lady will answer to my satisfaction when she speaks on this subject. Why cannot the objectives of this bill be carried out by the Canada Council? Why do we need another crown agency to accomplish what could be very well accomplished by one more competent committee of the Canada Council, which has already shown its competence to deal with many fields of the arts to the satisfaction of Canadians from coast to coast?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Shall the motion carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not going to say anything at all in this debate? I have been waiting for the minister to rise and speak on this matter. I realize that if she spoke she would close the debate, but I had hoped she would have something to say in this regard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. The Chair did not rush to put the motion. However, if the minister wishes to rise at this
January 27, 1967

time I would point out that if she speaks now she will close the debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether it is the intention of the house to debate this bill now, or is it to be referred to one of our standing committees?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, at one time it was the intention to refer this bill to the broadcasting committee, but it was decided not to deal with it in the standing committee but in committee of the whole house.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the minister? I should like to ask whether it is not true that she has received representations from the people most interested in this industry, the producers and others who have been interested for some time in this regard, and who wish to put forward some improvements in the legislation. There was some difficulty last year in contacting the minister. I think it would be most welcome if the committee could meet with the people specifically involved in this industry. I think many hon. members of the house do not understand the full intent of this measure. In order that we may fully understand the situation in this regard I think the minister should be willing to see these people.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, if this matter had been raised in September or October last I would most readily have agreed; but if it is referred to the broadcasting committee, I do not know what will happen. I suggest that this matter will not be resolved by 1969 if it is referred to the committee. Some of the people who represent film making associations came to Ottawa last June and made representations in this respect. I made some notes at that time and I shall be dealing with these matters when we reach the clauses of the bill. I believe we could have dealt with this matter in October or November last, but I think we should now go ahead with it.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker,
there is a great deal of interest on the part of producers and others involved in this question and I think we should not deal with the question at this time. It would only involve a few weeks to call a couple of meetings of the committee to deal with this subject. If the committee were to study this question, I believe they could direct us as to the best way in which this legislation could be presented. If we do not do this, I believe we may seriously weaken the legislation that is before us today.
Development of Film Industry


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I have received absolutely no representations from any source asking for such a matter to be referred to committee. I have not received any such representations from anyone interested. Over the past six or eight months I have not seen anyone connected with the industry who has made representations in this regard; this includes people within and without the country. I know at the present time of no request by anybody to appear before the committee. This piece of legislation has been exposed since June 20 and has been subject to any publicity which might have appeared in the film magazines and film press in this connection. The representations I have received have been connected with such things as distribution and the necessity for producing something which meets certain criteria of Canadians. These have not been matters, I suggest, in which the federal or provincial governments will be affected.
This is not supposed to be a subsidy, as some hon. members have seemed to suggest. We are concerned here with a budget of $2 million or $10 million, but this does not mean that the Canadian government will be involved in the film business. This money is supposed to meet the needs that exist in regard to the producers producing films for world wide distribution. Some films have been produced by Canadian producers. They may apply to this corporation for "front" money or "end" money which is necessary to meet their budgets. Some others may be coming to us for interim money, or guaranteed money in the form of a bonding, as it were. This matter has been dealt with by Mr. Giroux. In other words, it is not a phraseology of the legislation at all. However, I have not any knowledge that there has been any attack on it; it is advice as to how the corporation might function.
The hon. member has suggested that the provinces might be involved in setting up the distribution in this regard. It is no use producing a film and keeping it in a can on some dusty shelf; the corporation should have a package deal in connection with the finished product. It should be placed on the basis of the distributor being able to make the most worth-while use of it under a budget that is realistic. After all, one of the aspects of this fund is a banking fund. I suggest to my colleague from Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deach-man) that it is quite different from the ordinary function of the Canada Council, which
12376	COMMONS
Development of Film Industry makes grants. This is more of a banking function; it is to assist people in the Canadian film industry who find it is necessary to receive assistance. This is not a large fund to be used for investment and in which we will become a partner. This money may not last beyond 1967 in our centennial fields, because it takes a long time to get the scenario ready and the arrangements set up with regard to budget arrangements.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I have been told by Canadian film makers, not I might say the one which produced "Nobody Waved Goodbye", which was a National Film Board production, but who have produced others, and particularly the producer of "The Luck of Ginger Coffey", that having once dealt with the distributor they are aware of the pitfalls and know how much more they should receive. Distributing companies are prepared to go along with the distribution of meritorious films, but a number of things must be shown.
Promotion is a big part of distribution as was demonstrated by the film "Nobody Waved Goodbye". Certain things have to be included in the distribution guarantee, but neither the government nor the commission arranges it. An individual cannot come to the Film Development Corporation and say: "Here is the package I want". He must make his arrangements about distribution. We have been concerned about this all along, from the time when the interdepartmental committee first met and began to produce reports to my predecessor, the hon. member for Outremont-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lamontagne) and into the early days when I represented this agency. The officials wished to ensure that the whole spectrum of the industry would be considered and that this should not be a place where people can walk in from the street with a hot idea and receive $2 million to create a film. We know this is something which will have to be handled carefully. This is public money which should be used to promote an industry and not just one film.
One hon. gentleman mentioned the question of dubbing. We consider that this is covered under section 10 (2) (a) which requires a significant Canadian creative artistic content. However, it is not intended that this bill provide the subsidization of Canadian dubbing of foreign films either in English or in French as a major part of the enterprise. The problem raised by the hon. gentleman concerns many individuals in the province of Quebec who

