1967-01-13

VACANCIES

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the house that consequent upon the notification of vacancies in the representation made in this house on Thursday, January 12, 1967, by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) and the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), and pursuant to section 10 of the House of Commons Act, I have addressed my warrants to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of new writs for the election of members in the electoral districts of Hull and Sudbury.



WHEAT-ANNOUNCEMENT OF FINAL PAYMENT

Hon. Roberi Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement respecting the final payment on wheat. Producers delivered a total of 559,790,073 bushels of wheat to the Canadian Wheat Board in the 1965-66 crop year, which included 18,932,369 bushels of Durum wheat. The amount of the final payment to be distributed to producers is $270,028,575, which is $70 million higher than last year's payment and is exceeded only slightly by the record payment of $272 million made on the 1963-64 pool account, when a larger volume of wheat was marketed. Of this amount, $9,948,861 will be distributed to producers who delivered Durum wheat.
These sums are not a final payment by the government of Canada, but represent the net returns of the Canadian Wheat Board in the marketing of western Canadian wheat for the 1965-66 crop year.
The average final payment for wheat other than Durum is 48.087 cents per bushel. The average final payment for Durum wheat is 52.594 cents per bushel. The over-all average of 48.237 cents a bushel is the largest average final payment in the history of the Canadian Wheat Board.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
The board will commence issuing final payment cheques to producers on January 17,
23033-743J
1967. This is the earliest date on which final payments have been made in the last 14 years.
I wish to inform the house of the total prices realized by producers, prior to the deduction of the 1 per cent Prairie Farm Assistance Act levy, on their deliveries of some of the more important grades of wheat. The farmers will receive a total-basis in store at the lakehead of Vancouver-of $1.99699 for No. 1 Northern; $1.96645 for No. 2 Northern; $1.88269 for No. 3 Northern; $1.82731 for No. 4 Northern and $1.75100 for No. 5 wheat. The prices realized on the Amber Durum grades total $2.03725 for No. 1 C.W. Amber Durum; $2.00833 for No. 2 and $1.94476 for No. 1.
The accounting for the oats and barley pools for the 1965-66 crop year is under way, and distribution of the cheques will follow the distribution of the wheat payments. It is expected that the total of the payments for wheat, oats and barley will be at a record level.
Congratulations are due to all concerned in the growing, handling, grading, transporting and selling of wheat for their contribution to a most successful marketing year. I would like to pay particular tribute to the remarkable achievements of the Canadian Wheat Board. The efforts of the board on behalf of the western producer have benefited not only the grain producer but all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the statement issued today in Winnipeg by the Canadian Wheat Board regarding the final payment. I ask, if hon. members so wish, that it be included as an appendix to today's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table the document to which he refers, and is it the pleasure of the house that it be appended to Hansard of today?


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


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this is one time when we can all express pleasure, especially those of us on this side of the house; because during our period of office against strong criticism we made available to the wheat board
11750	COMMONS
Final Payment on Wheat the necessary credits tor guaranteeing sales to communist China. If it had not been for that we should have been back in the days of 1954 to 1957, when tremendous gluts of wheat piled up in all parts of western Canada.
Second, the tremendous sales this year bear out the prophecies we made that increasing amounts of wheat would be required for the world, and that the western farmer should expand his production and increase his acreage. When we expressed that view that too was criticized. Both these stands have been entirely vindicated by events.
The time has come for a material increase in price. I believe that $2.25 per bushel should be considered a normal price today. There is a growing world demand. One and a half years ago wheat prices in Canada were cut by some 17 cents a bushel. If that cut had not taken place the amount the western farmer would receive today would be approximately $130 million more than will be distributed on this occasion. I know the minister is most favourably disposed to action to increase wheat prices. That should be done. World demand is expanding by leaps and bounds.
While the western farmer will naturally be pleased with this distribution and the amounts realized, he is up against something that all farmers in all parts of our country are up against, rising costs of production.
This means that while these returns will be favourably accepted, the farmer is not yet receiving his just due, and it is necessary that action be taken in those fields in which the farmer has to make expenditures and in particular in the field of farm implements where prices have risen to untoward heights. While the commission sits, prices increase.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will want to congratulate the Canadian Wheat Board on the early distribution of the final payment to wheat producers. This has been a very prompt action, and it indicates the high degree of efficiency with which the Canadian Wheat Board conducts its operations. I am sure congratulations will be in order.
The final payment of some 48 cents on all grades of wheat except Durum, and 52J cents on Durum wheat, will of course be welcomed by the wheat producers of western Canada. The minister was wise, I think to point out once again to the general public the fact that this is not a payment by the government of Canada. This payment underlines the value of the orderly marketing of wheat under a government agency, something for which many of

DEBATES	January 13, 1967
us fought for a long period of years, and it is gratifying to see the degree of stability which this has provided for the wheat producers of Canada.
However, one thing which is sometimes lost sight of is that while wheat prices remain within a stabilised area, the cost of production borne by those who produce wheat has been rising steadily. I notice that in the publication "Canadian Farm Economics" issued by the Department of Agriculture last October the figure is given for the index of prices paid by farmers, excluding their living costs, and this is reported to have gone up from 282.2 in 1962 to 346.8 in April, 1966, the last date for which a figure is available. This represents an increase in the cost of production to wheat producers amounting to 64.6 points, a very substantial increase indeed. The same table shows that the prices paid to the farmers for field products, which includes products other than cereal grain though cereal grain is among them, went down from 191.7 in 1961 to 179.1 in June, 1966, a drop of 12.6 points. It is not necessary to tell this house that any industry in which the cost of production goes up by more than 64 points while the price received for that production goes down by 12.6 points is not in a very healthy position.
The producers of grain have been blessed with large crops. Nevertheless they face the problem of a cost-price squeeze. Certainly the time has come for Canada to press for an increased price in the negotiations for the renewal of the international wheat agreement. [DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
I might also remind the minister and the house that almost four years ago, in March, 1963 in the city of Saskatoon, the Prime Minister pledged that the Liberal party if it came to office, would establish a two price system for wheat with a guaranteed minimum price of at least $2 a bushel; that there would be a price set for the domestic wheat which would have some relationship to prices generally, and that this would enable the government to give the farmers a guaranteed minimum price. No action has ever been taken on this promise. I suggest to the minister that the time is long overdue for the government to carry out the pledge which was made by the Prime Minister almost four years ago.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of my party, I wish to join with the hon. members who spoke previously, and share in the joy of western farmers, following the announcement
January 13, 1967

which the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) has just made.
We, of the Ralliement Creditiste, as well as all the hon. members of the province of Quebec, wish to pay special tribute to the Canadian Wheat Board, to which we owe this tremendous accomplishment, and this group which brought pressure to bear upon the various governments, with a view to finding a market for their wheat.
We, of the province of Quebec, simply hope that the farmers in our areas will imitate the western efforts which were made a few years ago, in order to have such an organization, and thus force the governments into granting the farmers what they want because, in the province of Quebec, the problem is not so much one of production but rather of ability and opportunity to market their production at a profitable price.
I see that the western farmers, through the Canadian Wheat Board, have succeeded in performing that feat of calling on governments to help them, and 1 wish heartily that we may some day, in the province of Quebec, have such an organization that would be called the Canadian Eastern Products Board, in order that the Minister of Trade and Commerce might also announce payments for the province of Quebec and that the good news we hear might not always concern western Canada but also the farmers of the province of Quebec.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we wish to join the others who have spoken in expressing satisfaction that this final wheat payment is being made at this early date and in substantial amount. It will prove beneficial not only to the farmers of western Canada but to the entire economy of Canada.
There are only two brief points which I should like to make. In view of the political situation which is developing at present in red China I think there is concern in this country about markets for our wheat this year and next year, and whether shipments of wheat already agreed to will continue. This points up the necessity of expanding our markets in other areas of the world where food is just as necessary as it is in China.
It also brings out a second point, namely that the surplus of wheat and other food in the world today is decreasing, and the crisis of food for starving people in many parts of the world becomes more critical than ever.
Inquiries of the Ministry
It points up again the necessity of our own surplus supplies of food reaching areas of the world where we are not reaching today and where the needs are critical and urgent. It again comes back to the responsibility of the minister in respect of the necessity to not only develop our own production to greater heights, but also to develop new markets in the other parts of the world. This is something which is urgently facing us today.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Has she been in touch with the C.B.C. regarding the prospective appearance on the program "Sunday" of a neo-nazi by the name of von Thadden? I should like to ask whether she has received communications, as have other members, from Canadians who deeply resent the use of moneys which are given the C.B.C. on a program such as this, which can only exacerbate the feelings of those who served in the last war, their dependants and those families who sacrificed.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had any communication with the C.B.C. since my return.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister bring this matter to the attention of the C.B.C. and in particular, among other things, a telegram from the Saint John Ministerial Association protesting against this irresponsible programming and inexcusable disregard for Canadian sensibilities?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps the right hon. gentleman would send me a copy of that telegram. I do not think I received it.


Robert Norman Thompson: The minister says she has not communicated with the C.B.C. about the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Is the government not considering some action in this regard so far as its own responsibility to the C.B.C. and the Canadian people is concerned? Certainly she should understand, without having to consult with the C.B.C., that the presence of such a man will only open old wounds and arouse bitterness and resentment in this country. If a
11752	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry sick person were coming here who would endanger the health of the country, would she not take some action?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Unhappily I cannot be every place at once. I just returned yesterday, and there has been no opportunity to deal with many things on my desk.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that it is now almost four years since the government was first elected on the pledge to set up the Canada Development Corporation, may I ask the minister what legislative action along this line is being taken to promote this program, since we have now lost at least three precious years?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: I am not quite certain whether it will be possible to get the bill introduced this session, but that is my hope.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the newly appointed Minister without Portfolio, as part of his responsibility, is to be given the task of looking into the matter of the setting up of the Canada Development Corporation.
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minisier):
I am very grateful for the advice of the hon. gentleman as to how to organize government business.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Agriculture arising from the news issued by the Department of Agriculture, to the effect that Canada will import in February over a million pounds of butter.
Would the minister tell us whether the government considers taking steps in order to encourage Canadian producers to provide, as in the past, all the butter necessary to Canadian consumers.
tMr. Thompson.]
DEBATES	January 13, 1967


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think the government's policy is an incentive to production, in as much as prices today are something in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent higher than they were when we came to office. With this kind of policy I am sure future production will be encouraged.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of his answer to the Ontario Indian leader's request yesterday for government assistance to stop the deterioration in living standards of our Indian people to the effect and I quote from the Globe and Mail of this morning-"I too will be a failure", will the minister not adopt something of the attitude of a famous car rental firm and try harder so that our Indian population may have a living standard more comparable to that enjoyed by their fellow Canadians?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this is more of a general representation than a question.



REQUEST FOR STUDY OF STATUS BY ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. I should like to ask whether on her return she can report to the house any progress regarding her request for a royal commission to study the status of women, or does she find her cabinet colleagues in the same condition as when she left, with their backs up?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I find my colleagues in their usual fine condition.


Mr. Starr:: Glued together.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Speaker, happily glued together; not in the condition of my hon. friends opposite, in a state of flux.
I have not had the opportunity to discuss any matters with my colleagues as a cabinet since my return.
January 13, 1967



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is now in a position to answer the question I asked on Tuesday regarding tax rebates to privately owned public utilities.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I understand the hon. member was asking about the refund of taxes under the Public Utilities Act which was passed by the house I think this session or last session. That legislation referred to refunds of taxes in respect of 1966. It is not expected that those refunds can be made, as I indicated at that time, in respect of 1966 until 1968 because of problems of assessment and so on.
In any event the refunds are not made to the public utilities but to the provinces.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, as this is a matter of concern to the customers of these companies, particularly those in Alberta, can the minister hold out no hope that these refunds can be expedited rather than making these people wait for two years?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly do the best we can but it was understood by the provinces when the legislation was passed that it would take about that length of time to make these refunds. I hope we can shorten that time by administrative action, but I do not expect there can be an improvement of more than a few months.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a most important question to the Minister of Transport. Can he indicate whether an immediate investigation and survey of the sea-worthiness, safety of operation and adequacy of personnel on tugs operating off the B.C. coast will now be undertaken in view of the fact that three tugs have gone down in the last three months with the loss of lives. Two of these tugs were under inspection, while the one which sank in recent days was under inspection but possibly undermanned and involved the loss of all five on board.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, without necessarily accepting all the allegations of the hon. gentleman, which may very well be correct, I can assure him that the whole matter is being looked into urgently.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a supplementary question? What is meant by "urgently"?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would be the usual dictionary definition.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns the case of a Canadian citizen who, in my view, is the victim of gross injustice by the government of India. I should like to briefly lay the framework for this question which concerns a Canadian engineer who served for two years in India under the external aid program. At the conclusion of his services there his assets were turned over to the government of India, that is the state trading corporation of India. He was to be paid at the original rate of the rupee; however, due to a delay which occurred through no fault of this citizen-


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


John Chester MacRae: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. During the present session of parliament a number of members, I and the hon. member for New Westminster particularly, have made requests for a study by a parliamentary committee into the various aspects of cruelty to animals. The Prime Minister indicated on various occasions, the last time on November 4, that he would look into the matter at once. He also indicated that he might refer this matter to the committee on agriculture. I am now wondering whether the Prime Minister is in a position to indicate if the government has made any final decision as to which committee of this house will be given the task of looking into this matter and making an appropriate report.
January 13, 1987

Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my hon. friend for not having replied to his earlier question before now. I think I said I would look into the matter, and I can promise him now that I will look into it as a matter of urgency.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. On Wednesday last during her absence I asked the following question which appears at page 11669 of Hansard:
Can he advise the house whether a decision has been reached by the government with respect to the installation and provision of transmission facilities owned by the federal government for the purposes of educational television. If that decision has been reached, when is it proposed that the facilities will be functioning?
As the minister knows, there is at this time a great deal of interest in Alberta in this regard, and the Alberta Government Telephones is in a position to provide facilities in time for next September if the federal government is not able to carry on by that time.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, the federal authorities are dealing almost daily with Alberta authorities in respect of this matter. As a result of the latest information I received a few weeks ago it would appear that facilities will be available for programming in Alberta within this year. I should like to say that I was in the hon. member's constituency on Wednesday handing out $80,000 from the Canadian government, and the hon. member not being there was missed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Secretary of State whether she will agree that the hon. member had a great deal to do with getting that money?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, not that I am aware of.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-
Tisdale): Mr. Speaker, I have a question I

should like to direct to the Minister of Finance. It relates to the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Can a farmer apply for a loan to a bank or credit union with which he is not doing business and, if so, will he likely be refused because he is not a client of that bank or credit union?
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member is asking for a clarification or an interpretation of regulations or a statute. That type of question cannot be asked in that form.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister, and it relates to constitutional reform and the answer given to the house earlier this week by the Prime Minister to the effect that the government did not intend to set up a parliamentary committee immediately to study this question. In view of the fact that B and B, and other government officials, are studying questions regarding constitutional reform, has the government determined any role that elected representatives of the people may play in this important matter during the centennial year?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker; and their role will be decisive when this matter comes before parliament. The position I took was that it would be desirable for the government to complete its own study of the matter before referring the matter to the committee in order that the government would be able to put that position to the committee. I hope that can be done before too long.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, is it the opinion of the government that this can be done during centennial year and the government's findings can be made clear, so the elected representatives of the people can also get on with the job?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would hope this matter could come before the committee before the end of our centennial year.
January 13, 1967



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State based on a letter I received from a very prominent Liberal in my constituency, who is a most progressively minded person.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That is an anachronism.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: He and many others in my riding-let me say my approach to this question is completely non-partisan-are very concerned about the fact that the centennial train will stop at Castlegar but not go to Trail, though there is a railroad for 20 miles connecting with Castlegar. This means that 8,000 school children alone will have to be provided with transportation to visit this train. Can the minister do something about this?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This representation should be made directly to the minister by the hon. member. I do not think it is a question that should be asked at this time.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the minister of manpower. To make the question intelligible I would preface it by saying that it relates to a program of immigration of young boys from Belgium and other countries to attend a seminary at St. Jovite. I would ask the minister to look into this situation and see whether these boys are actually coming here for the purpose of attending school or whether some other activity is envisaged for them. Also, is this program being operated by a group seeking to form a new religion?


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



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I
Inquiries of the Ministry should like to answer a question put to me yesterday by the hon. member for Greenwood, who asked whether I had received a communication from the chairman of the Toronto board of education in relation to the possible early closing of English language schools for immigrant children. I have not received a communication from the chairman, but I have from the director of education of that board.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, if the minister has received a communication from the director, will he tell the house whether the government proposes to do anything about the financial assistance requested for these young immigrants in their schooling in English?


Jean Marchand: As you know, Mr. Speaker, boards of education fall under the jurisdiction of provincial governments. It is not appropriate for me to deal directly with school boards. I think all negotiations should be carried on through the provincial authorities. To clarify the matter a little further, I think there is no federal responsibility in the field of language training in schools, even for immigrants. As far as adult immigrants are concerned, if they need language training in order to obtain employment opportunities I think we can help financially.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If funds are made available to train adults to enter the productive field, can the minister explain why young immigrants should not also receive assistance from this government in connection with training which will enable them also to get into the productive field?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have only 40 minutes for questions this morning.



VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration about the federal-provincial agreement on vocational training and adult education. Can he tell the house why in some areas of the province of Quebec those who attend those classes get only 60 per cent of what is paid elsewhere?


Mr. Speaker:: That question can be put on
the order paper.
January 13, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormision (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister the urgency of which is based on the fact that a number of water and land conservation projects have been held up because the responsibility for development has not yet been designated. Can the Prime Minister indicate which department is responsible for the very essential programs of this nature, and particularly has the responsibility been allocated as among the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, ARDA or P.F.R.A.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to look into this important question.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I really regret the necessity of having to disturb him for the third time this week. Is the Prime Minister yet in a position to advise the house as to the reply of the government to the communication r sceived from Malcolm MacLellan regarding ue massive lay-off of workers at the Sydney yteel plant? What is the government doing, or what is it going to do, to assist these men who are without jobs?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government's position in this matter is that what can be done has already been stated in the house by the minister responsible. I believe I have already replied to the telegram to which my hon. friend refers. If I have not, I am very sorry and I will see it is done Monday. I think in looking up this matter yesterday it was found it had already appeared in Hansard; but I will check on that.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying all morning to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I would ask the minister whether he has received a wire from Mr. Martin Merner of local 1064 of the United Steelworkers of America protesting the delay and asking for a speedy processing of the unemployment insurance claims of the steel workers who have been laid off. If the minister has received such a wire, what answer has he provided?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, having had no notice of this question I cannot recall whether I have received such a wire. I might say, however, that I have been in touch with the Unemployment Insurance Commission with regard to the layoffs of employees in the Sydney area. My latest information is that some three or four claims have not yet been processed, but that all other claims have been processed. In the case of one claim not processed, the wrong social security number was given, and in the case of the other three or four there have been delays in getting the contribution records from the employers.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question. I would ask the minister what notice he requires for a question that asks whether he has received a wire


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I cannot recall all the names of persons from whom I receive wires.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am
still on my feet, Mr. Speaker, and I would like hon. members on the opposite side of the house to give me the opportunity to ask the question. If the Grits cannot be quiet I will find other ways of getting it across. I want again to ask the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: -if I
can make myself heard, what notice he requires to answer a question as to whether he received a communication from the president of the local of the United Steelworkers of America. What notice does the minister need to answer such a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member asked his question the first time. He may not be satisfied with the reply given by the minister, but fortunately according to the rules he can ask the question only once.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breion South):: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear that no answer was given to the question I asked.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I would ask the Minister of Labour whether he would advise his colleague the Minister of Industry that there actually have been massive lay-offs at the Sydney steel plant, because the minister sloughed it off here one day and said very complacently that he did not believe there were massive lay-offs.
January 13, 1967



COMMONS ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. On September 8 I asked whether the minister would tell the house what consideration the government may have given to bringing in its own bill for the abolition of capital punishment. The minister said he was not in a position to answer the question at that time. Could he now tell us whether such a bill will be brought in during this session?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of government policy, and I presume the Prime Minister will make the announcement if and when the occasion arises.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then may I address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister tell the house the position of the government with respect to this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer that question now. As my hon. friend knows, there is a great deal of urgent legislation before the house. I cannot deal with this matter at the present time.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquelte (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is he aware of the verdict rendered by the jury at the coroner's inquest into the Dorion tragedy and what steps is he contemplating in view of that decision?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the Board of Transport Commissioners have advised me that their general counsel attended the inquest. He will be reporting to the board on Monday. As soon as the board has had an opportunity of considering his report and the verdict resulting from the inquest itself, the board will take the 23033-7441

Inquiries of the Ministry necessary action to get the inquiry by the board launched as quickly as possible.


Auguste Choquette: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I apologize for not having given notice thereof to the minister, but I know that, with his ability, he has an answer to all questions.
In view of the many complaints from various quarters about the slowness of decisions, would the minister not deem it appropriate to amend the procedure for getting adequate protection at grade crossings, in order to accelerate the implementation of those projects?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I fear, sir, that is a question I could not answer adequately on the orders of the day. If the hon. gentleman wants to stay around until later in the day there might be an opportunity to provide an answer.


Auguste Choquette: Ten o'clock.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Is the Minister of Transport not considering a conference with municipalities in the near future with a view to setting up a policy for improved protection at grade crossings which have become so dangerous for the Canadian people as a whole?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would hesitate, as a member of the federal government, to attempt to arrange a conference with the municipalities. I fear I would hear from the premier of the hon. gentleman's province, and perhaps from a number of other premiers as well. I do believe there will be an opportunity later, I hope this morning, when we reach the appropriate point in my bill to give consideration to the general objectives the hon. gentleman has in mind.


Michael Starr: May I ask a
supplementary question. Can the Minister of Transport avail himself of the opportunity when the mayors of the municipalities present their annual brief to the federal government to discuss this very important matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did that the last time they were here, which was quite recently. I gave them the assurance at that time that we had this measure which is now before the house, and which I hope we will soon reach, which
January 13, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry provided for the replenishment of the fund and made certain other changes. I hope that the new commission, if and when it is set up, will give very urgent consideration to every possible measure that can be taken to expedite the installation of these protective devices.


Michael Starr: Did the minister at that time urge upon the mayors and reeves of the municipalities that they should proceed with the installation of safety devices at these crossings at the earliest opportunity?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is the custom for the provincial and municipal governments to tell the federal government how to operate its affairs, but we have always taken the view we should not tell the provincial or municipal governments how to conduct their affairs.


Michael Starr: You can make suggestions to them.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Finance, notice of which I gave him last month, having been unable to put the question at the opportune moment.
I should like to ask the minister whether it might not be possible to find additional funds for the Railway Grade Crossing Fund, since all the members agree this problem should be solved as soon as possible, and only a lack of funds prevents it from being solved as it should-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now making representations. He is not asking a question.



HALIFAX AND SAINT JOHN-REASON FOR LACK OF WINTER TRAFFIC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: My question is also directed to the Minister of Transport and has to do with what now must be almost a plea on the part of the people in the ports of Halifax and Saint John. I ask the Minister of Transport what this government is doing to offset the very serious plight of these ports brought about by the lack of winter traffic. If the government has taken some steps or has looked into this matter, will he advise the house, the longshoremen and other interests in those two ports what those steps have been?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would have to make such an extended speech to deal adequately with this subject that I fear Your Honour would not permit me to proceed. I am sure an occasion can be found when that can be done.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: May I ask a supplementary question on this serious matter that has almost devastated the economic life of these two communities. Will the minister obtain full information from the National Harbours Board or other agencies as to the cause, whether it is lack of grain shipments, winter navigation or a depression in world shipping, and report to the house either on the railway bill or at some other time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope I will not be asked to report on so extensive an inquiry as that while the railway bill is before us, but I will be very glad to look into all aspects of that matter. Later this morning I hope to have an amendment to propose to my bill which will have a further good effect in this very field.


Frank Howard: May I ask the Minister of Transport why he insists on referring to the bill which he is piloting through the house as the "railway bill".


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not in order.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: My question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue and has to do with the hundreds, possibly thousands, of professional civil servants who will lose the protection provided by the Civil Service Act of 1962, and will find at the same time that their staff association, the professional institute, is not formally recognized as legally constituted machinery to protect their interests. There has been correspondence in this connection. I ask the minister whether, in view of the fact that these highly trained civil servants will be denied collective bargaining under the legislation, the government is considering setting up a standing advisory committee on the pay of higher civil servants similar to that in effect in the United Kingdom.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to point out that the question of those
January 13, 1967

civil servants who will not be in collective bargaining because of being deemed to be management personnel has not been decided at this point. This will have to be decided later when the three bills have passed through the house. With regard to the other matter, the setting up of an advisory committee such as they have in Great Britain, I may say that is being considered by the government but no decision has been made at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it not a fact that the professional institute take the view that their members will be excluded under the new legislation, and that the minister has refused to give their representative the assurance that the necessary amendments will be made to the bills to meet their apparently justifiable request?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I do believe the great majority of the members of the professional institute will not be excluded from collective bargaining. The numbers who will be excluded have not been determined at this point and cannot be determined until after the legislation is passed by this house.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: May I ask a
supplementary question. I appreciate that only some professional employees will be excluded. Will the minister consider an amendment to the present proposed Bill No. C-170 which would give some kind of consultative possibility to the excluded personnel?


Edgar John Benson: This bill is before a committee, Mr. Speaker, and my hon. friend is a member of that committee. He can bring forward any suggestion he likes in the committee.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I should like to ask the minister whether he has been made aware of the unhappiness and concern that have arisen over the situation of an Indian agency superintendent acting as returning officer, having to cast a deciding ballot in the Brantford reserve elections. If so, can he inform the house what steps he has in mind to avoid a recurrence of this unfortunate incident?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question should
be placed on the order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry



SUBMISSION RESPECTING HUNTING AND FISHING RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister any statement to make with regard to the submission made to him yesterday by the union of Ontario Indians with respect to the curtailment of their traditional hunting and fishing rights as a result of the migratory birds convention which was passed?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I made a rather detailed statement on the occasion of the presentation of this brief which has been published. I would be very glad to send my hon. friend a copy.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question. I did hear this submission, but may I ask the minister whether officials of his department have checked, or are checking, with their United States counterparts to find out whether it is true that the United States government agencies permit Indians to hunt on their own reservations.


Arthur Laing: I made this inquiry yesterday, Mr. Speaker, but this is not capable of confirmation at this date. We are trying to find out.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State. During her recent tour she made reference to the fact that a new national holiday will be established to commemorate centennial year. May I ask the hon. lady whether this holiday will replace an existing national holiday. If not, can she tell the house in what month the holiday will occur?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I understand that press representatives in the east have indicated that I announced that there would be such a holiday, whereas in fact what happened was that I discussed with a number of representatives of the communications media the lack of a holiday on January 11 to honour Canada's first prime minister. I pointed out that most parents and almost all school authorities felt that this was far too soon after the Christmas
COMMONS DEBATES	January 13, 1967



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry and New Year's holidays, and I said it might very well be that there will be another holiday some time during the centennial year to be announced. I could not, of course, give any further information.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that as icing to the cake there has been some additional speculation here firming up this statement, which actually was never made.
Eric Alfred Winkler: A supplementary question. Do I take it that there has been no decision taken in this regard, or is such a proposition under discussion by the hon. lady and her colleagues in the cabinet?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada makes announcements with respect to such major matters. If any such announcement is to be made no doubt he will make it in due course.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Earlier this week the minister said in reply to a question of mine that the government was still interested in doing something with regard to the rehabilitation of children in Viet Nam. Recent developments reported today show that in Washington a program is now being started to bring Viet Namese children to the United States for rehabilitation. Would the minister and his department be willing to consider a similar program for Canada?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the scheme that we discussed the other day was a ^proposal that had been considered by Dr. Gingras of Montreal for a rehabilitation centre in Viet Nam. The proposal that is implicit in this question is one which has probably been aroused as a result of the action which was announced in Washington. This action was proposed by private voluntary organizations in the United States which seek to use funds contributed voluntarily for such a purpose.
I would certainly be strongly in favour of a similar voluntary effort being made in Canada. As to whether the Department of External Affairs, or the external aid office, is giving consideration to this subject, I may say that it is now being studied.
[Miss LaMarsh.l
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. On November 14 last, in reply to a question I asked relating to the extension of C.B.C. television services in northern Manitoba, the Secretary of State replied, as reported at page 9847 of Hansard, in these words:
This week I should have the information before me, which may form the basis for announcing a definite date for service in northern Manitoba.
May I ask the Secretary of State whether she is now in possession of that information or can advise the house how negotiations are progressing.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I had a very pleasant interview while I was in the hon. member's province this week, but I have not yet had an opportunity to obtain the C.B.C.'s reaction. I think very shortly I will have some happy news for the hon. member's constituents; and I should also like to thank them for the thousand-odd Christmas cards they were good enough to send me.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair for the house to go into committee I wonder whether the house would be agreeable to reaching an understanding that the committee will suspend its sittings from 1.15 to 1.45, so that we may have a little humane treatment of the members of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Why not extend the
humanity another 15 minutes?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Because I think we would make more progress if it were not extended too much. If that is agreeable to the house perhaps it could be understood.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it ordered by the house that the committee of the whole studying bill No. C-231 will suspend its sittings from 1.15 to 1.45?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
January 13, 1967



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, January 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-231, to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions-Mr. Pickersgill-Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: When the committee rose yesterday, clause 42 of the bill was under discussion.

On clause 42.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether 1 could make a suggestion to the committee for dealing with clause 42 which is, I think, by all odds the longest clause in the bill. If it is agreeable to the committee I suggest that we take each paragraph which inserts a new section into the Railway Act and deal with it separately. I have gone over this quite carefully this morning and by doing this I think I could answer much more effectively the points that were raised by the hon. member for Acadia and by one or two other members last night. In this way I think we would really come to grips with the detail of the bill instead of having a long and probably repetitive debate on the subject generally.
As nearly as I can determine from a quick survey, the specific answers to each of the questions that have already been asked are found in each of the clauses. I think we would make much better progress in this way, if this suggestion is agreeable to the committee.
The Depuiy Chairman: Is it agreed?


Mr. Baldwin:: May I just understand what the minister has in mind. He suggests we treat each one of these section 314 clauses as a subclause for the purpose of our discussions?
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. I think it would help us make orderly progress if that could be agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Chairman, the constituency I represent is troubled by certain proposed rail line abandonments. The minister has said that we ought to take each
Transportation
clause separately, but so concerned am I and so concerned is my constituency about rail line abandonment, and so wide an area will my remarks cover, that it may be difficult for me to stay within one clause. I have a number of questions to ask the minister. Though through the years commissions have been appointed, we all know what has happened. We know that often the people did not get the hearing they ought to have had.
On the question of rail line abandonment I have a story to tell, a story about the mistreatment of the vast area I represent, a story of the treatment the people in my area received from the railway companies which fought at one time to get charters for the area. They fought for those charters and then, for many years, did nothing about them. My area has been unfairly treated.
Many people of my district, the veterans, the pioneers, have left. They waited for 40 or 50 years for the promised rail line; then being fed up with waiting, many left. Now in our centennial year we are threatened with abandonment of the line which really never was completed. We are threatened with the destruction of what we had hoped for. I am deeply concerned about this, and I wish to know the formula this commission will follow in considering what lines to abandon.
I have a story to tell; not many hon. members may have stories like this. I well remember the sod turning ceremony at Shellbrook, Saskatchewan, in 1928 for the building of the line that the company tries now to call a branch line. The project was never completed. If the line had been completed it would not have been a branch line but part of the main line on the north side of North Saskatchewan river serving the cities of North Battleford and Prince Albert, going through northern Saskatchewan on to northern Alberta and ultimately serving the entire territory north of the North Saskatchewan river. This line was never completed. Now the company applies to abandon this portion of line from Spruce Lake to Frenchman Butte so that it never will be completed.
This is unjust. We have a right to know the formula the commission will follow. To make clear what line I refer to, I am speaking of the Bolney subdivision, from Spruce Lake to Frenchman Butte running for a distance of 28-odd miles. As I say, I remember the sod turning ceremony. There were veterans there, people who had emigrated to Canada, who hoped for a new life. This crowd had already waited for 10 or 15 years for the promised

January 13, 1967
Transportation
line. That ceremony took place almost 40 years ago, and today it is proposed that the branch line be abandoned. I do not call it a branch line; to my mind it is part of the main line. This request for abandonment is one of the first to be made.
I can well remember how the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National struggled to get the charter for this line, this great line, to be built on the north side of the North Saskatchewan river. This area has great mineral resources, and the line would link northeastern Alberta, w;th its great salt mines at Heinsburg, with the rest of the province. I can remember the enthusiasm of the settlers. I remember the colonization boards the railways had working for them. I remember how the people were told to go into the area, to settle the land, to build. They did that. They settled the land and they built fine homes and raised fine families, and they made it one of the best mixed farming countries, one we can be proud of. Now, in our centennial year we find we are to lose the railway we have waited 50 years for.
Let us take a good look at this, before we pass this clause, before we put these people at the mercy of a commission which may not give them a chance to be heard. We deserve to have another look at this matter and at the blundering of the railway companies. When I first came to Ottawa, for quite a long time I was on the railway committee. I was not too successful in bringing our case before that committee and I did not get much of a hearing. The committee was not concerned. The railway company knows it will haul the area's produce, no matter how far around it must take it. If some mining company had been involved it would have been different. Only 38 miles are left of this main line on the north side of the Saskatchewan river joining up two good northern cities in the great mixed farming country, full of natural resources.
Since attending the railway committee I have seen how the Canadian National, for instance, has blundered with some of its hotels. It tried to create accommodation for the rich, to make their travelling more convenient. The losses in our year alone would have linked the 38-mile gap and given this line an opportunity to prove whether it would be a paying or losing proposition. That this has not happened is unfair. I wish to know the formula this Commission will follow in deciding what shall give a company the right to say "We shall pull up 20 miles here, or apply to pull up another 40 miles in the next year".

Questions like this our people are interested in. I think of another branch line, a good spur serving another vast area north from St. Walburg. Here the railroad grade was built all the way from St. Walburg to Grand Centre, Alberta, but they forgot to put the steel on it. The people were encouraged to build up the country, and it became a great country. The people kept their part of the bargain. But the Canadian National, which got the charter for the route from St. Walburg to Grand Centre, Alberta, did not keep its part.
I think of the people who came to the area, of the German population and many others who came to that part of the country ; to Loon Lake, Beacon Hill, Goodsoil and Pierceland.
I should love to show the minister through the country, to show him the homes they built and the good faith they kept. Now they have to haul their grain for 50 to 65 miles.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
Is this fair and just? All this right of way still belongs to the various railway companies.
I notice this question was raised in the debate last night. This is why I want to know something about the formula which is to be used. If justice were done the line from Bolney to Frenchman Butte would not be abandoned; the C.N.R. would be compelled to build the line from Frenchman Butte as far as Heinsburg, Alberta.
I remember so well back in 1929 when the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. each wanted a charter to get to Meadow Lake. They knew the wealth of the country. They knew that Meadow Lake was one of the great producing areas in the three prairie provinces. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the C.P.R. was successful. I have nothing against the C.P.R. or its operations but I think in all fairness the Canadian National should have had this charter because it was this company which pioneered the area of northwestern Saskatchewan about which I am speaking.
The C.P.R. wanted to get this vast wealth. It sounds unscrupulous when one begins to think about it; all they had to do was to get running rights for 65 miles over Canadian National lines. This has been the position since 1929. They ran for 65 miles from Prince Albert over Canadian National lines and had only to go 90 miles to reap all the wealth of the Meadow Lake country, without accepting any obligation to extend the line to serve people beyond the terminal point. The company realized that those men had to haul their grain to Meadow Lake. It did not care that those farmers had to haul grain 65 or 70 miles. This has been the
January 13, 1967

situation for years. The company had a joint line down to North Battleford and had built a branch line across to hook up with the C.P.R. Now application has been made to abandon some 31.6 miles of line, thus cutting the city of North Battleford off from Meadow Lake which is approximately 100 miles to the south. The company knows it has this business. It does not want to keep up this line connecting the two cities. I say the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. should be forced to lay their books on the table and either give this country the fair service it deserves or face the consequences. I would make that plain.
One company should operate in this part of the country. Why the need for these running rights? Why run trains 65 miles during which distance they are not allowed to pick up anything? Why was the company not compelled to link up with Grand Centre so as to meet the needs of the settlers who went in there and broke up this land in good faith? Those men kept their part of the bargain. What are we doing today? We are talking about applications for the abandonment of lines which should not properly be considered as branch lines; they are main lines, 36 miles long in one case and 28 in the other. No doubt the company will be able to show they are not profitable. They never were and they never will be unless the links about which I have spoken are connected up. I cannot understand why the companies have been allowed to go on all these years without being compelled to keep their part of the bargain.
I have seen the petitions which have come from the Alberta side, from the area represented by the hon. member for Athabasca-petitions with two or three hundred names on them. These people have got tired. They are resigned to hauling their grain 65 or 70 miles. Have hon. members ever stopped to realize what it costs a farmer to do this nowadays? The applications which the railway companies now have in mind are only a start. There will be others, and what is left will be even less likely to prove a paying proposition.
The bill before us is one which concerns me deeply. I regret that so far we have allowed the railway companies to get away with discrimination of this kind. Consider some of the losses incurred in railway hotel ventures. I think of the Chateau Laurier. The loss in one or two years would be enough to build this 38 miles of line to close the gap about which I have complained and give these people a chance. They have lived up to their part of the bargain. Are we going to let them down? This is their centennial year, but what have
Transportation
they to celebrate? We talk about building a new train which will run at 160 miles an hour between Montreal and Toronto. How do we know that this is will be profitable? The minister is encouraging these people to go to Saskatoon and see the wonderful centennial train. They know they will never see it in their area, where even their livelihood is now threatened.
I had the pleasure this summer of visiting Pine Point in the Northwest Territories. I saw at first hand what this development meant to the people there who had waited for so many years for it to happen. Do not think we lack mineral resources in northern Saskatchewan rich enouch to warrant railway construction. We have fine timber areas, we have wheat, we have iron ore north of Buffalo Narrows. Had the proper company been given the charter I think we would have reached the stage by now at which we would be asking for a northern link extending to these great national resources.
I am afraid of some of these committees. I know what can easily happen. I know that the representation of each party may be cut down to one or two members, and I am worried lest these people whom I represent will be denied a proper hearing. This is a matter we must consider very carefully before we leave this part of the bill. I have travelled through this area and attended some of the meetings. The community halls were packed because the people were concerned about losing this transportation which had attracted them to that country in the first place, e (12:30 p.m.)
These people, many of them veterans of the first world war who have retired, and many of them immigrants whom we have encouraged into this country, will find now that after spending all these years fulfilling their part of the bargain, they will be faced with the abandonment of 38 miles of that line. If 40 years ago we had compelled the railway company to build this line perhaps today this might be one of the best paying railway lines in that part of Canada.
These are some of the things that concern me very greatly. I do not believe for one minute that today this line should be considered solely on the basis of its losses, because it has never had a chance to make profits. How could any line manage, to pay dividends if it was never finished? There is a 38 mile gap there and it goes through one of the finest mixed farming areas in Canada. This is the way the people who live there have been

January 13, 1967
Transportation
treated. I am not blaming any particular government for this but am putting the blame on all of us for allowing the railway companies to do what they have done.
I think one of the railway companies could have given this country a better service if it were given the chance to do so, instead of allowing another company to get in and take advantage of the running rights over that company's tracks. I think this is a shame, and I hope before this bill is passed we will have a definite understanding of the formula upon which this commission will work.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Like the hon. member for Meadow Lake I was brought up in one of these northern communities. I understand very well what he means when he talks about the kind of situation he has described to us because, according to the map which the Manitoba government used to publish, that railway line was to go to Hudson Bay but never got beyond Gypsumville. However, I believe that on examining each of the clauses of the bill the hon. member will find that they represent a great improvement over the present law and provide greater safeguards for the interests of the communities than are contained in the law we have at present.
As the MacPherson commission pointed out, if these lines are essential to the community, even if they are losing money, they cannot be abandoned. This bill incorporates real safeguards. I think the hon. member will find, on examination of each of the clauses, that they contain far greater safeguards for the interests of communities, particularly communities in the northern part of the country where there is still a prospect of further development, than they ever had before.
I did not interrupt the hon. gentleman because he is one of the members who very rarely take up the time of the house, and I knew he had something to say which was very important to him I believe he will come to realize that all we are laying down in this bill are procedures and safeguards. I do hope it will not be considered by all hon. members that it is relevant to discuss the particular situation of particular railway lines, because that is not what we are trying to achieve at the present time. What we are trying to do is to make sure that no branch line will be abandoned if it is important to the economy of the community to preserve it. In this bill we are asking parliament to vote a certain amount of money to authorize the Minister of Finance to pay the losses and keep the railways in operation in areas where they are

really essential to the economy of the community.
I think it is very important that we should pass this legislation so we will have these safeguards instead of operating under the present system which everybody agrees is quite unsatisfactory. I think the hon. gentleman will be particularly interested in section 314C. Perhaps he would run over it quickly while other hon. members are speaking. When we get to it I will try to answer several of the questions he raised and a number of questions which have been raised by other hon. members.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder we could go ahead now and deal with each of the subclauses separately as we agreed to do at the beginning of today's sitting.


Mr. Noble:: May I ask the minister a short question at this time. How does the minister propose to deal with cases where municipalities gave the railways liberal grants in return for a guarantee from the railways of service for a period of years, and now the railways have decided to abandon this service although the contract has not reached the expiry date?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman has asked me for a legal opinion which I am not competent to give and which, under our rules, I am not allowed to give. While we are adjourned between 1.15 p.m. and 1.45 p.m. I will try to get some kind of an answer from someone who understands the legal situation in this case. If the hon. gentleman could inform me privately at 1.15 of the particular circumstances he has in mind I might be able to give him a more intelligent answer.


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that it is the Department of Transport which will make the final decision in this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If a valid contract exists between a railway and a municipality this will come within the purview of the courts, and if the railway is breaking a contract-I am saying this offhand-the municipality could take the railway to court. I doubt if we could legislate to change that because I would guess-and here I am transgressing the rules-that this matter of the enforcement of a contract would fall under provincial jurisdiction.