DEBATES	January 27, 1967
would like to see all films dubbed in this country, and not in France. Nevertheless, where French or English dubbing of Canadian films is done, it can be part of the assistance granted under this legislation.
I should like to say one last word in reply to the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke, who suggested that a film such as Dr. Zhivago could not be produced in this country. I would suggest that there is no reason why it could not be produced here, provided there were Canadian stars and Canadian people both in front of and behind the cameras, and that the script was written by a Canadian so that in fact it had a largely Canadian content. There should be no restriction on the origin of the ideas which are produced into a screen play.
This leads me to one last point, namely the question of whether I or the members of the board will be the ones to judge as to the morality in the plays. I suggest that if any of the vital elements of the passions of human beings are excised completely from any films in which the Canadian Development Corporation might invest, there really would not be much left in which to invest. We have to remember that films which are most popular are those which are a reflection of life. I do not think we should produce licentious films, but we want to produce films which are of good commercial quality and of value. Our purpose is to promote and develop an industry and not to produce one or two art films for which Canada has already become famous.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Richard in the chair.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. You said that the motion was agreed to on division. I want to know for the record whether in fact there was a division or whether it was agreed to unanimously.
The Depuiy Chairman: Yes, there was a division.
On clause 2-Definitions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a general remark on clause 2. I regret that the house is faced with having to
January 27, 1967	COMMONS
make a decision on this bill today. I do not think for one moment that we can complete debate on this bill in the committee of the whole house today. I say this for the following reason. On checking over the debate that took place on June 20 and after listening to the debate today I find that there is a division of opinion in the house. Some hon. members are absent today as they did not expect this bill to come up for discussion.
When the bill was first discussed on June 20 one or two hon. members on both sides of the house expressed opposition to it. To protect their position I think we should make sure that they are given a chance to speak on this bill at some stage or another. The very fact that, as the minister said, the bill has been exposed since June 20 does not mean that it has been considered. I made a calculation that by six o'clock tonight the house will not have spent more than three hours in discussing a bill which is considered to be of considerable importance, and in considering a proposed expenditure of $10 million.
I do not think that three hours is adequate time to spend on a bill of this nature, and to consider a proposed expenditure of that magnitude. I suggest that the house should be a little more cautious and should not proceed so rapidly on this particular measure. The minister does not seem to be overly enthusiastic about the bill or she would have made a statement on the opening of the debate on second reading, which she did not do. It was only under some pressure that she consented to make a statement at the conclusion of second reading. So that all we have had from the minister is what she said to us on the resolution stage way back on June 20. Several very important comments were made this afternoon and there are some hon. members here who are very interested in this measure. I think their case should fie heard and so should the point of view of other hon. members who, at the resolution stage, expressed serious opposition to it. That being the case this committee should adopt a responsible attitude and take its time in dealing with this measure.
I hope that hon. members will believe me when I tell them that I am speaking in good faith and that I do not just want to delay the bill. I want responsible consideration of it. I have an open mind and I am prepared to be convinced that this is an essential feature in Canadian public life.
Development of Film Industry