Percy Verner Noble: Could the municipalities expect any support from the Department of Transport?
January 13. 1967


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would have to know the particular circumstances of the case before giving an answer. I do not think it would come within the purview of this particular legislation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister answer another question. Surely he would not object to hon. members rising to criticize deficiencies in the section as a whole and giving illustrations of experiences in their own districts in this connection.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We did make an agreement at the beginning of the committee's sitting today that we would take each subclause separately, and the committee having undertaken to do that I would hope we would not revert to a general debate at this time. Unless a bill of this length is approached in a systematic way it will be very difficult to reach any conclusion at all.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I think we are in general agreement that we should move systematically in the way proposed by the minister, but I would point out that, as has been mentioned, some members expressed thoughts two or three times in the debate which may not have been directly related to the legal problems of administration that are implicit in some of these sections. Would it not be better if, subject to any other questions, we moved on to section 314C which deals with the likelihood of an interpretation of whether a line is uneconomic?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think if we could dispose of section 314A, which is a definition section, and 314B which deals with purely procedural matters, we could then proceed to consideration of section 314C subsection by subsection. I doubt whether there is anything in section 314A which anyone would wish to discuss in particular. Perhaps we could agree to pass it.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Before we leave section 314A I should like to know just whose accounting the board is going to accept. We ran into the situation previously.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: One of the subclauses deals specifically with accounting and we will come to that in the regular way. When he examines this clause I think the hon. gentleman will be completely satisfied. Perhaps he might not mind reserving his question until we reach that subclause.


George Robson Muir: Could the minister give
me the number of the subclause?
Transportation


John Whitney Pickersgill: I read it this morning and I should have made a note of it. I think it appears after new section 314D. If the hon. member would run quickly through these items himself and look at the marginal notes I think he would find what he is looking for.


Mr. Schreyer:: With reference to new section 314A, subsection (b), the definition of a branch line, I should like to ask the minister whether he has given further consideration to suggestions which were made in committee to the effect that perhaps it might be better to leave the matter of the definition of a branch line to the commission rather than attempt to give a definition in the bill.
I believe the reason for this suggestion was that lines which are other than main lines may still, in many aspects of their use, be regarded as other than branch lines. In that regard they have a peculiar status. Just because a particular line of railway is not considered in the fullest sense of the word to be a main line does not necessarily mean it is a branch line. Does the minister recall the suggestion that perhaps this should be left to the discretion of the commission when specific cases are brought before it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: A good deal of consideration was given to that point. I suggested that we just leave it out altogether. It was suggested to me, however, that if we did that we would be going too far and might be implying that the railways could apply to get rid of some part of their main lines. Obviously the commission never would agree to applications of that sort, but on balance I came to the conclusion that if we were to take it out it might create fears and misapprehensions which would cause a longer debate than would be the case were we to leave it in.
The definition is so loose that I think it in fact does what the hon. member for Springfield suggests. By leaving it in we are emphasizing the fact that we are talking about branch lines and are not seeking to empower the commission or any person to get rid of the fundamental structure of the railways in this country. On balance, after a lot of consideration "comme-ci comme-ga" I have come to the conclusion that we ought to leave it in.


Mr. Fane:: While we are on this item, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister why, while this bill is before the house, during the last week I received notice that the Canadian National Railways have applied for permission to abandon two 24 mile stretches of their line, one between the city of Camrose

January 13, 1967
Transportation
and the town of Tofield-which is more or less a main line on the C.N.R. between Edmonton and Calgary-and the other between Vegreville and the city of Camrose, which is a branch line. Why do I receive notice now that the C.N.R. has applied to abandon those lines?
While I am on my feet I should like to take this opportunity to commend most strongly my friend the hon. member for Meadow Lake for his wonderful presentation in respect of the situation in his constituency. His presentation affects my constituency considerably because of the extension of 39.1 miles from Frenchman Butte to Heinsburg which was never completed. When that line was put in, I believe in 1926 or thereabouts, it would have cost approximately $3 million to finish that 39.1 miles. That was never done, and God only knows how much it would cost to finish it today. That line never was completed but still should be completed, because it goes through a very prosperous farming area. The people there have to ship their grain back around through Edmonton a distance of about 200 miles at least. As I said this is a very prosperous area and this matter should be attended to. There is also the chemical plant at Heinsburg. Any production from that plant has to be sent back through Edmonton. They cannot get it out for shipment to the east in any other way.
It is beyond me why in the world there is talk of abandoning these lines and rolling up the lines which my friend from Meadow Lake has told us about. These lines are feeders for that country. I think it is time we looked at this realistically. If the Canadian National Railways do run some lines which are not profitable, why in the name of heaven, when they are subsidized by the Canadian people, can they not provide a service?
Also, of course, there is the matter of the passenger runs which are being abandoned. I expect this is a matter which is not to be brought up at this time. There are, however, plenty of applications to abandon passenger runs which the former president of the Canadian National Railways personally told me were not paying. They may not be paying, but they provide a service to that part of the country which the people have paid for. These people should be able to have that service.
This is not the time, especially during Canada's centennial year, to deprive the people who opened up this country of the service which they have had through all these years. I think I will reserve the remainder of my remarks until we reach the relevant clauses. I do, however, wish to bring these matters

before the minister. I should like to know particularly why the Canadian National Railways are allowed at this time, while this bill is before us, to notify me that they want to abandon two 24 mile stretches of line in my constituency.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think I might very briefly answer that particular point. If the hon. gentleman would read what I said in response to a question from the hon. member for Acadia last night I think it would be apparent that the C.N.R. has made no new applications. These are applications which have been frozen for years and presumably are not on the map of protected routes. Therefore once this bill is passed they would be eligible for hearings.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
All this does is give notice of that fact. It does not enable the commissioners to do anything until this bill has been completed, and I repeat the assurance I gave last night that when the hearings are held-and they will have to be held-they will be under the new procedures with all the additional safeguards provided by this bill when it is passed.


Frank John William Fane: I hope I will be notified of those meetings in order that I may be present to hear the evidence and the formal application.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The meetings will not be held in secret and I am sure the hon. gentleman will have every opportunity to be present, as will every other interested individual. That is one of the features we are providing by this new legislation, as the hon. gentleman will see.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, I take it that we are dealing with new sections 314A and 314B. I should like to ask some questions in respect of new section 314B.


Maurice Rinfret: May I ask the committee whether we have concluded our consideration of new section 314A?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Rinfret: We will now consider new section 314B.


James Ernest Pascoe: I wish to speak on new section 314C.


Maurice Rinfret: May I ask then whether we have concluded our consideration of 314B?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
January 13, 1967


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, with the consent of hon. members I suggest that when we consider 314C, which is the section of perhaps the greatest interest, we should take each paragraph separately in order that we may deal with them thoroughly. This is a very important part.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is agreeable providing some flexibility is allowed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is understood. There will be no rigidity in this regard.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Chairman, in respect of new section 314C does the minister see any reason for the inclusion of those words which seem to imply that the commission may or may not hold a meeting in respect of a proposed abandonment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There may be an unlikely case, and I am not sure this has ever happened, where absolutely no one would object following the notice and so on. In that event it would seem rather silly to go to the expense of having a hearing. That is a very unlikely contingency and I will consider that point. I am sure we will not conclude our consideration of this new section before we recess. I will consider whether it can be struck out. I do not object to that, but there is a remote chance that in respect of a small abandonment no one would object. These words have been included to meet that possibility.


George Robson Muir: Perhaps those words could be substituted by words to the effect that if no objection is advanced to the commission a hearing shall not be required.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would hesitate to substitute my drafting ability for the ability of those people who are skilled in these matters. Perhaps I should consult with the draftsmen during the adjournment.


James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, I wish to refer to new section 341C which states in underlined words that the commission shall-
-having regard to all matters that to it appear relevant, determine whether the branch line is uneconomic and is likely to continue to be uneconomic-
Let me join with others in commending the hon. member for Meadow Lake for his very forceful presentation in respect of a local situation. I was happy to note that the minister listened carefully to him. My remarks will be more general, but they do have a bearing
Transportation
on this point as to whether a branch line will continue to be uneconomic.
Part V is probably the most important part of this bill so far as the prairie regions are concerned, and particularly Saskatchewan. In saying that I do not discount the importance of other segments of transportation policy, concerning trucking, airways, waterways and potential development of commodity pipe lines. However, railways are the economic life lines of Saskatchewan. I am sure the minister is aware of that fact, having prepared this map which shows the nunber of rail lines which exist in that province. No other province has a network of rail lines comparable to those in Saskatchewan, and no other part of Canada will be affected more by this part of the bill.
The yellow lines on this map indicate those lines which will be frozen until 1975, and most of them are yellow in Saskatchewan. There are some black lines, with which we will probably deal in respect of specific cases.
Hon. members from the prairies want to be reasonable in regard to railway problems and do not intend to delay passage of this bill, but we make no apology for trying to make sure the final bill is the best one possible.
Let me now refer to the essentiality of railway lines in Saskatchewan. I wish to read a few remarks of the Minister without Portfolio to bolster my argument regarding the need to seriously consider this whole matter of abandonment of branch lines. On June 28 of last year the Minister without Portfolio made a speech in Montreal concerning some aspects of a national transportation policy. He said:
Transportation is a vital factor in Canadian economic life. It affects the price of everything that moves for sale or purchase. It determines where factories will be located. It determines accessibility to markets. It determines which regions of the country will prosper and develop.
The determination of which regions of the country will prosper and develop is extremely important to the province of Saskatchewan. Later the minister said:
The railway monopolies remain only in a few geographical areas.
In some respects one of the areas where railway monopolies exist is in Saskatchewan, particularly in regard to the movement of bulk commodities such as wheat and potash. Later the minister said in reference to a single transport board, which will be the Canadian Transport Commission, that such a board would have total responsibility for all aspects

January 13, 1967
Transportation
of transportation. One of these aspects was stated to be:
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
The protection of the public interest by a continuing analysis of the obsolescence or superfluity of various modes of transport, while ensuring that the abandonment by any one transport facility would not leave inadequate or inefficient services available to any particular locality.
I think that reinforces the argument I am trying to make in regard to looking at the whole situation before abandonment of any branch line is allowed. The minister has assured us in this regard. We have heard his statement on this matter. I am sure the commission will read that statement and I hope the railways will also see it. If I might, Mr. Chairman, I would now refer to the minister himself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a pretty dangerous thing to do.


James Ernest Pascoe: He made a speech in Winnipeg to the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce on April 27, 1966, when this bill was in process. The minister said:
The seaway, modem highway transport and air transport have ended the railway monopoly, except in a few geographical areas-
I contend again that some parts of the prairies are included in those areas.
-and, more important, except for a relatively few, but economically very important, bulk commodities-*
I emphasize, as I said before, that wheat and possibly potash and lumber are included in those bulk commodities. Then the minister said:
Even where transport services are technically uneconomic, many existing services are essential to the national unity of Canada or to the economic development of certain regions.
I know the minister believes that statement and I think he is trying very hard to achieve this end in the bill. The complete abandonment of any branch line is a final step that cannot be remedied without great delay and difficulty should unforeseen developments occur in areas not now able to make full use of such lines. I refer here to the minister's words:
Even where transport services are technically uneconomic-
I refer particularly to areas adjacent to the South Saskatchewan dam, which is now nearing completion. Major development will occur as a result of this great dam. There will be agricultural and industrial development. Some

branch lines in that area are unprotected on this map; they have already been listed for possible abandonment. In this connection I would refer to the letters I have received in line with those received by the hon. member for Vegreville expressing the concern of these areas that the railway lines are listed for abandonment.
In this regard I wish to put on the record some figures quoted in a press report dealing with proposed abandonments by the railway, namely, Central Butte to Grainland, 13.10 miles, Central Butte to Riverhurst, 18.02 miles. And there are others with which I am sure the hon. member for Assiniboia is concerned. The two areas I have mentioned are in the region I have been talking about near the new South Saskatchewan dam. No one knows right now what developments will result from this dam.
To bolster my argument I should also like to put on the record very briefly an editorial which appeared in the Moose Jaw Timos-Herald of Saturday, August 27, 1966. The headline is, "West Vitally Involved In Railways' Dispute". The article reads in part as follows:
If the railroads are to be given a free hand to set rates and to lop off allegedly uneconomic limbs, it is certain that prairie Canada is the one area of the nation that stands to lose most heavily.
In terms of rates, the primary industries of the west are captives of the two rail giants. The farmer can ship his grain to export markets only by rail. The potash companies, the mining and woods industries of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are almost wholly dependent on rail. On the other side, all the heavy equipment that comes into the west moves largely by rail.
Undue freight rate increases or, conversely, lowering of service, could hamstring the western economy and would lower the standard of living in the west.
I think that pinpoints fairly well the argument I am making that the commission should take a very close look at the situation before agreeing to the abandonment of any line, even though the railway costing system shows that there is an operating loss. I will probably have more to say later in regard to this question. The explanation of new section 314C is follows:
This amendment would enable any person who wishes to do so, to appear and be heard on any proposed abandonment.
In this connection I am arguing that it should be possible for anyone appearing before the commission to have expert advice in regard to the costing techniques of the
January 13, 1967

railway and their presentation for abandonment. This may be beside the point, but just today the Minister of Trade and Commerce made an announcement in respect of the final payment for wheat. The final payment, amounting to some $270 million, emphasizes the importance of wheat to the economy of the whole of Canada. I am saying that the commission should take a very careful look at these black lines on the map when considering the abandonment of any rail line. Very careful consideration should be given to this question in those areas which require transportation to bring their wheat into marketing position. I emphasize, that the final payment of $270 million, is the farmers' own money; it does not come from the government. Our farmers are the best spenders in the world and this money will be spread right across the whole economy of Canada.
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)
Perhaps this point does not come directly under the section being discussed, and if it does not I apologize to the committee. I thank the minister for stating that this question will be very carefully considered, and I hope a decision is reached on the basis of current figures on the movement of wheat. 1 recall one committee meeting at which figures were given indicating how much more grain was being produced in Saskatchewan now and how much greater the grain movement was. We will take the minister's word that he will make certain the commission receives the latest figures with regard to the movement of wheat and the revenues the railways receive from it. I believe that is all I need to say at the present time. I will not promise that I will not speak later, but I wanted to lay this background now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, the proposed section 314C is the nub of the whole question of railway abandonment. I think the committee should have clearly in mind that the onus for making a case for railway abandonment must be laid squarely upon the railways. I feel that should be the basic assumption upon which all of this legislation is framed. The railways built these railways with public assistance in the form of financial grants, tracts of land with the mineral rights, and certain tax exemptions by both federal and provincial governments. These railways were built to give service to the people of the prairie provinces. The railways have done quite well financially. People have built their communities, their homes and their social activities around the railway centres.
Transportation
There is going to be tremendous economic and social disruption if these lines are abandoned. I am not saying that no line should ever be abandoned. It seems to me that in this committee we have to tighten this legislation as much as possible so that the onus is on the railways to prove to the satisfaction of the commission that the abandonment will not have adverse economic and social consequences upon the communities affected. It is not enough for the railway to be able to say that it is not making money on a particular line. It may be making money on other lines and often the branch line contributes to the profits which are being made on the main line.
It seems to me we cannot assume that mere proof by the railway it is losing money on a particular branch line should be adequate ground for permitting abandonment. It seems to me we have to be sure there is clearly written into this proposed section 314C the understanding that the railway must show that the community is not going to suffer adversely. Since we are about to rise for lunch, I will just ask the minister to give his views when we reassemble on subsection (1), lines 44, 45 and 46. These lines read in part as follows:
-determine whether the branch line is uneconomic and is likely to continue to be uneconomic and whether the line should be abandoned-
Are those to be the major criteria? I recognize that in subsection (2) other criteria are set out. However, I greatly fear that the restrictive criteria set out in subsection (1) may be interpreted to mean that the sole consideration will be whether the branch line is uneconomic and likely to continue to be uneconomic.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may turn the tables at this point, I should like to ask the hon. member a question. Does the hon. gentleman not think it must be a necessary condition because the bill, as it is drafted, will specifically prohibit the railways from abandoning a line that is economic? Therefore, even to be heard the railways have to prove in the first place that the line is uneconomic and likely to continue to be uneconomic. It is very unlikely they would apply to abandon it otherwise.
We may save a great deal of time if I just remind all members of the committee of one simple fact, and it is this. The fact that a line is a loser or that it is uneconomic does not mean that it is going to be abandoned. This legislation provides that the Minister of Finance may pay to keep these uneconomic lines in operation if they are necessary to the

January 13, 1967
Transportation
economy of the region or if they provide an essential service to the region. We are not putting the burden on the other lines of the railway. We are accepting that as a burden on the treasury. That is the whole scheme in the bill and there is no such provision in the law as it stands now. I believe that is the great defence of this part of the legislation.


The Chairman:: Order. Pursuant to an order of the house made earlier this day this sitting stands suspended until 1.45 p.m.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 1.45 p.m.
Maurice Rinfret: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-231. When the committee rose at 1.15 it was considering new section 314C (1) of clause 42.


Mr. Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Chairman, having just celebrated the birthday of Sir John A. Macdonald who was so instrumental in building confederation, shortly after which the railways to hold and bind Canada together were also built, it seems odd that we are now discussing this bill which seeks to do away with a good many of the lines which were planned and constructed in the early days of confederation.
Like many other members from western Canada I am very much concerned about this particular section of the bill pertaining to rail line abandonment because I happen to have in my riding approximately 250 miles of unprotected lines. I have also received up to the present time copies of three applications, two by Canadian National Railways and one by the Canadian Pacific Railway, for abandonment of some of these lines. This question falls into three categories which are dealt with in the proposed section 314C. I should like to make one or two comments on what the minister said last night about clause 89, I believe it was, when answering the hon. member for Acadia. The minister said, as found on page 11739 of Hansard:
[DOT] (1:50 p.m.)
-but everybody agrees that some of them should be abandoned and might well be abandoned as quickly as possible because all they are doing is costing the taxpayers of Canada money for a very, very inadequate return.
Later I shall produce figures that may clarify the picture. The minister went on to say:
Of course we have an undertaking that no hearings will be held until this bill has been disposed of by parliament one way or the other.

I suggest that if this bill is passed, under the legislation the governor in council will have the power to require all the hearings to be held in accordance with the new criteria and the new standards. But I think it would be rather unfair, since most of these applications have been in for years, to say that the railways must start all over again-
With regard to the applications made in the early 1960's, most of the figures go back to 1959, but between 1959 and 1965 the farming picture has changed and I have figures to show that. If we look at the volume of shipments in 1966 we will see that 1966 was one of the best shipping years on record. For these reasons there must be new applications in most instances because the figures now are different from those in 1959.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can reassure the hon. gentleman on that point. All that is meant by people not having to apply again is that the applications would be there, but they would have to bring their figures up to date before hearings were held or there would not be hearings. That is clearly provided in the bill.


Lawrence E. Watson: Thank you. As I understand it, the applications are there and the railways will not have to make new applications but must bring their figures up to date.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite.


Lawrence E. Watson: To make my point I wish to refer to a specific line running from Radville to Goodwater, a distance of 26.8 miles, in the Goodwater subdivision. I mention this line because it falls into a different category from others with regard to which I have received notice of applications to abandon. This line has operated on what is called a required services basis for the last number of years. The figures are interesting. According to the 1959 figures, 187 carloads of material were shipped on this line. In 1965 463 cars carried outward bound loads. There has been an increase in the traffic from Goodwater and Colgate on this line. Traffic out of Colgate has risen by 222 per cent and out of Goodwater by 70 per cent since 1959. These figures are significant and must be brought up to date. We must look again at the situation. I do not for a minute suggest that the service should be other than on a required basis as at present.
In the Canadian National brief to the Board of Transport Commissioners the railway shows gross revenues of $110,349 in 1965. It shows the total cost of operation and other expenses as $177,426, with an annual long term financial betterment for the railway
January 13, 1967

through abandonment of $67,077 which represents what might be classed as "other expenses". The actual on-line and off-line expenses for these 26 miles amounted to $110,670. The line showed a net loss of only $321 in 1965.
I wish to refer to another sheet of this brief containing an analysis of the variable expenses for 1965. On this line, known as the Goodwater subdivision and extending for 26.84 miles, the actual on-line cost of the 25 trips made during 1965 was $5,800 and off-line expenses were $104,870, or a total of $110,670 for expenses charged to the line. As long as figures of this type are used I maintain that the railway can prove that any branch line in Canada is uneconomical.
On another line running from Radville to Willow Bunch and Avonlea it is interesting to find these items of expenses. For instance, the on-line expenses of a locomotive total $320 and the off-line expenses for the same line are $13,680. Another significant figure concerns the wages for the train crew on this line. The figures quoted are $2,880 for on-line charges compared with off-line charges of $14,960. The same sort of figuring holds true throughout the accounting for this line. For instance, fuel for this line is given at $300 and the off-line expenses total $7,410. I know this breakdown is not of much interest to the committee but these figures prove that lines such as these are basically not uneconomical.
I wish to refer to what the chairman of the Canadian National Railways said in a speech in Winnipeg.
[DOT] (2:00 p.m.)
Today on a thin-density railway branch line-that is to say, a line that carries almost entirely grain and where the total volume originated is about 1,000 cars lor a 60 to 70-mile line over the course of a year-it can cost the railway ten to fifteen cents or more per ton mile to carry grain to the main line, whereas truck costs for the same movement are in the range of four to eight cents per ton mile-or only half the cost. Most farmers today, because of the greater mobility provided by the truck, can deliver as much grain to an elevator in one day as they could in one week when they used team and wagon and they often now voluntarily haul their grain longer distances.
What he says is possibly true. But I suggest that if the Board of Transport Commissioners feels that such lines are uneconomic and must be abandoned, and if what the chairman of the C.N.R. says is correct, then the railway companies have an obligation to move the grain out of these areas. The onus should be placed on them if they feel they can do it as
Transportation
economically as they say they can. On the other hand, if we assume that individual farmers can haul grain cheaper it only means that the direct cost will fall on individual farmers hauling to various points instead of the cost being borne by farmers in general. If the railways abandon lines such as these in the southern part of Saskatchewan along the Montana border, grain will have to be taken to Moose Jaw which is on the main line, across to Regina and then to Saskatoon in order to get it to the main line to be transported to the lakehead or to the west coast. The grain would have to be back hauled 250 miles before moving east or west.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member has probably looked at the map of the protected lines. Could it not be moved from Regina on the Marysfield line of the C.N.R. without it having to go to Saskatoon?


Lawrence E. Watson: The minister is possibly right. Possibly that is the way some of it will go. In this area we are on the dividing line with regard to whether the grain goes to the east coast or the west coast. At one time most of our grain did go east and it probably went on the line the minister mentioned. I thank him for bringing this to my attention.
I want to speak about another line concerning which I have just received statistics. I shall not go into great detail since it is very similar to the ones I have already mentioned. But I still think the committee should know the formula which it is intended shall apply and also the amount of traffic needed to protect these lines. I am thinking now of the Ben-gough subdivision where an application has been made to abandon a distance of 50.46 miles. I shall not give many figures on this application but I wish to point out that in the first 22 miles from Avonlea three brand new elevators have been built during the past ten years. The most modern of these was built in 1966, 22 miles down the line at a cost of $82,000. Another new elevator was built in 1964 with a capacity of 80,000 bushels, at a cost of $82,000. A third was built in 1956 at Dummer. It has a capacity of 70,000 bushels and cost $70,000.
I point out that in 1965 more than one million bushels of wheat were moved from these three points alone on this portion of the line. I wish to emphasize most strongly my belief that in no circumstances should this portion of the line be abandoned. I do not

January 13, 1967
Transportation
think the residents of the communities concerned would have any objection to the removal of the regular freight trains which go through on Tuesdays and Thursdays and make return trips. Basically these trains are not necessary. We admit that most of the local shipments of groceries and so on are carried by truck.
The railway company states in its brief that the farmers can haul their grain to two or three alternate points. However, these points are on lines which will be up for abandonment when the protection is withdrawn in 1975. The elevators there are in much poorer condition while the line from Bengough Junction happens to be in good shape. I believe these are lines which must be protected. The minister can look into their condition himself.
With reference to the other statistics I mentioned previously I would point out that Avonlea is the junction. From there the line, which is not protected, runs to Mossbank and onward to another area. The line runs from east to west and if it were abandoned a real hardship would be inflicted on farmers in the area who would have to truck their grain out.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
In its brief the railway company points out that there are a few highways which run east and west or north and south. I feel that the highways in these areas are not adequate and are of no benefit to the farmers in hauling grain to local stations. When these lines were laid down in the early days the farmers had no say in the choice of land on which tracks were laid by the railway company. As a result of the abandonment of these lines the over-all cost of hauling grain to the alternate designated elevators has proved to be a direct burden on these farmers. I believe that until such time as a definite program is established with regard to the abandonment of railway lines we should be told what to expect in the way of better roads because this is closely tied in with the cost of hauling grain. The number of trucks available at present is certainly not adequate to move the millions of bushels of grain that now move over the lines which have been slated for abandonment.
I believe also that we must take a look at the position of the elevators which were built on these lines. What compensation will the elevator companies receive, many of which are owned by the farmers in the province while others are owned by private grain companies? We should consider the over-all cost

which will have to be carried by the individual farmers.
I do not wish to take any more of the committee's time but I do want to mention another line about which I do not have any statistics. I am referring to the line from Rockglen to Killdeer, Saskatchewan, which services an area of some 20 miles on the southern border of which lies the United States. There are no adjoining lines to the north of it. I believe that such a line has a service to perform in the community. The reason for building this line still exists today. When this bill is passed I hope to be in a position to present a brief requesting that the assessment of the present situation be brought up to date before any consideration is given to further abandonment of lines.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I feel we have now reached a most important part of Bill No. C-231. The section now before us is the one which most concerns the population. That is why, without wanting to delay the work of the committee, I should like certain provisions of section 314C to be defined. I would ask the minister to give us, if possible, some absolutely essential information before we proceed any further with the study of this bill.
Of course, the province of Quebec has never been spoiled by the railway companies as far as extending their railway system is concerned. I do not have any statistics here, but a careful study of the mileage of railway lines built in the province of Quebec will show that the economy and development of our natural resources have been delayed in many cases due to the failure of the railway companies to take the necessary steps at the proper time to build the branch lines which could have been used for the development of our natural resources.
The chambers of commerce in my riding, as well as those of the north shore, have asked the C.N.R. to consider the advisability of extending the line from La Malbaie to Seven Islands in order to take advantage of the iron ore operations in Seven Islands and secure such advantages not only to the railway companies, but also to private companies and all taxpayers. But since the railway companies have failed to take, at the proper time, the required steps to make surveys, they must now face the competition of the trucking firms.
This competition is very strong in Quebec at the present time, because the provincial
January 13, 1967

government has built highways reaching the most remote corners of our province, and this has benefited the trucking industry. But, if the railways had taken appropriate measures when the time was ripe, extending their lines to the far-away places, they would surely be making enormous profits today.
Mr. Chairman, section 314C stipulates that the commission, which will regulate the abandonment of railway lines, shall take all relevant factors into account.
I should like to ask the hon. minister what are the most relevant factors which could be brought before the commission, in order to show that operation of a line is profitable or unprofitable. Railway companies will appear before the commission and request permission to abandon a particular line, or passenger or freight service. Here is an example: A railway line connects La Malbaie-which is in my riding-with Quebec city.
This railway company-the C.N.R. obviously-operates passenger and freight trains, and I am informed that the railway company intends to file an application to abandon the passenger service between La Malbaie and Quebec. I would like the minister to give us information on the relevant factors which I feel are essential to understand the meaning of section 314(c), that is the application by railway companies to abandon certain branch lines.
As I was saying, if a company seeks to eliminate its passenger service operations between La Malbaie and Quebec, will the commission responsible for consideration of such a request also be empowered to demand that such railway company submit all the figures to the commission, those covering the passenger service operations as well as those covering the freight operations?
I know very well, and I am obviously not here to present the case of the Canadian National Railway company which is about to apply for abandonment of passenger train operations between La Malbaie and Quebec, that this line is not profitable for the company, in my view, but I know, on the other hand, that the company is making enormous profits from its freight operations between Quebec and Clermont. If the company appears before the commission to ask for abandonment of the passenger service operations, I wonder if the commission will be allowed to demand the tabling of all figures covering the company's freight operations because, according to my understanding of the bill, its purpose is also to protect public interest and not only to salvage
Transportation
the finances of the C.N.R. or of the other railway companies.
I feel that the legislator must be guided by public interest. Now, it happens that, as is the case in my area, passenger service operates at a loss while freight transport nets the C.N.R. considerable profits. Naturally, it would be up to the commission to decide what should be done. But I would like to know whether the commission will be authorized to demand from the railroad companies, in specific cases such as the one I mentioned to the house, that they reveal all financial operations and figures on lines similar to that running between Quebec city and La Malbaie.
Should the commission decide, in spite of operating losses on passenger traffic, that public interest warrants maintaining that service between La Malbaie and Quebec city, I feel it would be justified in so doing, in view of the profits made by the freight service.
That is the information I would like the minister to give us before we proceed with section 314C. I repeat my question: would the Canadian Transport Commission which is to be set up have the power to demand of the C.N.R. that they produce before the commission all operating figures and profits on both freight service and passenger service on a particular line, in order that the commission might be able to reach a well-informed decision?
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the railway were to apply to abandon the line, figures would have to be given to show that it was losing money; otherwise it would not be allowed to abandon in any case. If, however, the intention was to continue the line but to apply for abandonment of the passenger service, this would come under sections 3141 and 314J. I would prefer to wait until we reach these sections before I answer the hon. gentleman.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have a few words I would like to say in respect to subsection 1(c) of new section 314J. The words used here are " 'uneconomic service' means a passenger-train service", and so on. I think this is the core of the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is an understanding that we would take these items section by section. If it is in respect of passenger service that the hon. gentleman wishes to speak, perhaps he would wait until we reach new sections 3141 and 314J.

January 13, 1967
Transportation


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have been sitting here all day awaiting an opportunity to speak. I believe what I have to say comes under this section.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. gentleman referring to the total abandonment of lines or is he referring just to passenger service?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Passenger service.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are on section 314C which has nothing to do with passenger service. At the beginning it was agreed that we would take these sections one at a time. I am sure the hon. gentleman would wish to abide by that agreement.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Very well, if I am able to retain my place at that time.


Maurice Rinfret: Yes.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Chairman, perhaps this is the time to refer again to my question in respect of accounting. I understand we are on section 314E, subsection (7). Is that right?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are on section 314C, subsection (1).


George Robson Muir: I am sorry.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are at page 25 of the bill. I think the hon. member for Springfield wishes to speak on this section.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, before we rose at 1.15 I believe the minister said that during the recess he would take some of the representations under advisement. Is he now in a position to indicate what if any accommodation he will make in respect of the recommendation that the words "if any" which appear in subsection (1) of section 314C should not be allowed to remain and whether he will agree to the deletion of them?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It appears that I can rely
on my instincts. Perhaps I should even go so far as to praise myself by saying that my explanation in this regard was perfectly correct. The reason the words "if any" are in this section is it is felt that sometimes no one will wish that there be a hearing. In this event it is felt that we should not waste the time of the commissioners in going to some place in Canada where they would have to acquire hotel rooms and a hall when no one would turn up at the hearing. Therefore I am advised that it would be desirable to leave these words in.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I should have thought that a correction could be made here which would serve to clarify the intention the drafters had when drafting this paragraph. I suppose, however, that it is sufficient so long as it is clear on the record that if any residents of a given area or any interested parties or citizens wish that a hearing be held pursuant to an application for abandonment the hearing shall be held.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that it is more than understood. It is an express provision of the proposed law. I am so advised.


Edward Richard Schreyer: That being so, I should like to make some comment in respect of another aspect of subsection (1). It has to do with the use of the term "uneconomic" wherever it appears in subsection (1) and in all subsequent subsections of section 314C. My reason for doing so is that I believe the term "uneconomic" is not very precise. I think we would all agree that in drafting legislation the object is to be as precise as possible.
If I remember correctly the intent of this provision, it is that an application for abandonment shall not be taken into consideration unless the particular line of railway actually is incurring a loss to the railway. Is there any good reason why the words "actual loss incurred" were not used here rather than the word "uneconomic". To me the word "uneconomic" implies that it may very well be that there is no loss incurred but that perhaps there is a very, very small margin of profit which could be construed as being uneconomic. I believe what we want to embody in this legislation is the idea that applications shall be considered only if the railways can prove that they actually are incurring a loss.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might save some time if I were to point out that they do have to prove that there has been an actual loss. This will be seen in the earlier part of the clause. I think originally we used the words "actual loss" but changed them to "likely to continue to be uneconomic" on a suggestion from the Manitoba Branch Lines Association. This was done in order to give the commission greater scope in saying that lines should not be abandoned. This would give greater scope than the words "actual loss" because it is conceivable that the railway might be incurring an actual loss on the line and yet it might be considered to be economic in the general interests of the community. In that event the commission has much more scope to say that the line must not be abandoned.
January 13, 1967

[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
I was rather impressed by the arguments put forward by the Manitoba Branch Lines Association. It was suggested that this phrase would give the commission more scope and more justification for refusing to allow an abandonment and it was included for that purpose. I think it will be found that in no case is this phrase used to assist the railways. It is used in all cases to assist the commission in coming to the conclusion that, notwithstanding the fact that there may be a loss, it is still in the interests of the whole community to have a line retained.


Edward Richard Schreyer: The minister's argument in respect of subsection 1 is quite convincing and one is almost immediately ready to concede the point he makes. However, when one reads the subsequent subsections he finds that the word "uneconomic" is used without reference to proof of actual loss. I wish to stay within the bounds of what we should discuss but for purposes of illustration let me refer to subsection (3) of new section 314C, which reads as follows:
In determining whether an uneconomic branch line or any segment thereof should be abandoned-
There is no reference there to the concept of actual loss incurred.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would read paragraphs (a) and (b). Perhaps we should look at this phrase each time it occurs to determine the sense. I am sure the hon. gentleman is satisfied so far as subsection 1 is concerned.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I think the minister's suggestion is a good one.


Mr.   Kindi@: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks in respect of the abandonment or rationalization of a specific branch line. It has been rumoured that the line from Cardston through Hill Springs to Glenwood-ville, is to be abandoned. There is nothing certain about this but it is marked on the map issued by the minister's office, which was published in almost every western newspaper. This map has caused the people of this area some concern, as the result of which they have formed a citizens' organization to protest.
This organization has written to the Board of Transport Commissioners, the minister and myself, and I was invited to attend a meeting at Glenwoodville about a year ago. The meeting was well attended; in fact the hall was full. Even the Hutterites who farm in that
Transportation
area attended the meeting, and took part in the discussions. 1 mention this fact to indicate the tremendous interest the people of this area have in respect of this rumoured abandonment.
The line from Cardston to Glenwoodville is 21.5 miles in length. The Canadian Pacific Railway is faced with no other competitive railway in that area. If the line is abandoned the farmers will be forced to haul their grain approximately 20 miles to Fort Macleod, Cardston or Pincher Creek. Under the Crowsnest Pass agreement the C.P.R. now receives 23 cents per bushel for hauling the grain from these various areas to the Lake-head or Vancouver. Although it has not been publicly stated it is generally understood that should the line be abandoned the C.P.R. would still receive 23 cents per bushel for hauling grain regardless of where the grain is loaded.
Obviously the officials of the C.P.R. are not concerned about the farmers' cost of hauling. This is a high production area so far as wheat, oats, barley and livestock are concerned. The obvious reason for abandonment is an economic one so far as the C.P.R. is concerned because the railroad will receive the same revenue without having to move box cars into Hill Spring and Glenwoodville. The C.P.R. is attempting to force the farmer to haul his produce to Fort Macleod, thereby shifting the cost of hauling to the farmer. The C.P.R. is in the position that it can take this attitude without fear of competition. It is in a position to play the economic game. It wants to abandon the line and force the farmers to haul their grain to Fort Macleod, Cardston or Pincher Creek because it will save that expense without any reduction of the 23 cents per bushel rate paid under the Crowsnest Pass agreement.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Let me now refer to a point which probably has not been brought to the attention of the minister previously. I have in mind the criteria in relation to rationalization and abandonment. The new board will have to take an entirely new situation into consideration. I am pleading with the minister to realize how important it is to have some touchstone in connection with costing matters before lines are abandoned. Let me deal with the question of costing. When arriving at the costs of operating the branch line from Cardston to Glenwoodville, what costs will be taken into account? I venture to suggest that this great image, this commission we are setting up in

January 13, 1967
Transportation
this bill-and God bless them-will never be able to arrive at proper costs. With respect to the question of income tax, there is no doubt that the C.P.R. has written off over the years depreciation for a large proportion of the box cars that roll into this area. Is the depreciated value the one that will be used for rolling stock in computing costs and costing? In arriving at costing figures you have to assume an interest rate. What interest rate will be assumed? There is no mention in the bill of the criteria that will be used in deciding whether a line should be abandoned, except the costs and revenue comparison, and I am questioning the methods to be used to arrive at C.P.R. costs and revenues.
Mr. Pickers gill: Mr. Chairman, could I interrupt the hon. member to make the point I have made twice before? We did agree to deal with each of these paragraphs separately. There are two or three paragraphs that deal precisely with costing. I wonder whether, in order to carry out the spirit of that undertaking, the hon. gentleman would wait until we reach the paragraph on costing and relate his observations to what is in it instead of dealing with the matter under this paragraph which does not relate to costing?


Mr. Kindt:: I shall be glad to conform to the suggestion of the minister. However, in justification of what I am saying, I do not think one can take a particular problem, chop it up into a number of chunks and deal with each one separately when the minister or somebody else gets around to discussing it, because by then one's line of thought has become completely interrupted.


Mr, Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, would the minister be a little more explicit and tell us what section does deal with costing, if not section 314C, with regard to which the side note reads, "Action on application after verification of costs and revenues by commission"?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman was out of the chamber when we agreed, in relation to new clause 314C, to deal with it paragraph by paragraph. This section does not deal with costs. That is all I meant. I suggested that we should wait until we reach the clause that does deal with costs, because we made an agreement to that effect.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to seem to override any decisions which have already been made. Under clause 42 all I am

dealing with is the question of rail line abandonment and the rationalization of lines and operations. I am trying to put before the minister the problem as presented to me. As I understand it, the people who live in the area from Cardston to Glenwoodville are vitally concerned about the possible abandonment of this line.
There is the question of where the hearings of this commission will be held. If they are to be held in Lethbridge, where there are hotels, fine restaurants and every convenience for the commission, that is one thing. But you will not get all the farmers there. You may get a few but that is all. On the other hand, if the meeting to consider the abandonment of this line is held by the commission at Glenwoodville or Hill Spring, good halls are available but perhaps the commissioners and their staff would have to take lunches along with them. There is a small restaurant in the town. If the meeting were held in either of those places the people would turn out by the hundreds. I am raising those matters which will present difficulty in connection with the hearings. You cannot convince these bureaucrats that they should schedule meetings to meet the convenience of the farmers and people affected; the bureaucrats will meet their own desires in this connection. They will advertise in the local newspaper the place in which the meeting will be held, but the venue will satisfy their own convenience.
I raised this point with the minister this morning and he said he would consider it. I feel very strongly about this matter. I hope I do not have to send the commission a wire when they announce that they are going to hold the meeting in Lethbridge or another town where the farmers will have to travel 40, 50 or more miles in order to attend the hearing. I believe it would be far better to hold the hearing where the people are rather than to make the people go to some central point in a big city where the convenience of the commissions is the first consideration in scheduling the meeting there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I may say that I agree with the hon. gentleman on that point.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I thank the minister for that remark. I hope that when the time comes the meeting will be held where the farmers are, and where the best attendance can be obtained. In that way all concerned can arrive at a better understanding of the facts. If the farmers are able to turn out and listen to the
January 13, 1967

briefs and arguments presented at the hearing, they will better understand the situation, perhaps support it or at least be more tolerant in accepting the decision of the commission. This will be the case if they are given the opportunity of participating in the hearing and understanding the different points of view put forward by the interested parties. In my opinion, to do this would be just good government. I believe it should be specified in the bill that the meetings should be held at places which afford the greatest convenience to the people concerned in order that they may readily attend.
In accordance with the request of the minister, I shall reserve what I have to say about costing. At a later time I shall have something to say in this regard. The people of this area understand that the reason the C.P.R. intends to abandon this line is largely that they receive only 23 cents per bushel for the grain whether it is picked up at Glenwoodville, Cardston, Pincher Creek or Fort Macleod. Therefore the railway reasons: We might as well pull the rails up on that 21.5 miles of line and force the farmers to haul their grain to main line centres 20 or more miles away.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
This matter has been given a great deal of thought in that region. The idea seems to be prevalent throughout the area that it is a foregone conclusion that the C.P.R. wants to abandon this line. I want to again call attention to what the minister has said, that there can be no abandonment until after this bill has been passed and a public hearing is held. All you have to do is look at a map to see that there is no competition with the C.P.R. It has no competition south of Calgary and therefore has a complete monopoly. I made economic and costing studies in that area in connection with the establishment of a big steel plant. We were unable to get financing in New York because there was no competing railway line. That is the situation there. I am trying to show the minister that this is one more example of the fact this railroad company is trying to put the people of various areas in a difficult position because it has a monopoly on the railroad business in the particular area.