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on this point of order. The hon. gentleman has ignored the fact that this legislation has been called every day of the week. Surely all hon. members are expected to be in the house during the week, and would have had the opportunity to find out when this legislation would come up. The hon. gentleman said that there is some disagreement. I suppose there is some disagreement on everything, including the colour of one's eyes. But generally hon. members have shown pretty general agreement with respect to this matter.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Hon. members on all sides of the house have had some very interesting contributions to make. When the hon. member suggests I have refused to say anything I would point out to him that I have given up my right to speak first so that other hon. members may have an opportunity to make more lengthy remarks. Following that, I will answer them to the best of my ability. I would be very happy, if hon. members gave proper consideration to each of the clauses as they came up, to let the matter be dealt with at once.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, with regard to my request for information, one of the questions that bothers me is the production of films. Sometimes we in Canada have a perverted sense of nationalism. For instance, we note the feeling in the C.B.C. that to produce a Canadian show all of the personnel involved, from the director down, through the technicians to the actors and actresses, should be Canadians.
It has become obvious that this attitude has slowed down the development of Canadian talent. In the fields of basketball, American football and Canadian hockey we have found that if a country does not know anything about these sports they import the best they can get in these particular fields of endeavour into their own countries, so their local boys can learn the necessary techniques.
We have seen this occur very dramatically in Canadian hockey, where just a generation ago there was hardly a nation in the world could stand up even to the most average of Canadian teams. So successful have these countries been in importing a few Canadian coaches and players that today Canada is very hard put to match these other countries in our own native sport.
In the matter of film making we have in Canada today a number of directors who I think would match directors of almost any
12378	COMMONS
Development of Film Industry other country in the particular line in which they are skilled. However, these directors in Canada are forced, under our unique sense of nationalism, to hire actors and actresses from the Canadian pool who may not be the type of actors or actresses required to fit into a particular role.
I am not going to develop this theme, because I am talking about a field of which I know very little, other than what I learned from my own investigations some years ago. Therefore I simply suggest that one of the criteria which should be applied in the choosing of people to receive awards under this particular bill should be that of making sure that the wrong type of nationalism, will not be a limiting factor.
I am a nationalist, Mr. Chairman, and I want to see a Canadian film industry developed. I know that individuals and companies in Canada have made tremendous efforts and sometimes lost a great deal of money trying to develop a commercial type of film. Over and over again they have been trapped by the fact that the Canadian market is insufficient to carry their product. But the minute they try to come into the field and produce a film for the C.B.C., for example, they are caught by the type of attitude which dictates that you can only hire people who are Canadian citizens.
Ultimately we want to see more and more people reaching technical excellence as directors, as lighting and stage technicians and in all phases of good film making, as well as in the field of acting. We know we have these people because they have been a success in other countries. But if the chief criterion in setting up a Canadian film industry is that the Canadian Film Development Corporation can hire only Simon-pure Canadians, then we would be limiting ourselves and would not be able to produce the best scenario, the best actors and actresses or the best technical standards.
I do not think we should try to put restrictions of this sort on our film producers. If these people need a certain type of director or require technical people with certain qualifications for a certain job, then they should be allowed to hire the people they want. We know that the production of Disney films in Canada has involved the use of Canadian technical personnel by the Disney Corporation almost exclusively, and we have had tremendously fine results. This industry could be a two-way street, but what we are after is something which we can sell.