Mr. Hamilton:: Following the remarks of the hon. member for Macleod I want to discuss this proposed section in what I hope will be a constructive way. I hope I shall be helping the hon. member for Macleod, several other members and the minister out of what I think could be quite a lot of trouble. One of the key
Transportation
thoughts in the proposed section 314C is that the commission shall, after such hearings, if any, do so and so. The proposal I wanted to make was that a good deal of the heat could be taken out of these various applications for abandonment if it were understood that there would be hearings in every case. In addition, criteria or guide lines should be set up covering the reasons for the abandonment of railway lines.
In an earlier speech I adopted the belief that one should not examine the revenue position of a line from line A to B in deciding on whether or not it should be abandoned. As has been suggested here by several members, we have had too much experience with the loading of costs on any line that is up for abandonment. This has left a bad taste in our mouths. When the 1964 bill was being considered I suggested one other criterion. I felt we should divide the prairies into a series of regions. If within a region the railways had losses, then those losses should be met by way of subsidy or whatever might be in mind. At one time I even considered the possibility of lumping the whole grain gathering area of the prairies together. If it were properly rationalized for efficiency and there were losses within this area, then this would be the criterion for paying subsidies.
I think the minister and I both agree that these guide lines are obsolete as a result of the new knowledge we have now. This knowledge comes primarily from the work done by the western grain companies, the three pools. They have collected statistics to show the amount of grain generated on every mile of track in western Canada. I am sure the minister has the same tables I have. When the government announced, for example, at our request that certain lines would not be abandoned I am sure they used this new user concept. If the farmers are not using a line to deliver grain, there is no income for the railway. If a major amount of grain is generated along a line, then that line should not be abandoned. If that were the criterion, then I think it would save a lot of trouble for members who represent these western ridings. I think the minister, at least once, put a figure on the record. If we knew what that round figure was which was used as the dividing line between those branch lines we are not going to abandon and the ones that are up for consideration, it would be easier for us to face our constituents.
This is my first question, and it really goes back to the overall proposal I should like to make to the minister dealing with this whole

January 13, 1967
Transportation
proposed section. If I had my way, I would have put 314G in as 314A because section 314G is the one that does give the power of strong directives to the governor in council. It is under that provision in this bill that the government directs that certain lines will not be abandoned until 1975. This list of lines should have been included as an appendix to the bill. In the following six or seven clauses we could then have dealt with the procedure to be followed in connection with the abandonment of lines. Here we would be talking about only a small percentage of the total lines in western Canada. However, this is a detail and does not affect the final working out of the whole operation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman is quite right, but he knows that there was a certain time sequence. The bill was introduced before completion of the work on the map and there is a chronological reason why this was not done.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am not suggesting that it be done at this later stage.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, we cannot do it now.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am simply saying that this is the way I would have done it. I should have liked to see a provision in this bill establishing the user principle as the major criterion for abandonments. All the other things mentioned in these clauses are part and parcel of the considerations in arriving at a decision. If a prairie audience could be presented with this principle when a line was up for abandonment, and at the same time if one could indicate the amount of grain generated on that line in the period from 1943 to 1953 and the period from 1953 to 1963, as well as in the last two or three years, the people would know whether or not the line was being used. If the farmers were not using the line and if they desired that the line be kept, there would have to be other reasons such as social, lack of alternative modes of transportation or something else in order that a subsidy would be provided to keep the line open. The basic principle to be adopted in considering the abandonment of a line should be the user principle.
I think this is a dramatic step forward. I do not have to tell the minister about my own particular constituency to illustrate how ridiculous the situation can be. The Canadian National applied to abandon the line running from Maryfield in Saskatchewan to Lloyd-minster on the border of Alberta, a distance of 488 miles. The company claimed they had

figures to show the line was running at a loss. When the traffic figures came to light they indicated that this line generated in the year 1962-63, which was not our best year, 49.9 thousand bushels per mile. The company then dropped any pretence of abandoning this line. This is the dilemma facing members who represent people in the prairie areas in which abandonments will take place. If they knew that the user principle would be the major criterion and if they could be provided with these traffic figures, they could go back to their constituents and say, this is the cut-off point. I do not know whether the minister is prepared to say what the cut-off point is, but it would be a big help if we could go back to our constituents and say we have agreed that no line will be abandoned if it is being used. If the line is not being used, then there must be other reasons for keeping it.
People are fairly reasonable if they know what is happening. What is bothering hon. members is that they know the region, they know the geography and yet they read that these lines are going to be abandoned. One cannot expect the railway, purely as an economic corporation, to be concerned about the social problems of the area. One cannot blame the railway as an economic corporation for looking at the matter on a dollars and cents basis.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
It would do a good deal to take the heat off if the minister would say that in the case of the few applications which are coming forward, and they are relatively few compared with the original number, hearings will be held in each case. The applicants will be told where the cut-off line on generation of traffic is so that this matter can be debated. But the fact that they are going to be given a hearing will relieve the pressure quite a bit.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, since the hon. gentleman is obviously trying to be helpful might I be allowed to deal with the points he made.
I have already said twice-I am not saying it is the hon. member's fault this has been raised again but he just did not happen to be here at the time-that there will have to be hearings in every case unless by some remote possibility nobody wants one. In all of the cases 1 know anything about there are interveners who want hearings, and there will be hearings.
I have said this two or three times, and I am very happy to repeat it. There must be a
January 13, 1967

hearing under the provisions of this bill, and it is the criteria in this bill that are going to apply to all of these hearings. I indicated that last night. The moment the act is passed we will pass an order in council directing the board-obviously the commission will not be set up right away-to use the criteria in this bill, and not the old criteria, when considering these applications.
It was also my intention to ask my colleagues as soon as the bill received royal assent to pass an order in council to which this plan will be annexed. We have the power to do this under new section 314G, so it is just not a statement of intent by the government but will be a regulation made under this law with the same force and effect as though it were an appendix to the bill. It would have been appended to the bill had it been ready when the bill was ready, but its legal effect will be precisely the same.
The one thing I am not able to do is to give the notional figure to which the hon. member made reference, because it does not exist. A rough measure of the usage of these lines was one of the half dozen considerations that the government took into account in determining the protected lines. Geography was another. There are some protected lines where the traffic is relatively light but they are situated in areas with no adequate road system and the lines are essential to provide adequate transport. Even though they may not be very productive of a great deal of traffic, it would be an intolerable inconvenience for the people living there if those lines were closed.
There are also a number of other considerations. I think the hon. member for Assiniboia pointed out that in some cases lines were in good shape and modern equipment was in use, whereas in other cases they had rather gone to seed; yet there might not be too much difference between them as far as the amount of traffic was concerned. There was not what one could call a purely quantitative measure but in the main, other things being equal, in the case of lines which are adjacent to one another the one which was used more heavily was selected rather than the one used more lightly, regardless of the financial results to the railway.
Another point-it may help hon. members if I make this point again-is this. I think several hon. members implied that because a line was not protected this meant that the government had decided it should be abandoned and that we were asking this house to say it should be abandoned. All we are saying is 23033-745
Transportation
this. The railways are not allowed to abandon any of the coloured lines but they may apply for abandonment, or pursue the applications they have already made, as the case may be, for abandonment, of the black lines, and that is all.
However, they still have to satisfy the commission (a) that there is an actual loss on the line and (b) that the line is unlikely to become economic in the future. The commission then has to decide whether abandonment is going to create so much economic disturbance or disruption or loss to the whole economy that the railway should not be allowed to abandon the line anyway. We are saying that if the railway can prove an actual loss and prove that the line is unlikely shortly to become profitable to it, then we as a parliament are asking the treasury to pay that actual ascertained loss and the railway will stay.
This also applies to the protected lines. We are changing the law so that these cannot be abandoned. If the railways can show that these lines are incurring an actual loss, that loss will be repaid.


Martial Asselin: Who would decide that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The commission. I know I am transgressing the ruling we have established for ourselves, Mr. Chairman, but the hon. member for Lisgar, who does not do a lot of talking in the house but who I have noticed is a good listener, came over to me and said "I think you are trying to be too narrow and restrictive in this matter". I have taken his advice, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who also is a good listener but perhaps talks a little more than the hon. member for Lisgar, gave me the same advice and I am following it too.
I know hon. members are very worried about the railways controlling the commission in the matter of their losses, but I do not think I can make the point too often that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance will have to make up a large amount of such losses and that he will have to tax the Canadian people to do so. This commission will not have to rely just upon the farmers, the municipalities, the provincial governments and the grain companies; the Minister of Finance will be represented too all of the time so as to make sure that the railways do not get away with anything. He will ensure that they do not get paid unless they have had a really genuine, provable loss. I am sure that that in itself will be a very powerful reassurance once this rather

January 13, 1967
Transportation
novel idea produced by the MacPherson commission is put into operation.
It is, of course, the basis of this whole guarantee. We would not have found it possible to make this kind of provision without that guarantee. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, taking all these factors into account it seems to me that many of the apprehensions that hon. members feel are apprehensions which in fact will not be realized.
I also agree with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle when he says that most people are reasonable. But, as I say, it has to be shown that there is very little traffic on a line and that its operation is costing a great deal. The bill also provides that one of the criteria that have to be taken into account before a line is abandoned is that of the possibility of alternative modes of transport. It will be within the power of the commission to recommend to the government that in certain circumstances assistance be given.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The commission will also be able to recommend that interconnections between the railways shall be made. They will have the power to recommend that the line for which there has been an application for abandonment not be abandoned but perhaps some other piece of line be abandoned instead as being of less importance than the former which ought to be maintained. There is a requirement, where there are a number of lines in an area and there is an application for abandonment, for the commission to look, not just at the losses on the lines being sought to be abandoned but to look also, as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has suggested, at the results in the over-all area.
In the case of an application for abandonment the railway must produce and publish all its figures with respect to the line being sought to be abandoned so they may be examined. The railway, when the commission wishes it to produce figures, must produce figures of other lines, and not just of those being sought to be abandoned, so that they may be looked at in this process of rationalization. The figures for the area need not be published, naturally, if there is no application for abandonment, though the commission has power to compel them to be published. When we realize that these powers exist it will be seen that there is a degree of protection in this bill far greater than anything contemplated in the bill I had previously introduced.

I know we have not gone quite as far as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle believes we should go. Under the legislation we do not permit the commission to direct the railways to use each other's facilities and that sort of thing. We do, however, permit the commission to publish its opinion that this would be a sensible thing to do. It may make recommendations and it may recommend that payments be withheld if the recommendations are not followed. It seems that there are powerful weapons here.
There are arguments on both sides about this point, and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and I do not see quite eye to eye. In most respects, I think, we are in almost complete agreement.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wish to follow up the remarks made by the minister. He stated that at hearings the railways would have to put forward their figures. If I am correct, these figures pertain purely to the cost of running a section of line, the revenues and so on.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the traffic. They must publish all their traffic figures.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is the point. If they are to publish the number of bushels generated per mile for example, on a particular line-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -it would be helpful to us, as members. We could explain to our people that if a line is not used that line is in danger of being abandoned. If what the minister suggests is done, if the railways are not allowed to publish just dollar and cents figures but must show the traffic generated, the number of bushels, or what have you, carried, the grain generated per mile compared with other lines, then the people would have some way of knowing that the abandonment procedure is fair.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman
would look at the top of page 30 he would see the heading "Publishing relevant traffic figures". That means that the commission can make the railway publish figures for lines not being abandoned. That is not to be done lightly when lines are not being abandoned, but it may be required if there is some good reason. But in every case where the railways want to abandon they have to publish the traffic figures.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am grateful for this information because it is helpful. To show how
January 13, 1967

serious the situation is, I wish to quote part of a letter from the secretary-treasurer of a municipality, the village of Golden Prairie. This man writes:
We are at a loss to understand, the reasoning of the commission, as to why this particular branch line has not been guaranteed to remain in operation until January 1, 1975. We believe the government set a policy that if 25,000 bushels per mile is transported over a branch line, during the past ten year period, that it would be placed on the protection list and guaranteed against abandonment until January 1, 1975.
The branch line from Hatton to Golden Prairie, and based over the past ten year period ending in the year 1964-65, we find that there has been 38,519 bushels per mile transported over this said branch line.
One can see the importance these people attach to the number of bushels carried. If the railways and the commission want to do educational work and formulate some rough rule of thumb of the number of bushels generated per mile that they consider adequate for a line, that would be a big help to our people. Knowing that would relieve a lot of pressure. The minister has said that on page 30 there is a provision for the railways to publish their figures. That is good.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where a railway asks to abandon it has to publish all data. If the commission wants to say, Perhaps we ought to compare this line with another line in the same area, to rationalize the matter, in determining the losses, those figures need not, unless there is good reason, be published because they are not asked for purposes of abandonment. I say that in certain circumstances the commission is allowed to use these figures and have them published if it deems it advisable. But where there is an application for abandonment everyone at the hearing will know what traffic the railways have carried on that line. That will be public knowledge. I agree with the hon. gentleman. The traffic is far more important from an economic and social standpoint than the amount of loss. The average farmer does not really care whether the railway loses money but he will be reasonable if there is no traffic.


George Robson Muir: I thank the minister for his courtesy in widening the discussion, that we may talk about new section 314D as a whole. I accept his assurance that the commission will have a criterion for saying whether a line will be abandoned. In other words, the commission will not accept the railway's figures. This is well and good, and I am glad the minister told us about this.
Transportation
Looking at the sections in the bill, and I have looked through the bill carefully. I see that we have given to this group of 17 men tremendous power without their being, as I mentioned the other day, corresponding checks or balances exercised by the elected representatives of the people. Would the minister not think it a good idea to have these men, to be appointed for ten years, report to a committee of the house such as the public accounts committee so that the elected representatives of the people might see if the commission was doing a good job? In that way we shall not set up a group of czars, controlling all manner of transportation and not accountable to anyone. The minister probably does not listen to me too often, as he says-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I always listen to the hon. gentleman when he speaks.


George Robson Muir: Let the minister listen carefully to me today. I think we are making a grave mistake if we do not set up a committee to examine the work the commission does.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: On that point might I say a word? I have been looking at what Hon. A. G. Blair, minister of railways and canals, had to say in 1903 about this very point in reply to Mr. Robert Borden, as he then was, the member for Halifax. I think it is very relevant to the point the hon. gentleman has just made. In all these decisions with regard to rail line abandonment, rates and so on, the commission is acting as a court. Since the Act of Settlement, since Queen Anne's day, we have taken the view that the courts must be independent of the executive and independent of politicians. We take great pains to make them independent in order that they shall reach objective decisions. If I may read these words by the late Mr. Blair, I think the hon. member will find that he makes the point neatly, perhaps better than I could do it. He said:
I now come to an Important feature of the bill, the Importance of which you will have recognized in view of what I said a moment ago as to the unsatisfactory experience in the United States by reason of the facilities for litigation on all sorts of questions under their system. We propose that the commission shall be the absolute judges of both law and fact, subject to two exceptions. The commission will be absolute judges as to the facts, only subject to appeal to the Governor General in Council. They will be absolute judges of the law, except when a question of jurisdiction arises, which of course it would be quite impossible to restrict in any way, but they may state a case to the Supreme Court in the event of any question of: legal importance arising.

January 13, 1967
Transportation
This has been broadened now so that there is provision for appeal to the Supreme Court on any point of law. But there is also provision for appeal from decisions of the Board of Transport Commissioners to the governor in council, which really means the cabinet which is responsible to this parliament. The real reason this board was set up back in 1903 was that previously all these things had been settled by a committee of the cabinet and it was thought desirable to get away from the evil of having a lot of political pressure brought to bear on these matters.
I think it is right that the courts should operate in the open and that we should be able to criticize their decisions once made. But it is foreign to our way of doing things to tolerate a system whereby political pressures would be brought to bear before decisions were reached. I would think the means I have outlined are the most effective way of controlling the activities of the commission in its judicial aspect. As for a scrutiny of the commission's other activities by a committee, I have already expressed my views and they are not very different from those held by the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Korchinski:: I wish to underline briefly what my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle has said. There should be some independent body having responsibility for compiling statistics in relation to these applications. My hon. friend illustrated his case by mentioning what had happened in connection with the line to Lloydminster. After it had been shown that a certain amount of grain originated at each point, the railway dropped its application. To my mind this is a good example of what could be done if there were a body independent of the commission charged with the responsibility of compiling relevant information. I feel some form of additional supervision would be beneficial.
In considering these applications for abandonment the board must take account of whether the line has shown a loss in the year previous to the application. I must say I cannot imagine any railway company appearing before the board to make an application unless they could prove that a loss had been incurred. I suggest we might consider using as a criterion an average figure over a period of years. I can visualize a situation in which a railway company could spend a lot of money improving its line, installing culverts, new ties, heavier steel, and so on-expenses which might not be necessary for the next 25 years. Then there might be a series of short crops
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
which would result in an over-all loss of revenue as a result of which the railway might be able to prove to the commission that it had lost money on this part of the operation. But if the results of the entire operation were averaged out, the picture would probably look much better than it had at first seemed. My suggestion is that an average figure should be taken over a number of years so that the board could determine whether or not a loss had really been sustained.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member would look at the criteria set out on pages 26 and 27 of the bill he would see that, although it is not put in precisely his words, the idea he expressed is there. Proof of financial loss is an essential pre-condition of an application. The board will not even hear an application if there has not been a loss. As the hon. member says, unless there had been a loss the application would probably not be made.
Even when a loss has been shown the companies are not entitled to abandon a branch line by virtue of that loss. The commission has a right to look at the operation over a period, to take into account the effect that abandonment would have on surrounding territory, the alternative facilities, and all those other considerations. Certainly the one suggested by the hon. member is among them. The board would look at the operation for two or three years back and for two or three years ahead. For one thing, the bill says, "the existing and potential resources of the area". A couple of short crops do not remove the resources.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Anyone who has lived in Canada in the last 30 years knows that there was a period in the thirties when there was quite a number of short crops in areas which have produced tremendous quantities of wheat ever since. Nobody, after having had that experience, will say that because there is a short crop in one year there are not enough resources there to grow wheat.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does this complete discussion on paragraph (1)?


Mr. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):: Mr. Chairman, I think I would be remiss in my duty to my constituents if I failed to say a few words on the question of the abandonment and rationalization of railroads. This has been a problem in our area for many years and one that still exists because some municipalities have advanced and developed much faster than others. When municipalities find that
January 13, 1967



there is a threat to their railroad services, or the possibility of abandonment or reduction, they have misgivings about the possible future development of their areas.
When this bill was first introduced there was much concern in that particular area north of Guelph and extending to Kincardine, Southampton and Owen Sound because the history of railroad development in that area has been not too good during the last few years. As I indicated, most of those areas were originally developed as a result of the establishment of railway lines, the setting up of centres and the provision of stations and of facilities which would enable people to ship their products and to receive their supplies. When a few years ago the railroad reduced its service by cancelling the l.c.l. and the express service, and began to talk about removing stations, people began to wonder how long it would be before the railroad would cancel its services altogether. The situation was not improved by a statement which was made quite recently by the president of the C.N.R. in his year-end review, when 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.
Such a statement does not allay the misgivings that a lot of the people have had with regard to railroad reductions and abandonments. Of course we know that for many years the C.N.R. has been talking about the necessity for more freedom in their operations, freedom in their costing and freedom in their ability to assist their own freight rates. However I think they are forgetting that freedom is something which is not easy to acquire these days. We have to live together in the world of today, and if one area develops faster than another then there must be some reason for it and assistance must be given to the underdeveloped areas to ensure uniform development. The railways started this. If they reduce many of their services they will automatically curtail development in many areas. As I said, this situation has created misgivings in many areas because the railroads in their operations over the years have not always considered the welfare of the area to be as important as those people who inhabit it thought it was.
We were very happy to hear the minister say today that every effort will be made to ensure that decisions will not be based solely on the word of the railway companies with regard to operational costs and revenues, but
Transportation
that the commission will have available independent expert opinion. Many of the municipalities will be relieved to hear this news. Some of us have attended meetings and have heard the railway companies presenting the costing figures, but we have had no way of examining them. We did not know exactly how they were arrived at and what part of the total figure was charged to the small municipalities. Without expert assistance it was very difficult to arrive at a proper conclusion and to present a proper case before the Board of Transport Commissioners in support of the retention of many of these facilities. In many cases the municipalities were not able to present their case adequately. However, the assurance which we received from the minister, that every effort will be made to make it possible for the municipalities to obtain satisfaction when applications for reductions or abandonments of lines are made, is welcome news to everyone.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed much further with our discussion of rail line abandonments I should like to say a word or two. Is my understanding correct that we are now discussing 314E?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are now on 314C.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I suppose we are dealing still with the verification of costs. Am I right in this?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that subclause 2 does deal with that to some degree. I see no reason why the hon. gentleman should not discuss it anyway.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I think the question of costing is quite important because if my understanding of the whole clause 42 is correct a railway must set out to prove that the cost of operating the branch lines is greater than the revenues obtained from running that service. As I have pointed out previously, the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. in presenting their cost figures on these branch lines attempted to prove that the situation is deteriorating and that the total revenue obtained from moving the grain on a branch line is not great enough to cover the costs of that operation. I think this point is very important and we should analyze each branch line separately.
I believe there is no reason why the revenue should be credited only to the branch line. It seems to me that part of that revenue could be credited to a portion of the branch line and the rest to the main line. There is no doubt in my mind that as a result of the abandonment

January 13, 19G7
Transportation
of some of these lines the farmers might find themselves closer to the other railway. For example if a C.N.R. line is abandoned, one which was normally used by farmers for hauling grain, they might find themselves closer to the C.P.R. line and therefore the C.N.R. might well lose the revenue. I believe therefore that an appraisal should be made of the original point at which the grain is shipped and of the line on which it travels. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the railways may consider that they might be better off without the grain.
In looking at their figures I noticed that in 1960 their revenues and expenditures balanced. That is not the case today. In fact since our grain trade has picked up in the last three or four years it is interesting to note that the revenues of the railways have also increased sharply. In presenting briefs with regard to rail line abandonment the railways have attempted to prove that they were losing money on the branch line. If that is the case, then it is logical to suppose that they are also losing money on the main line. If this is the case and the amount of grain hauled has increased, why have their revenues diminished?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
If we go back about seven or eight years, for example, to the year 1957, we will find that the total export of wheat was something in the order of 256 million bushels, whereas last year it was 500 million bushels. It is logical to assume, if the railways are losing money on that grain trade, that their total revenue would be down rather than up. This is not the case. I have seen the figures which they have produced in respect of a branch line when they have attempted to prove that the *cost of moving the grain from the point of [DOT]origination on the branch line to the main line is greater than the cost of moving it on the main line to Vancouver or the lakehead. I think this method of proving the point is wrong. To my mind the railroads are making a profit in handling the grain through the main lines. I do not think the railroads would deny that, if there were no branch lines at all and just a main line running through the west, under the Crowsnest Pass rates they could operate and make a handsome profit. If they can make a handsome profit under the main line alone, then one would think they could operate a number of branch lines and still make a profit. The figures of the railways in a sense attempt to prove that they are making a loss on the main line.

There is another thing I should like to say in respect of grain movement and line abandonment. This has to do with the quota system. On many occasions the quota system works toward reducing the general efficiency in the movement of grain. I say this with the knowledge that the quota system is designed to allow farmers an equal opportunity to deliver their product to market and receive cash for it. One must consider, however, that in setting up a quota system one is influencing the cost of moving the grain to the lakehead. If in the opinion of the transport commission, when studying this branch line problem, it is necessary, economically and for the good of the community, that the branch line remain there, then I would suggest that they try to work out with the Canadian Wheat Board a better quota allotment for that branch line area. I realize that this would be a departure from the norm, but I believe it could be worked out. If the Canadian Wheat Board should find that in a particular branch line area there was the quality and quantity of wheat which was needed at the lakehead or Vancouver, I would suggest that instead of increasing the quota at one point on the branch line while other points remained at the unit quota they should advance the quota relatively equally on the whole line at the same time.
If there should be seven elevator points on a branch line and the railways are having difficulty moving grain out of that area through this branch line, because they are moving only six box cars at one time, which is uneconomical, then perhaps they could go in there with 26 or 36 empty box cars and go back a week later and move 26 or 36 full box cars out of that area. This could be done if the quota was moved up at all points on that branch line. I am bringing this up as one suggestion. If it were found that the railway was operating at a loss-and I am not for one moment accepting the railway's figures in this regard-and if the railway appealed to the commission that either a subsidy be paid or the branch line be abandoned, I would suggest that the commission should examine the possibility of working out with the Canadian Wheat Board quota allotments which would enable the railways to move that grain through the branch line in greater quantities. This would bring about greater efficiency in the overall movement of the grain.
Naturally I should also like the commission to take a look at the suggestion I made last evening with regard to truck transport. With
January 13, 1967

the modem facilities which we have today there is no reason, if they can move the grain more cheaply by truck, that the railways should not be permitted to do this. One other thing I whould like the commission to consider carefully in respect of the branch line abandonment is the question of storage. If the elevators along branch lines which are to be abandoned are not allowed to become line agents of the Canadian Wheat Board, then the prairie provinces will lose storage facilities for millions and millions of bushels. The elevator companies receive revenue from the storage of the grain and the grain is taken off the farmers' fields at a much faster rate than it would be with the loss of this storage. I do not doubt that in many areas of the prairie provinces at the present time one would find many farmers who have grain which is stored in temporary bins, or even outside where it is subject to weather and moisture conditions. This lowers the quality of the grain and does not help the farmer.
One has only to go back to the Bracken report in respect of box car allotment to recall what the elevator companies said at that time. At that time there was only one elevator company in the three prairie provinces which felt there was sufficient built-up storage in the prairies. All the others, although they may have said there was ample storage, said that they did not want to see the storage picture diminished to any extent, or something to that effect.
This whole matter should be looked into very carefully. I would hope that, rather than accept the straight dollars and cents calculation in respect of whether or not a branch line couild be abandoned the commission would take an over-all look at the whole picture to see whether somethiing could be done to improve the efficiency in respect of the handling of the grain.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
There is no denying the fact that the effects of the Crowsnest pass rates have been beneficial to the three prairie provinces, but when one sets up statutory rates certain conditions are not adjusted to meet future situations. Perhaps to some degree the elevator and railway companies have not been concerned about adopting up-to-date methods of handling grain.
Let me give an example. We were told by individuals who appeared before the committee that the C.N.R. tried to implement the use of huge hopper box cars. Only two elevator companies in Western Canada have elevators
Transportation
of sufficient capacity to fill those hopper cars, and there are only one or two terminals on the west coast which can handle grain delivered by the railway companies which use or did use these new cars for grain transportation.
While the Crowsnest pass rates have been beneficial to the prairie provinces-and let me hasten to add that they should be maintained at all costs-there is a growing fear that the railway companies and terminal operators have become stagnant so far as adopting better handling methods is concerned.
It is my hope that before the new commission accepts a flat dollars and cent cost in respect of the operation of branch lines it will attempt to persuade the elevator and railway companies to economize in other ways so that branch lines can be maintained for the social benefit of the community, and in order that their maintenance does not become a subsidized expense to the general taxpayers of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman will look at the criteria set out on pages 26 and 27 of the bill, and particularly in paragraph (e) on page 27, I am sure he will be satisfied that the railway and terminal companies will be required to do all of those things he has suggested.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Have we now concluded our consideration of new section 314C?


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding that we would proceed with new section 314C subsection by subsection. Up to this point we have been discussing subsections 1 and 2 of this new section.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought we had abandoned that procedure after the hon. member for Qu'Appelle came into the committee. If it is understood that we are now discussing detailed points in respect of individual subsections we might proceed on that basis.


Edward Richard Schreyer: That is exactly what I intended to do. I should like to refer to a detailed matter in respect of subsection 3 in reference to the use of the word "uneconomic". There is reference to branch lines which ought or ought not to be abandoned on the basis of economy. When I raised this point earlier in respect of subsection 1 the minister said that while the commission may hold hearings on applications for abandonment of allegedly uneconomic lines, the commission could not grant such an application unless

January 13, 1967
Transportation
there was proof of actual loss. That is all very well, but having regard to subsection 3, reference is made to uneconomic branch lines, without any relation to proof of actual loss. Perhaps this involves poor craftsmanship, and I do not want to be unfair because the draftsmen working on this bill have had to cope with a great deal of detail and numerous changes. It is not surprising that one or two points of this kind have been overlooked.
What possible justification is there for wording this particular subsection in such a way that apparently the commission will be permitted to make determinations in respect of applications for abandonment of uneconomic lines, when the precise intention was to have meetings held to determine whether or not lines should be abandoned on the basis of an actual loss? I intend to move an amendment, but before doing so I should like to ask the minister whether he will accept informally the proposition that where the word "uneconomic" appears in this and following subsections it should be substituted by the words "actual loss incurred". There would then be no mistake or misunderstanding and the commission would be confronted with fewer problems.


John Whitney Pickersgill: While I am not a lawer I spent a lot of time in Winnipeg reading and criticizing students' essays. I did so for approximately eight years. In this bill we say an actual loss must be demonstrated before the matter can be considered. We then accept the view that the commission should determine whether or not a branch line is uneconomic. I do not think it makes much difference, but if we are going to change this wording we should also take into consideration subsection 1.
The railway must prove that a branch line is uneconomic, and is likely to continue to be uneconomic, before the line can be abandoned. This is what the commission must determine. Since that is so, why should we then say that in determining that the commission should do certain other things? From the point of view of the railway company it might be better to use the words "actual loss" in every case, but from the point of view of the public I think the commission has a little more scope in reaching the conclusion that, although there may be an actual loss, the line should not be abandoned. I think that was the view expressed by the Manitoba Branch Lines Association. This whole matter may involve a question of emphasis or motive, but from the point of view of the average citizen the use of

the word "uneconomic" gives the commission more scope to suggest that a line should not be abandoned, though there is an actual loss. That is why I concluded we should use that expression instead of the other.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I intended to speak on this point, and I am very pleased that the hon. member for Springfield raised it. It was touched upon indirectly by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam before the recess. I take the same exception, but I want to point out that under new section 314C (3) great powers are granted to this commission in respect of determinations. That is as it should be. The commission is directed to take into account various things set out in subsection 3.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
As I read new section 314B, as a condition the commission must, before making an investigation, decide that there has been a loss in prescribed years. Having done that, they are then seized of jurisdiction and inquire into the question of whether actual loss has been incurred. If actual loss has been incurred under section 314C	(1), they determine
whether the branch line is uneconomic and is likely to continue to be uneconomic, and whether the line should be abandonned. These are two different things. First you decide whether it is uneconomic which, in the very loose wording of this section-and here I agree with the hon. member for Springfield-must have as its foundation the sustaining of loss. This having been established, you look at the other things, which is as it should be. It probably would have been better if it had been phrased in this way, that the railway company must first establish that actual loss has been sustained. This is the first obstacle the railway company must overcome. Having overcome that obstacle and established loss in one of the prescribed years, the commission then looks at all the other things.
The proof that loss has been sustained, of course, cannot, should not and must not be the sole criterion. The bill takes this into account by directing the commission to look at paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and so on. I am particularly happy to see paragraph (h) in this section dealing with the economic effects of the abandonment. I should like to have seen included in this section a provision covering the economic and social effects, because sometimes the social effects must be regarded just as much as the economic effects.
With some doubts, I think the commission has all the powers that are necessary. I would
January 13, 1967

like to have seen these powers more precisely expressed so that they would arrive at a determination on the basis that, first having established that there was an actual loss for one of the prescribed years, they would direct their attention to the other things involved in this question. I appreciate the point made by the hon. member for Springfield in this regard. I should like to have seen this matter tidied up. My opinion is that this provision gives the commission ample power and lays down that it must direct its attention to these things.
When the commission is appointed I hope the minister will direct their attention to the fact that it is the opinion of this house, as expressed today, that actual loss having been established, as it must be, we believe the commission must look very seriously at all these other things. While they are not directed by this bill to give effect to them, they must find that they exist.
I hope the commission will not make any order for the abandonment of a line if it finds at any time under section 314C (3) and the various paragraphs thereof that the existing or potential resources of the area served by the branch line, and so on, are of such a nature as to warrant the continuance of the line. I hope this is the feeling the commission will have, and that the minister will direct their attention to his matter.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join the hon. member for Springfield and the hon. member for Peace River in expressing some concern about the wording of this section. I am not questioning the good intentions of the minister. I think there is a great deal of agreement, perhaps more than we usually see in the house, with regard to the importance of this section of the bill. I think it is the heart of the bill. It has a great deal of importance to the people concerned who question its effectiveness.
We have had a great deal of experience as to how commissions and boards interpret at some future time legislation which has been enacted, despite what may have been said in discussion in this house. I think section 182 of the old Railway Act caused railway workers to believe that they had a great deal of protection if branch lines were abandoned, service was discontinued, and so on. But they found later, through the interpretations of the courts, that this section simply did not give them any protection. Therefore it seems to me it is very important that the commission appointed know what the Parliament of Canada
Transportation
had in mind. I am surprised and puzzled that the minister would follow the advice of the Manitoba Branch Lines Association in this regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I might say, for the hon. gentleman's benefit, that the government of Saskatchewan and the counsel for the government of Manitoba made exactly the same suggestion, and for precisely the reason that they wanted to make sure that the commission would look at more factors than just the actual loss. It was felt that using the words "uneconomic and likely to continue to be uneconomic" gave the commission more scope to refuse the railway's application.
The government originally started with the idea in the old legislation of dealing with an actual loss. In order to meet the sentiment expressed by the representatives of very large bodies of people in western Canada, we accepted the view that we should use this broader language which suggested the idea to the commission that they should not just act because the railway was having a loss, but should look at the question in its proper economic context. Therefore I cannot help expressing a little surprise at the suggestion that we now go back to the old provision, and if there is any choice between the two, use the phrase that is more favourable to the railway.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to argue with the minister about facts that are on record because, despite many differences I have had with him, I know he keeps on top of his job. There may be a more recent statement on the part of the province of Manitoba than the one I am going to quote, but this is precisely the point I want to make. The minister said earlier that in dropping the use of the words "actual loss" in favour of the word "uneconomic", he was adopting the words of the Manitoba Branch Lines Association. I have before me the submission made by the province of Manitoba on November 17, 1966. I quote from the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, pages 2648 and 2649. I will read the whole paragraph because this is the specific submission of the Manitoba government with reference to this section:
In section 314C (1), page 22, we would delete the term "uneconomic" in line 13 since this term is nowhere defined in the section and insert the term "actual loss" so that lines 12 and 13 would now read: "... determine whether the branch line is likely to continue to incur an actual loss..." etc. Similarly in the case of section 314C (3), page 23, delete the word "uneconomic" in line 15 so that

January 13, 1967
Transportation
line of railway which incurs an actual loss, the period (i)...etc. On page 27 thereof should be abandoned..." etc. In section 314C (4) -
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman has quite convinced me. He has apparently made me look very foolish; but the advice I was given was that two years ago on Bill No. C-120 the representatives of the government of Manitoba and the government of Saskatchewan asked us to take out "actual loss" and put in "uneconomic". I think it all really boils down to the fact that whatever you do, someone will suggest, and maybe the same person, that you do the opposite again. I would not care a great deal which we adopted, because I do not believe there is any difference in the fundamental meaning. Certainly, if the railway is not having an actual loss the line cannot be abandoned; that is clear right at the start. If uneconomic means anything, therefore, it must mean that other economic conditions should be taken into account. This was what we understood to be the original reason for the desire, expressed a couple of years ago, that we should use this phrase. Since it seemed to us not to make any fundamental difference to the legislation, and to be more agreeable to those who would be affected, we tried to do it that way.
I had forgotten about the submission of the government of Manitoba, and the hon. gentleman quite properly put me in my place about that. I acknowledge it quite readily, but I still do not think there would be any benefit in changing the wording again.


David Orlikow: Perhaps the minister will believe me when I say I was not trying to put him in his place.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would not hold it against the hon. gentleman if he did.


David Orlikow: There have been many occasions in the past when I have tried to do so, and I am sure there will be many more in the future. I must say that I have not succeeded very often.
However, Mr. Chairman, for a few moments I should like to raise one other matter. I am a little concerned, and for another reason, about the continual use of the word "economic". It seems to me that when we use the word "economic" we almost automatically restrict the ability of the reviewing agency to make a judgment. There are consequences of rail line

abandonments which are not exclusively economic but are, in fact, social. These consequences were referred to in a resolution passed in 1963 by the Saskatchewan conference of local railway retention committees. They went over the principles which they thought should be the governing factors when branch line abandonment was being considered. I should like to quote those principles from this resolution:
1.	The cost of extra distance farmers will have to haul grain.
2.	The cost of reorganization of the market grid road system and provincial highways.
3.	The reduction of municipal taxation and the financial position of municipalities.
4.	Capital losses which may be suffered by businesses in towns, villages and hamlets as a consequence of a branch line being abandoned.
5.	Depreciation of land values.
6.	The necessity of compensation for municipal services such as relocation of grid roads which are directly consequent on abandonment.
7.	The impact of abandonment of schools, hospitals, old people's homes, and other social services or institutions.
8.	Whether or not mineral rights or other advantages held by railway companies as a result of land grants given to build rail lines should revert to the crown if the branch lines are abandoned and used for compensation.
Earlier today the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam, and other members, talked about the tremendous consequence of branch line abandonment for the towns. Towns have been built because the railway was there or a country elevator was there. This led to the establishment of schools, hospitals and stores. All of these things are affected. I am sure the minister will remember the situation when Canadian National announced the run-through program and the effect of that upon Nakina. A large school had been established there, with the co-operation of the provincial government, to look after the children who were there because their fathers were working for the railway. Once this town ceased to be a turnaround point and the people moved away, the school would be largely superfluous. Here was a large investment of the province of Ontario which would become worthless. The same thing would be true of hospitals and private businesses. It seems to me somehow-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if we could perhaps abbreviate this discussion by having the hon. gentleman read the sentence at the top of page 27? Perhaps I could read it:
-the period of time reasonably required for the purpose of adjusting any facilities, wholly or in part dependant on the services provided by the branch line, with the least disruption to the economy of the area served by the line;
January 13, 1967

It seems to me that, apart from the question of the reversion of mineral rights which is entirely a separate question, that is just about as precise a definition of the criteria, about which the hon. gentleman was talking in that very good memorandum from which he read, as we could readily devise. I suppose one might have put in the word "social", but then what does "social" mean? It is a very difficult thing for the court to determine. I feel this language is much more precise and more directly related to the very kind of thing the hon. gentleman was mentioning.


David Orlikow: I hesitate to argue with the minister about this. All of us are aware of the fact that parliament can propose, but very often at some future date lawyers and courts dispose; and they often dispose in ways which parliaments and governments had not foreseen. It is for this reason I think members on both sides of the house are expressing their serious concern about these questions.
I looked at the sentence to which the minister referred, and I looked at it again as he read it to me. However, I feel, as the resolution from which I quoted pointed out and as the hon. member for Peace River pointed out, that we ought to look at every possibility in a spirit of good will so that the bill, as it is finally passed, will go as far as it is humanly possible to go in accomplishing the things we all want accomplished.
The minister assures me that the proposed section does all the things which I have pointed out need doing. I do not believe the insertion of one word in one place or in another place will make that much difference. I appeal to the minister to have another look at the relevant merits of the words "actual loss" as compared with "uneconomic". I am not insisting, and I am not even suggesting he hold the clause over because I know we have been standing many clauses.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Frankly, on balance, I think I like the words "uneconomic or likely to be uneconomic". So far as I am concerned, I believe I will stick with them. Since we have decided to consider these specific paragraphs, I wonder if we could go on to the next one now?


Edward Richard Schreyer: In this particular case, I am afraid I must move an amendment so we can obtain the sense of the members of the committee. The minister is quite incorrect when he tries to leave the impression that there is 23033-746^
Transportation
not much difference between the term "uneconomic" and the term "actual loss incurred". "Uneconomic" could apply to a branch line that might be bringing the railway an actual net profit, but of such small amount or magnitude that it might be deemed uneconomic.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The opinion of economists or anybody with some understanding and judgment in the field is likely to be such that the term "uneconomic" could be applied to any rate of return that is in the order of one half of one per cent, 1 per cent, 2 per cent or even 2J or 3 per cent. As I understand it, that is not really the intention of this section.
If the minister were to look at the wording of 314C (1) and compare it with the wording of 314C (3) and 314C (4) he would find, though I concede it might be inadvertent, a kind of subtle transitional change from one subsection to another. While we start out in subsection 1 by saying that the commission shall hold hearings to determine whether a line is uneconomic and that it shall not grant any application unless there is actual loss, we then find in subsection 3 that any reference to actual loss is omitted, and in subsection 4 this wording appears-and I would ask hon. members to listen to it very carefully:
If the Commission determines that the operation of an uneconomic branch line... should be abandoned-
Therefore, it seems pretty clear from subsection 4 that the commission is given the discretionary power to grant abandonment of a branch line that is uneconomic, which may not necessarily mean that an actual loss is being incurred. That is the whole point. This kind of drafting in the legislation is bound to cause some doubt, uncertainty and confusion which may very well be eliminated by the substitution of two or three words. Is it really too much to ask of the minister, if he has some kind of obsessive opposition to the words "actual loss incurring", that he leave out the word "uneconomic" and not substitute anything in its place. This would make the clause clearer than it is at the present time.
Therefore I move:
That section 314C (3) be amended by deleting the word "uneconomic" in line 40 thereof and substituting the words "actual loss incurring".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this amendment before it is put. I must say that it would not break my heart if it carried because I do not think it would have any real effect on the bill. It