DEBATES	January 27. 1967
The final point I wish to make is in the form of a question. The minister indicated the difficulty involved in distribution, what I would call the marketing. The fundamental weakness is that today's market for films requires to be composed of a good many more millions of people than we have in Canada. The market must be sufficiently broad to carry the cost of production of a film.
Marketing films would involve a lot of tie-ups with international distribution agencies, but the minister has said that this is a costly arrangement. One reason above all others that I support this legislation is that I have seen Canadian enterprises in this field fail before. I hope that the money supplied, even though it comes from the state, as it does in other countries, will help these people break through the barriers that now exist against ordinary Canadian companies becoming big enough financially to cope with the tremendous production costs and distributive costs in other countries. What we need is a market for Canadian films which will be sufficient to ensure that it is a pay-off operation, which in time will enable it to accumulate enough capital of its own.
With those few remarks and with the warning I issued earlier, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister whether there is any intention of making this corporation subject to the sort of restrictive and narrow nationalism about which I warned her at the beginning of my remarks.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, the very fact that films must be commercially viable is an indication that individually talented people either before or behind the camera would be part of any package. It may be that the film will be 100 per cent Canadian in content, but we have not put a percentage into the bill, as will be seen by a reference to clause 10(2). I understand that in the United Kingdom they use a percentage in the neighbourhood of 80 to 85 per cent, but we have made this bill more flexible. However, looking at the whole thing, the film must have Canadian content.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Do I understand that even though we have a lower percentage there must be a large Canadian content to warrant support?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: One of the matters mentioned in the resolution, Mr. Chairman, was that we did not want pirate companies to come in and just use Canadian tax moneys to make a profit. That is why the films are
January 27, 1967	COMMONS
generally to be of a Canadian nature or of Canadian content, somewhere in line with the averages described in the B.B.G. lists.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order. It being six o'clock it is my duty to rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask about the business for next week.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, before we reach that might I speak to my hon. friend who has asked about adequate consideration by hon. members opposite. In view of such extremely inclement weather outside and the fact that it would be difficult to go anywhere, might I suggest that in order to consider the matter further we might not see the clock for some time? In this way we could give further consideration to this bill, for which we want so much time made available.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is very interesting, and I should like to respond favourably, but we sat until after eleven o'clock last night on another bill. In any event, today we expected to take up Bill No. S-9, having to do with the Interpretation Act. One member of our party, who had an excellent speech prepared, did not make it because the government changed its policy or program. All I ask this government to do is to be consistent, to make up its mind on the program it wishes to follow. I would prefer to recognize the clock and to call it six o'clock.


John Napier Turner: To answer a question of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, the Interpretation Act was sent to the committee on justice and legal affairs earlier this day.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, but the hon. member will recognize that we had to bail out the minister, who wanted it to go to committee.
Business of the House


John Napier Turner: I do not think there was any bailing out.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for
Carleton (Mr. Bell) bailed him out.


John Napier Turner: In any event the order of business for Monday is as follows: item No. 107, second reading of Bill C-243, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in
consequence thereof.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is enough.


John Napier Turner: Then, when that item has been successfully concluded we hope to take item No. 62, continuing the committee stage on Bill C-204, to establish a Canadian Film Development Corporation. If that is proceeded with successfully, we hope to take item No. 83, second reading of Bill C-220 relating to the Immigration Appeal Board. Should there be time available to the house we would then take item No. 116, the resolution relating to a measure to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act. Should the house still be in the mood, we would consider item No. 120, second reading of Bill S-55, to provide for relief in certain cases against loss of hardship suffered as the result of interruptions of normal postal services.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the minister whether that order of business will hold for the entire week.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that may be reviewed on Monday.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: May I ask the
minister a question? As we shall not come back to the Film Development Corporation bill on Monday, would it not be possible to refer that bill to a committee, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre suggested, rather than letting it languish for another six months on the order paper?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. A decision has already been taken about that.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 30, 1967