January 13, 1967
Transportation
might injure my vanity a little, but that is not terribly important.
I should not like anyone to think that there was any soundness in the hon. gentleman's argument, because it he looks at 314E on page 30 of the bill he will see it makes it very clear-this is the same point I made earlier -that an uneconomic line is defined. In (c) it says:
"uneconomic line of railway" means a branch line that has been determined to be uneconomic by the commission under section 314C.
Presumably that governs throughout, but it certainly governs the whole of section 314C. Section 314C (1) says that the commission, having held hearings, shall determine whether a branch line is uneconomic, is likely to continue to be uneconomic and whether it should be abandoned. The rest of the wording goes on:
-but if the commission finds that In its opinion the company has incurred no actual loss in the operation of such line...it shall reject the application-
The line cannot be abandoned anyway if there is no actual loss. Therefore, it seems to me that it would not be a terribly useful exercise to put the Queen's Printer to the expense of making this further correction to the bill, which I do not think would add anything. If we were going to make this provision it would be neater to change the bill all the way through, but I do not think it would serve any great purpose. I hope the hon. gentleman will not press his amendment, in the circumstances.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I have one question I should like to address to the minister. I admit that subsection 1 reads satisfactorily as it is at present with regard to the use of the word "uneconomic" as opposed to "actual loss incurring"; but I submit that subsections 3 and 4 do not. There is nothing to indicate that .subclause 1 supersedes subsections 3 and 4. I am not familiar with the interpretation of statutes but there is nothing in subsection 1 to the effect that "notwithstanding any other provisions, subsection 1 shall apply", and so on. Therefore, could the minister say whether subsection 1 is construed as superseding subsections 3 and 4?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it supersedes; I think it governs. I believe that is the proper word. Subsection 1 says the commission shall determine whether a line is uneconomic or likely to continue to be uneconomic, and that in so determining the line must have

suffered an actual loss. All of the following references are dependant upon that and governed by it. Subsection 1 gives the commission power to determine whether a branch line is uneconomic and should be abandoned; but in doing so it has to look at all these other considerations.
Subsection 3 does not give the commission power to determine whether a line is uneconomic; subsection 1 does that. In making the determination required in subsection 1 all of the factors mentioned in subsection 3 have to be taken into account by the commission. The same is true of subsection 4. If the commission determines that a line should be abandoned under subsection 1 then certain things will happen. The power to determine whether a branch line is uneconomic or likely to be uneconomic is that given by subsection 1. The other subsections are dependant on and subordinate to subsection 1.
I do not know whether the hon. member for Peace River is in favour of this amendment or not, but I think he will agree with my interpretation.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, the minister has asked me to withdraw the amendment, but I should like to hear the opinion of hon. members to my right in this respect. If the hon. member for Peace River or the hon. member for Acadia consider it to be of no substance, then I will certainly withdraw it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, in rising to give an opinion without being paid a fee I would reinforce what I said before. I fully realize the difficulties the draftsman has had to undergo during the long-sustained period of gestation of this bill, before delivery.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has had real labour pains.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: I should like to have seen it made plain that, once loss had been sustained, and the railway having got over that obstacle, the commission should direct its attention to whether all these other things I have brought up do come in. I am satisfied, from reading section 314C, that there is a direction to the commission to do this. This direction is primarily the basis of section 314. I agree with the minister that that is the determining section. The minute it is established that there is no loss in the previous year the application must be rejected; the railway is tossed out of court on its neck, as it should be. Only when it has been established that there has been
January 13, 1967

loss in the preceding year ought the commission to consider the other aspects of the matter.
I do not think we can get to section 314C (3) until we have got over the first obstacle, which must be considered under subsection 314C (1). This could have been set out a little more clearly, to be more readily observable. I do not think the amendment will change the effect of the measure, but the point I have raised has concerned me for some time, and only the complete study in the long lunch period we had today enabled me to come to the view that I hold.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I would ask for leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Schreyer) withdrawn.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very grateful to the hon. gentleman.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Shall section 314C carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Thomas Richard: The
committee will now consider section 314D, rationalization of line between systems.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wish to make a few remarks about section 314D. Would the minister be kind enough to tell me why, in part I of the subsection, the language used is "the Commission may recommend to railway companies", whereas in other places in the bill the governor general in council has the power to order. Elsewhere there is the power to direct. That is in the case of the commodity pipe lines. On the tremendously important section on rationalization the commission may recommend. Can the minister tell me why the words "may recommend" are used, instead of the words "direct" or "order"?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think most of us on this side of the house would not hesitate to direct the Canadian National, owned by the people we represent, to do things. But so long as we have the concept of private ownership that we have in this country, unless we are to interfere with the actual ownership of something to which there is private title we should be hesitant to confer on a commission or other body the authority to order that body to change the use of something privately owned. It was probably a scruple like that that was the main consideration.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Jumping down to the third
subsection, if the railways do not accept the
Transportation
recommendation of the commission, the commission must report its recommendation to the governor in council for such action as the governor in council may consider necessary in the public interest. Under subsection 314G, the governor in council may order. My question is this: Where in this bill is the clause that gives to the commission the power to reduce the subsidy if the railway does not accept the recommendation. This afternoon the minister said that the commission had this power.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is talking of circumstances where the commission's recommendation is not accepted. I would take it, then, that there would be no subsidy to be reduced. Would that not be so?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Replying to me earlier this afternoon the minister said that the commission, if its views were not followed, would react and not give the full subsidy to the railway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do recollect having said something very like that. Probably I was moving ahead of myself. I imagine, in circumstances like this, that the commission would probably recommend to the governor in council that if certain things were done certain payments should be made, but the government itself would make the payments. I would think, therefore, that what I ought to have said would be "withheld" rather than "reduced", because there would not have been a subsidy to reduce. Nothing would be done in that particular situation where the railway does not comply with the recommendation. Some of these recommendations might not involve payments.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am sure that the commission win act in such a way that the great majority of its recommendations will save the railways money and allow them to make more money. I know of examples where this could be done.
I am basing my remarks on the experience of the past. Thirty odd years ago, in this chamber, a group of members of parliament trying as sincerely as we are to produce good legislation, brought in legislation which gave the power to recommend. The history of the last 30 years has shown that rarely have the railways, the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific, accepted the recommendations of the Board of Transport Commissioners on the rational and efficient running of railway lines. In Canada we have had to put

January 13, 1967
Transportation
up with heave freight rates and with continuing requests that parliament provide more *money for railways, all because the railways do not operate efficiently. We ought to learn from this experience.
This section would be strengthened if we gave the commission the right to recommend, and made it clear that where the railway refused to listen to a recommendation not causing loss, it would lose a certain proportion of the subsidy granted under statute. Once the railways find that reluctance to move means dollar losses they will move quickly to correct inefficiencies.
I do not want to move an amendment, because of the difficulty of correlating all these sections. We would have to be very careful with any amendment. The easiest way out would be to change the words "may recommend" to the words "may direct". Perhaps an additional clause could be put in saying that the authority to carry out recommendations could result in one of two things, loss of the subsidy, or having the matter taken before the governor in council.
On this side of the house we should feel happier to see the stronger language used in this section. I should be glad to hear the minister. Or, if he wishes to reply later, and think this over first, I shall accept that, too, because this involves a serious problem.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman
knows that I have been aware of his views on this subject since he spoke on second reading, in September I believe.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
So I have had a long time in which to reflect. I have discussed the point raised by the hon. gentleman not only with officials but with my colleagues and it is our considered view that we prefer not to confer upon the commission power to direct the rearrangement of property of persons who under our present system of operating are the holders of private property. If this is to be done, it should be done by parliament or by the governor in council under power given to him by parliament, not by some other body.
However, I am advised that under 314E (4) on page 31 of the bill the Minister of Finance is not committed to pay the whole amount of the subsidy. There is therefore in the bill a certain element of sanction of the kind the hon. gentleman seems to think might be helpful, and to this extent we have gone part way in the direction in which he would like to go. I feel this is one of the occasions when instead

of being flexible and not knowing my own mind I shall have to be stubborn and arrogant.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I should like to support the argument put forward by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. The assurance the minister gave to the hon. member and to this committee simply does not go far enough, I submit with respect. The commission is not given power to direct that the railways shall rationalize in any given way. All that is provided is that the commission may make recommendations. Why should the commission not be given authority in this legislation to make an order for rationalization? If there is cost involved to the railways, which in many instances is unlikely, provision could be made for compensation from the treasury.
I am tempted to move an amendment here, but I realize that it might involve a number of consequential amendments to other clauses and for that reason I hesitate to do so. A possible alternative would be to word this clause so as to give the commission authority to recommend to the governor in council that the governor in council use the subsidy arrangement with the railways in such a way as to induce them to carry out certain works of rationalization. It is hard to understand why the minister will not consider such an approach.
Experience shows us clearly that unless we adopt measures of this kind the railways will simply drag their heels when it comes to carrying out any logical rationalization plan. Unless we do provide an inducement by altering the payment of subsidies we shall see no substantial change with respect to railway rationalization. The minister should be aware of this, and if he is not, he is being made aware of it now.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not intend to hold the committee up on this point any longer. I think I have made my views known. I would just like to remind the minister and the committee that at the hearings on October 18 the Canadian Co-operative Wheat Producers Limited, the three big pools, recommended-
-the provision of some form of persuasion to encourage the railway companies to act on commission recommendations which seek to improve railway operations in other ways than that of management.
Once again we hear the voice of the biggest customers of the railways, those who provide what profit there is to railway management, saying we should give this commission some power of persuasion. As far as I can see, the
January 13, 1967

only power of persuasion acknowledged by the minister is the possibility of some penalty imposed by the Minister of Finance, who would keep a careful watch on these things. I cannot place any stronger emphasis on what I have said. I do not accept the minister's argument that it is possible to order the C.N.R. but not the C.P.R.-that air line and pipe line undertakings can be directed, but the C.P.R. cannot. In telling us the commission shall have no power to give direction in cases when it has devised ways in which the railways could operate in a better manner, I believe the minister is contradicting the whole concept which underlies the turning over of powers in transportation fields to this new board. The board is given all these duties in the various clauses of the act, but it is not given any punch. This is the same mistake as was made in 1935 in the legislation governing the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways. I hate to see parliament repeating the same mistake only a decade or so later.
I do not think it would cause the C.P.R. or the C.N.R. the least concern if the commission could show them means of doing a thing better, especially if they stood to gain a few dollars and cents by accepting the recommendation. Here we say that if a recommendation is not accepted the commission may at its discretion take the matter up with the cabinet. Surely this is weak legislation in a bill which is supposed to be doing so much. I do not like to be obstreperous in the committee; I am one of the few hon. members speaking on behalf of the power to direct. But I think this power is necessary if we are to learn from the experience of the past. I do not think there will be much consequential effect on other clauses if we alter the words "may recommend" to "may direct" and I have heard no argument from the minister which convinces me I am the least bit wrong. I will say no more unless there are others who wish to join me to try to get the minister to change his mind.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. member should not exaggerate.
I said that I felt a little reluctant to give to the commission the power to direct the railways on the use of their property. I think there is another aspect of it to which I would attach a little more importance. The hon. gentleman speaks about the directions given to pipe line companies, to air lines, and so on. He referred to the direction with respect to their relationship, not so much one to another as to
Transportation
the regulation of them in the public interest. However, here there is an attempt to intrude a commission into the actual management of the operations. I do not know that we can be sure that this commission will fulfil the functions of management better than the higher paid and conceivably more skilled people who will be engaged in the management of the railways. It is one thing to give full publicity to these recommendations and another thing to substitute oneself for management. Over the years our whole relationship with the C.N.R., which was first established at the end of the first world war, was to try to appoint competent managers and not to have someone else to do the second guessing for the management.
I know that here we are talking about the relation between the two railways, and perhaps sometimes they do not have the best public interest in view in pursuing their own competitive interests; but when the referee says that he thinks this would be the best way of doing things and says so publicly, this will be a pretty powerful sanction. At the same time the onus of making their own management decision will remain with them. I do not feel passionately about it but, as they say in "Oklahoma", this is "about as far as we could go" at this time.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The minister keeps opening new lines of argument for me because if ever there was a history of incompetence in managing their own affairs it is the history of the railways. This has been the history of our country, and we have had to bail out the railways time and time again. If the railways did not owe the public tens of millions of dollars every year there would not be much for us to say; but this bill plans to pay them $110 million subsidy which is to decline to nothing over eight years.
If a group of normal laymen applying their common sense can find ways and means of saving money for the railways, then I believe that that recommendation should be accepted by the railways if they wish to get a subsidy. For example, in 1934 the Duff royal commission recommended that two lines in Saskatchewan running a mile apart for 111 miles should be amalgamated and that both the railway companies should run the same line. This would not be an inconvenience to people in the towns because it did not interfere with their business. But in the evidence that was presented before the commission it was pointed out that these lines were costing the railways $1,000 per mile per year and that the people who paid the freight rates were paying

January 13, 1967
Transportation
for these losses year after year because the Board of Transport Commissioners, under the act in 1935, had the power only to recommend, and nothing more. The same mistake is being repeated here. We place all forms of transportation under the super commission and we allow it to direct the air lines and the pipe line companies, but not the railways.
Perhaps this is an exaggeration but it dramatizes the point that the one who puts up all this money should have the right to call the tune. I am not asking for the moon and the stars when I propose the insertion of the words "may direct", and if there are any losses as a result of our direction we will be paying for them. This is contained in the bill and the railways are protected if they incur any losses; but the ordinary citizen, the ratepayer and the user of the railway is not protected under this section against the high freight rates. If the commission can find ways to save money, to reduce the costs of the railway and to provide better service to the people at no expense to the railways, then I think they should have to accept that recommendation, even if we have to use the word "may direct", or else if they do not accept it they must expect to lose part of the subsidy. I think we have the right to ask for service in return for the money which we are providing to them.
I know the minister does not wish me to go over the whole map of the west and name the places where lines should be adjusted. It is a conglomeration which grew up, like Topsy, because 70 years ago people believed that this country would be populated by 100 million people and that lines would be built all over the place. Let us not blame too much the people of those days. We have a chance to correct some of these anomalies, and I think that if the Canadian Transport Commission were given the power to correct them I am sure they would not abuse the railways, and that the railways would be paid for any losses they might incur. It would not hurt the minister to trust the commission and to give them a little more power, and if we have a chance to check on the commission occasionally, that would make for a good bill.
The arguments which the minister presented do not carry the weight they should. I have a feeling that the minister is being dominated by a civil service mentality. Let him not worry about the past. He is an elected representative speaking for the people. He can be bold and assert some control over the establishment which runs the country. The test of the

time is whether he can control it. The commission must be efficient and knowledgeable. Let us put down our feet occasionally and give them some guide lines. Therefore I would like to see the words "may direct" inserted. I have not yet heard any argument which would make me change that idea.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We have almost reached the time to rise, but I would first like to ask the minister to give some thought to the matter, between now iand the time when we will be considering the bill again. The minister said he did not feel passionately about this but I am sure many hon. members do feel strongly about it. Therefore I hope that he would consider an amendment to this clause which would give the commission the power to order a rationalization when, after examining all the facts, they are convinced that rationalization would be to the best advantage of all concerned, and the power to make recommendations that some financial compensation be given if they feel it is warranted. It seems to me that the minister's argument to the effect that the commission should not intervene in the management does not really stand up, because we are not dealing with a single management but with two managements, one of which may be willing to rationalize while the other is not.
After all there is nothing infallible about the present railway management. One has only to look at a map and see the scores of instances of expensive and costly duplication which should have been rectified years ago. The railways have failed to do it for a variety of reasons, one of which may have been that they could not reach any agreement. I think the most recent example of this was when the two railways built a line to Esterhazy in Saskatchewan so as to get the potash business, when one line could have been used by both of them. I do not think that a mere recommendation to the railways to build a single line, or to close one fine and both use another line, will always be accepted by both railways. It might be acceptable to one and not to the other. Surely if the commission is to try to find some order in the present chaotic situation it should be given some powers, and some teeth should be put into this act.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I am convinced that unless the minister does put some teeth in this legislation the commission will find itself making recommendations to which no attention will be given. I hope that between now and the time we
January 13, 1967

resume discussion of this matter that the minister will give some thought to accepting an amendment, which I believe would be a very simple amendment, so that the commission may make an order requiring the railways to carry out certain provisions for rationalization, and which also would provide of course for recommendations to the government for whatever financial inducement the commission feels would be necessary so that the carrying out of the rationalization in question would be acceptable to the companies.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say in a good natured way, and I hope I will not be misunderstood in doing so, that I am beginning to wonder whether there ever will be a commission to establish any powers. I hope we are not going to do all the work again, after spending weeks and weeks studying this legislation in the special committee. Already we have spent four days of this week in dealing with half the clauses in this bill. I would hope, when we come back to this legislation on Monday, that I will be given credit for having considered some of these suggestions which were made as long ago as last September and that we will be able to determine some of them fairly speedily.
I think it was understood that at five o'clock I would not be able to be here any longer. I very much regret that, but this happens to be the situation. I thank all hon. members for their co-operation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to assure the minister that we are not trying to hold up his legislation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: However, for two or three years since the MacPherson report was brought down we have waited for legislation to be introduced. I am sure it is the desire of the minister and all of us in this house that this legislation should be effective legislation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think this is one instance where it could be made effective. I believe it is our desire to do this.
Progress reported.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether with unanimous consent we could deal with three relatively non-controversial matters under government orders. I refer first of all to item No. 117. This is a resolution to amend the Judges
Transportation
Act to provide for one additional county court judge in Ontario and one additional county court judge in British Columbia. Then, if that should be disposed of, I should like to ask the house to consider item No. 110, second reading of Bill S-51, to amend the Canada Corporations Act. If by some good stroke of fortune we should dispose of this item, I would then ask the house to consider item No. 79. At this moment I should like to ask for unanimous consent in this regard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Solicitor General of course recognizes that in order to proceed with the business he has outlined it will be necessary for the house to decide what is to be done in respect of the private members' hour.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I realize I am leaning heavily on the generosity of the house. I cannot take exception if the answer should be in the negative. However, I am putting forward this proposal.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, it was communicated to us that the government desired to proceed also with item No. 104 which is the resolution to refer the Canada Elections Act to the standing committee on privileges and elections, but wished to leave the important matter of election expenses somewhere in the nebulous land of the future. I am wondering what has happened to that proposal. The Secretary of State of Canada (Miss LaMarsh) shakes her head. Is she indicating that I am wrong?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The two together.


Frank Howard: The Secretary of State says that they are to be put together for reference to the committee. Would the Solicitor General combine in his request that item No. 104 and item No. 105 be dealt with, as well in the original proposal, as the second item of business?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I do not wish to be difficult. I am, of course, in a rather embarrassing position, having asked the house to co-operate with me and then having had this suggestion put to me. I must say regretfully that at the moment I am not prepared to agree to the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).


Frank Howard: There is a misunderstanding. This is not a suggestion put forward by me. This is a suggestion which was put forward by

January 13, 1967
Transportation
the government and which now is excluded from the request made by the Solicitor General. I am merely putting it on the record so that I may ask what has happened since the government originally requested that we consider item No. 104. The Secretary of State indicated that items numbered 104 and 105 are companion pieces and would be referred. I just took her at her word and asked that it be done in that way.


Lawrence T. Pennell: While I accept the word of the hon. member for Skeena when he says this is not a proposition put forward by him, but rather one which came from this side of the house, I have entered into this discussion rather late and the impression I had after talking to my colleagues was that we should adopt the order I have put forward. I am in the hands of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps first of all the house would like to decide what course we will follow in respect of private members' hour. Is it the desire of the house that the private members' hour be suspended?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, there is not much point in suspending the private members' hour if we are not able to decide on what business will be taken up in its place. I think I would be agreeable to the initial suggestion of the Solicitor General, namely that we consider items No. 117, No. 110 and No. 79 in that order, and then ask for a commitment by the house that at the first convenient opportunity, perhaps the private members' hour on Thursday next, we might consider the Canada Elections Act and election expenses. I can assure the minister that we in this group will not present any difficulty in respect of the speedy passage of that legislation.


Lawrence T. Pennell: The generosity of the hon. member embarrasses me because I am not in a position to say yes, although I will give the matter very careful consideration and take it up later with the government house leader.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Does the house agree that we suspend the private members' hour for the day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)



JUDGES ACT AMENDMENT


Lawrence T. Pennell: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act to provide salaries for one additional Ontario county court judge and one additional British Columbia county court judge.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I need not detain the house for more than a very short time. This is a short but not unimportant resolution. Its purpose is to authorize the provision of salaries for one additional county court judge of Ontario and one additional county court judge of British Columbia.
Provision for an additional county court judge of Ontario was made by legislation of that province in July of this year through an amendment to the County Judges Act.
In respect of the additional county court judge of British Columbia it is proposed that the appointment be made for the county court of Westminster county. Westminster county at the present time has two county court judges. The appointment of this additional judge was requested by the Attorney General of the province of British Columbia and by both judges of the county court in Westminster county.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, would the Solicitor General indicate where the county court judge for Ontario will be located? Will he be assigned to a particular county or is he to be an additional county court judge at large?


Lawrence T. Pennell: If the bill to follow this resolution is passed the judge will be what we call a roving judge. I know that term is familiar to the hon. member for Carleton. The judge will not be assigned to any particular country.


Thomas Miller Bell: Has any request been made for the appointment of additional judges for Ontario? I understand there may be some need for additional judges in the county of York as a result of the proposal that the Mechanics Lien Act be transferred from the supreme court to the county court?


Lawrence T. Pennell: No formal request has been received in this regard. I believe such a request may have been delayed, and I want to
January 13, 1967

be careful in this regard, because of the fact that there is a lack of facilities. I do not wish to criticize the government of Ontario because it has recently opened one of the finest courthouses in the country, but at the present time I understand that if additional judges were appointed there would not be facilities to accommodate them.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say before this resolution is agreed to that I have known certain county court judges very well during my somewhat lengthy residence in the Kootenays. I refer particularly to Mr. Justice Dawson, Mr. Justice J. O. Wilson, who is now in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. His Honour Judge Nathan Nemetz, and His Honour Judge Gansner, who is our present county court judge. I might add that all these gentlemen are highly regarded for their interest in civil rights.
I could not allow this resolution to be accepted without mentioning the esteemed services of these gentlemen. They are men of experience and integrity and are held in high regard by the people of British Columbia, and the people of the Kootenay in particular. I am sure the hon. member for Kootenay East will agree with me. For once we are in agreement.
All the people of British Columbia have great respect for these gentlemen who have made such a tremendous contribution to the administration of justice in British Columbia. They have also contributed to a great extent to the operation of democracy there. I have had personal experience with two of them on arbitration boards and on other matters relating to labour disputes, and I have found them most fair in dealing with these questions.
I might add that none of these men are well off. They have never made a fortune from law. They are the kind of people who very often, when they were acting as legal counsel represented people without fee. That is one reason I hold them in such high regard. They have all rendered a great deal of service to the province of British Columbia and in many instances to the people of the Kootenays.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a passing comment on this resolution, particularly in respect of the method of appointing judges. I am not familiar with the circumstances of any appointment to the bench, but I think it is a well known fact that in many cases the individuals appointed have had backgrounds which indicate an affiliation with a political party. We find that when the Liberal party has been in office those who have received appointments to the bench have
Judges Act Amendment a history of attachment to that party, and when the Conservative party was in office those who were appointed to the bench had a history of attachment to the Conservative party. I am not suggesting that this fact means in any way that these men were not good judges. I think in the majority of cases judges in Canada have been exemplary in their behaviour, regardless of the fact they were chosen because of political affiliation rather than ability in the field of law. These two qualities may go hand in hand and may be considered when an appointment is being made, but it seems to me that this practice should stop. The political affiliation of a lawyer should not be considered in any way when an appointment is being made.
It is our belief that when an appointment to the bench is being made in Canada consideration should be given to an individual's ability and his concept of fairness and justice, rather than whether or not he supports a political party. The associations or legal fraternities in each province should be consulted when an appointment is to be made. The bar associations or other legal groups should be asked to make recommendations in respect of individuals to be appointed to the bench when vacancies exist. By following such a procedure a lesser degree of concern as to the political affiliation of an individual would be in the minds of those making the appointments than has been the case in the past. I would appreciate any response the Solicitor General might wish to make in this regard.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: What would the response be of the deputy leader of the hon. gentleman's party?


Frank Howard: If the hon. lady wants to ask a question I suggest she do so in a way that we can hear her.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would advise us as to what the response would be of the deputy leader of his party.


Frank Howard: The deputy leader of my party is such a competent, able and forthright gentleman I do not feel capable to give any indication of his feeling about this matter. As my hon. friend the Secretary of State knows, he is perfectly able to present those views himself.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the
hon. member for Skeena.

January 13, 1967
Judges Act Amendment


Frank Howard: I would be the most surprised person in this house if the hon. member disagreed with what I was saying. Apart from that, Mr. Chairman, at this juncture we would certainly appreciate some comment from the Solicitor General, who is asking parliament to expand the number of judges to be appointed, one in British Columbia and one in Ontario. I think it behooves him, as a member of the government, to give us some indication of the intentions in the future.
I know that the Solicitor General is a very kind and gentle person. Probably with all sincerity and conviction he would be able to say that the farthest thing from his mind would be the politics of the person who might be appointed to any of these positions or any future positions which become vacant on the bench of our country in whatever section of the courts. But the Solicitor General, however kind and personable he is, is not likely to hold that office forever. We are legislating now for the future and for the appointment of people to subsequent positions on the bench. I think therefore that now would be an excellent time to explore some other possibility of appointment than that which exists at the moment.
My colleague the hon. member for York South has whispered to me-this was news to me until now-that the Canadian Bar Association has made the self-same proposal that I am now making. I am pleased to know that the Canadian Bar Association and I think alike at least in this instance. I am sure the association would like to have the views of the Solicitor General at this time with regard to the proposal that they have put forward.


Thomas Miller Bell: Their proposal was equivalent but not "the self-same".


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member that if the political service of the appointee was the only consideration, the system ought to be changed. But I submit to the committee, and I can only speak from my limited experience of the past two years, that the prime consideration-the committee will note that I did not say the "sole consideration"-is the competency of the individual to discharge the duties of a judge.
I can also inform the committee that it is the practice to have unofficial consultations with the law societies in the provinces before appointments are made. I must also point out that it is this parliament that has the responsibility for the appointment, not any

law association or law society. If the appointee fails to discharge his functions in a judicial manner, the responsibility can be brought back and placed at the door of the government of the day. I agree with the hon. member that political service should not be the overriding factor in the selection of men to the bench, but I still contend that the responsibility ought to be kept within the confines of parliament.


David Lewis: On this point, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the Solicitor General that his answer really cannot be satisfactory. Of course I have known, as most members of the bar in Ontario and elsewhere have known, about the unofficial discussions that take place. But would it not be a great deal better for the administration of justice, and the regard which the Canadian has for the administration of justice, if these discussions were not merely unofficial? Would it not be better if it were known to the people of Canada that a piece of machinery had been set up to make appointments to the bench more likely unrelated to the political association or political activities of the appointee?
After all, what is suggested here-and it has been suggested by the Canadian Bar Association and, if I remember correctly, by the Law Society of Upper Canada, the law society of Ontario-is something that in Britain has been recognized. I cannot say that it is embodied in legislation; I do not for the moment remember whether that is the case.


Mr. Turner:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the hon. member would permit a question at this point? Would there not be a risk-I am putting this proposition to him because he has been a member of the Canadian Bar Association and the law society of Ontario and has practised a good deal longer than I have-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The Law Society of Upper Canada.


David Lewis: That is the official title.


John Napier Turner: I should think that in many cases the benchers do not feel they are living in Upper Canada-


David Lewis: I agree.


John Napier Turner: -but in any event, would there not be a risk that if the choice of judges were left purely to law societies or bar associations-
January 13, 1967


David Lewis: That is not the suggestion, Mr. Speaker, if I may say that, before the Minister without Portfolio continues. It is not the suggestion of the hon. member for Skeena, it is not my suggestion, and as far as I can recall it is not the suggestion of the Canadian Bar Association. I agree with the Solicitor General, and I imagine that what is implied in the aborted question of the Minister without Portfolio is that the responsibility for the appointment of judges must remain with the governor general in council and therefore answerable to this parliament. No one is arguing about that; no one is disagreeing with that.
What is being suggested, and I urge this on the government, is that it would be better for the administration of justice if some body were set up that was officially recognized for the purpose of consultation in this regard. I as one lawyer, am not at all sure that this consultative body should be limited to members of the bar. It is perhaps natural that a majority of the people on that body should be lawyers-perhaps not even a majority, but at all events there should be some lawyers on it who would be able to speak from their own association as to the legal abilities of a particular gentleman or number of gentlemen who were being considered for appointment. In my opinion there ought to be-I am not now speaking for any official lawyers body; I am not authorized, empowered or competent to do so because I am not a bencher or anything of that nature-a consultative body which has in its membership leading citizens of the community, people who are in a position to judge the character and attitudes of a panel of people being considered for appointment by the governor general in council.
I say to the Solicitor General that if this were the case, the kind of thing that is frequently heard across the country, the sort of feeling that men and women are appointed to the bench because of their political affiliation, would not be so prevalent. I am not for one moment suggesting that this has been in most cases the prime consideration, although every lawyer who has practised has had reason to wonder on some occasions whether it was not the prime consideration.
I am not for one moment suggesting that this has been the situation in a majority or even a substantial minority of cases. I am quite ready to accept, from my observations as a member of the bar, that the men and women appointed are people of ability and that ability was the primary concern in the minds of those responsible for the appointments. However, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that
Judges Act Amendment what the hon. member for Skeena has urged upon the Solicitor General is a sensible approach to this matter. In my opinion if the informal consultations were made more formal and there was a body to whom the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General, or whoever it may be, turned for advice, recommendations and comments, none of which ought in my opinion to be made public, the general attitude toward the appointment would be much better.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
As far as I can see, there is no reason why such a body should not exist in this country. As I understand it, such a body now exists in the United Kingdom; that is the situation there, unless my memory has failed me, or I am misinformed. In the United Kingdom there is a body to which the government turns for advice and comments before the appointment of judges. Everybody knows that body exists, and the personnel of that body. In consequence of that, the feeling in Britain is, it seems to me, a much more ready acceptance of the fact that appointments are based on ability than I have, in my daily work with the people of Canada, found to be the case in this country. It would be very much worth while if we acted in such a way as to induce the belief in the people of Canada that, whatever the political affiliation may be, that is not the prime concern in appointments to the bench.


Frank Howard: I wonder if I could follow with just a word or two about the expression by the Solicitor General that this parliament would be abdicating its responsibility by permitting someone else to make the appointment. I simply say that this is not my suggestion. My suggestion, if you recall, as was stated by the hon. member for York South, was for consultation. Certainly if there is consultation in an official way, and I do not know how you achieve that sort of thing, then why not have consultation in an official way? Then, it would be a recognized part of our procedure.
I have not suggested a new device. The unemployment insurance advisory committee comes to mind immediately as a group which the government appoints, but which is appointed officially only after consultation with representatives of the labour movement and of the management groups. In my own province of British Columbia, the members of the Labour Relations Board are appointed in that fashion. The trade union movement of British Columbia has been asked officially on a number of occasions to make recommendations

January 13, 1967
Judges Act Amendment when appointments had to be made. I think the rules were that three people were recommended and the government chose one, so that the labour body itself did not make the determination by recommending one person.
The bill with which we have been dealing in the last few days contains certain limiting provisions in connection with appointments. In one instance, the person appointed to the board to be set up under that bill must be a lawyer. This constitutes a restriction upon the prerogative of appointments. My suggestion is not a novel one and was not meant in the way the Solicitor General interpreted it.
May I ask the Solicitor General if he would be prepared to refer this bill to a committee in order that representative bodies, such as the Canadian Bar Association, could appear before the committee to present their case, and the Solicitor General could present his case, to ascertain whether or not a meeting of minds could be reached? The committee of the whole house is rather an unwieldy body in which to consider something of this nature. If the minister would be prepared to do that following second reading, we might make excellent progress with this bill.


Thomas Miller Bell: Each resolution of this type provokes a discussion of the type we have just had. Unfortunately the inference is frequently left that there is some inadequacy in the bench as it exists in Canada today. I want to dispute that as vigorously as I can and say that in my opinion we are greatly favoured in Canada by the quality of the bench we have at all levels. I do not believe any country enjoys a higher standard of intellect or integrity than we have generally among our judges in Canada. This needs to be said and said on every occasion.
I want to say further that I have never been one to believe that because a man participated in public affairs or in the politics of any particular party, he ought thereby to be eliminated from further public service. I consider service on the bench to be one of the highest forms of public service, but the service in any political party, I care not which political party, is a very high service and is a qualification for future public service. I believe this needs to be said because one problem is that too few people in the legal profession do participate in the public affairs of their own community.


Mr. Peters:: You cannot campaign for
bencher here.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: I am long past campaigning for bencher. The only time I did, I was successful and I expect never to run again.
We should not have words spoken in this house which would discourage members of the legal profession from taking part in politics or feeling that by reason of taking part in politics they may possibly prejudice their chances in the future of achieving a position on the bench of this country. If that inference were to be left, I think it would be very bad for the bench of this country. I have had the privilege of knowing a great many ministers of justice in Canada. I believe that every one of them has taken his responsibilities very seriously. Indeed, they have spent agonizing hours considering appointments to the bench and considering the responsibility that goes with their recommendation to cabinet. I have sat in cabinet meetings and I have watched members of the administration take part in these discussions. I assure you these discussions were not related to politics but to the qualities of the individual and whether he had those qualities which would make a good judge.
There is no doubt it is wise to have discussions with members of the bar association. However, I do not believe that any minister of justice or any cabinet of this country could abdicate their responsibility to any provincial or any national bar association. There are cliques in the Canadian Bar Association; there are cliques in the Law Society of Upper Canada and the Law Society of British Columbia, just as there are in any other association. I do not believe any responsible cabinet in this country should delegate its authority to some body which has no responsibility to the people whatever and is responsible only to a small group. Consult as much as you wish. I believe ministers of justice in the past have, and will continue to do so. However, abdication to some other organization I say to you, sir, is simply not good enough. We should not permit anything of the sort.
I rose only to say, and I repeat, that I think we have in this country a first class bench and we should proclaim that fact on every occasion.


Frank Howard: No one suggested anything but a consultative body. The eloquence of the hon. member for Carleton only moves me to say that was one of the finest red herring speeches I have heard for some time.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
January 13, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	11801
Mr. Pennell thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-262, to amend the Judges Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be read a second time on another day. I say that because one of my colleagues has a particular interest in it, and unfortunately is not here because he did not have notice of the desire to proceed with it. It would be much appreciated if the bill could be read a second time on another day.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I appreciate the hon. member's point and I am prepared to accept his request.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



CANADA CORPORATIONS ACT AMENDMENT


John Napier Turner: the second reading of Bill No. S-51, to amend the Canada Corporations Act to facilitate the incorporation by letters patent of corporations without objects of pecuniary gain.


Richard Albert Bell: Is the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner) going to make a statement on this bill?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will make a short statement.
The purpose of the bill is to allow an alternative means of incorporating companies without objects of pecuniary gain. These are, as will be found in the explanatory notes, corporations having objects of a national, patriotic, religious, philanthropic, charitable, scientific, artistic, social, professional or sporting character, or the like objects.
At the moment, Mr. Speaker, these incorporations must be brought before the House of Commons and dealt with in private members' hour, unless their membership is drawn from or their business carried on in more than one province, within the meaning of the present section 144 of the Canada Corporations Act. So that what it does is to open up an alternative procedure for incorporation. It allows
Canada Corporations Act Amendment bodies of this nature to go before the Registrar General's department by way of letters patent under an ordinary incorporation proceeding. The alternative of coming before parliament will, of course, still be open to them.
The reason this cannot be done now is that the words of the present section, as I have said, maintain that the purposes must envisage that the objects are carried on in more than one province of Canada. New words are now substituted, and they are "to which the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends".
Before the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Saumur case, it used to be thought that the parliament of Canada had no jurisdiction over, say, religious bodies unless they did carry on business in more than one province, because it was felt that the property and civil rights clause under head 13 of section 92 of the British North America Act gave the provinces exclusive jurisdiction and authority over religious bodies. Since the Saumur case it is now clear that the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction, and these words are now changed to "to which the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends", replacing the more limiting words "carrying on in more than one province of Canada".


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner) is pinch-hitting for the Registrar General and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau) and I should like to take a moment to say how much I regret that the Registrar General has been compelled to surrender some of his responsibilities, and how much all of us are looking forward to his return to the house. We hope that his health will be fully restored and that he will be able to take up his duties with the full vigour and intellect for which he is noted.
The purposes of the bill have been stated by the Minister without Portfolio. It relieves the house of the need for dealing with private bills which relate only to matters within one province of Canada. My concern, sir, is that this bill may do much more than it was ever intended to do. I fear that in its draftsmanship something may have happened which perhaps will definitely restrict what has been the previous authority to issue letters patent for corporations of a national, patriotic, religious, philanthropic and charitable nature-what we normally call the Part II companies.
11802	COMMONS
Canada Corporations Act Amendment
Legislative authority in respect of incorporation is, of course, divided between the dominion and the provinces. There are some kinds of corporations which can be incorporated by the dominion and cannot he incorporated by the provinces, and vice versa. Section 92 of the British North America Act, subsection 11, provides that the provinces have the right over-
-the incorporation of companies with provincial objects.
There is no mention whatever of incorporation in section 91 except in subsection (15), which deals with the incorporation of banks. However, it has been held by the Privy Council in the leading cases on corporation law-the John Deere Plough v. Wharton case, Bonanza Creek Goldmining v. The King and Great West Saddlery Co. v. The King-that there is within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, and by delegation to the government of Canada, the power to issue letters patent covering corporations which I venture to suggest have authority in fields much beyond the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament.
In other words, I suggest that the position is that there is power in this parliament under its residual authority to invest in a corporation the status of a person, although the objects may be under the legislative jurisdiction of a province.
I should like to mention the type of corporation which has consistently been incorporated by letters patent under Part II, and which I think may well be now restricted by this particular legislation. I mention, for example, the Canadian Teachers Federation. All of the objects of the Canadian Teachers Federation are under the exclusive authority of the province; yet the Canadian Teachers Federation has been incorporated by letters patent issued by the Secretary of State of Canada.
I could also mention the Canadian Association of Universities and Colleges and the Canadian Guild of Dispensing Opticians. In no -case are the objects of these corporations within the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament, but they are incorporated by the Secretary of State pursuant to legislative authority conferred by this parliament.
I might also mention the Canadian Bible Society, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews, the Canadian Construction Association,

DEBATES	January 13, 1967
the Canadian Good Roads Association, the Canada Foundation, the Canadian Association of the Deaf, the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, the Canadian Association for Retarded Children, the Canadian Authors Association, the Canadian Historical Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Canadian Political Science Association-and so, on and on one could go. In most of these cases the objects of these corporations created by letters patent issued by the Secretary of State are exclusively provincial in nature.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what are we saying in this legislation? Let me ask you to put in contrast the provisions of the old section 144, which gave authority to the Registrar General by letters patent to create:
-a body corporate and politic, without share capital, for the purpose of carrying on in more than one province of Canada without pecuniary gain to its members, objects of a national patriotic, religious,-
-and so on-
-character-
What are we saying now, Mr. Speaker? We are saying in the proposed amendment that this may be done in relation to:
-"objects, to which the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends."
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I should like the minister to tell me how the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to any of the objects of the Canadian Teachers Federation. How does the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extend to the objects of the Canadian Guild of Dispensing Opticians. How does it extend to the objects of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind? It has been consistently assumed that there was residual authority, both under the opening powers of section 91, and under the trade and commerce powers, which enabled this parliament to create a corporation and to give it the legal status of a person, but that the objects of such corporations might be objects to which the legislative authority of the provinces solely would extend.
If I am right about this, then we are doing more by this legislation than ever was intended. I am worried that we may possibly be restricting in future the power of incorporation by letters patent of national organizations which play an important part in our national life because it may be argued by some that the legislative authority of this parliament
January 13, 1967	COMMONS
does not extend to the objects of such organizations, particularly those in the professions.
Earlier we talked of the Canadian Bar Association. It may well be that national professional organizations can no longer be incorporated, as a result of this measure. That concerns me. I hope the minister can relieve my fears. Otherwise I must oppose this bill to the limit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could I ask the hon. member a question? Would he consider that a comma after the word "objects" might make a difference in his argument? Let me put it this way. If the legislative authority of parliament refers to objects only, it seems to me he has a point. But if, after the word "objects", there is a comma, then several different things are strung together by the word "or". Does that little comma not make a difference to his argument?


Richard Albert Bell: I think not, Mr. Speaker. The word "objects" is completely qualified by the words "to which the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends".


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the rest of the clause?


Richard Albert Bell: Yes, I appreciate the hon. member's words. The rest of the clause reads:
-of a national, patriotic, religious, philanthropic, charitable, scientific, artistic, social, professional or sporting character, or the like-
I cannot see how there can be any conflict, any confusion in the interpretation. The objects will be qualified by the words, "to which the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends". These are the only matters where it would be possible for the Registrar General to incorporate by letters patent.
I hope I am proved wrong. I do not want, under the pretext of relieving this house of responsibility to enact private bills in any way to confine what has been the clear authority of the Secretary of State and the Registrar General evidenced on previous occasions.


William Arnold Peters: I wish to say a few words in answer to the argument of the hon. member for Carleton. I suggest that for some time we have done what he opposes. It matters not, in my opinion whether this is a
Canada Corporations Act Amendment private bill, a private act of parliament establishing the National Boys Scout Organization, or whether there are letters patent doing the same thing. The point is that we have cluttered up the order paper with things that should not be on it. We have asked Catholics to approve of the church of God, or of the Baptist church, and we have asked Baptists to approve Catholic churches, or the like. We have asked hon. members to endorse, for instance, the International Organization of Endocrinologists-one can hardly pronounce the word.
The hon. member for Carleton did not oppose those private bills. He opposes the setting up of a body, of an agency of parliament more competent to deal with these private bills than we, in the house are. Many of these matters must be carefully looked into.
Let me give an example. Not long ago an organization that in my opinion would control hundreds of millions of dollars sought incorporation. Neither the parliamentary agent responsible to the Speaker, nor the representatives of the organization, were able to present resolutions from the organization, provincial or national, to show that the four or five people appearing were not in fact alone in asking for the incorporation, which would give them control of the organization's assets.
I have had discussions with the hon. member for Carleton. He convinced me that some agencies, and I speak in the non-legal sense, could be handled in a better way than they are now being handled. The agencies included in this bill were not those against which he raised a legitimate argument. We ought to make a change so that these incorporations can be carried out in a better manner than they are at present carried out. If this bill is not passed I shall expect to see the hon. member for Carleton taking a much more active role in individual incorporations than he has taken up to now.
I think this measure is a forward step and one that members of parliament ought to support. A private bill ought to be handled by an agency perhaps, more competent to process it than we are. I have been referring to the incorporation of non-financial institutions.


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


Richard Albert Bell: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Richard in the chair.
11804	COMMONS DEBATES	January 13, 1967
Canada Corporations Act Amendment
On clause 1.


Thomas Miller Bell: I expect a reply from the minister. I was not prepared to grant second reading, with the qualms I have, without an explanation from the minister.


John Napier Turner: May I reply briefly to the constitutional point raised by the hon. member for Carleton. I took the precaution of obtaining an opinion from the legal officers of the crown on the point the hon. member has raised. In the opinion of the legal officers the amendment contemplated to section 144 (1) extends the power, the current power, of the Registrar General's department in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the Saumur case. In this way, under the present act, only a non-pecuniary corporation carrying on activities in more than one province would qualify for letters patent under the Registrar General's department. Otherwise the matter would go before parliament.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Any such organization drawn generally from the membership in Canada as a whole, not limited to any province but not necessarily bound to carry on its activities in more than one province, would now qualify for letters patent.
The question asked by the hon. member for Carleton was this: Would this mean parliament would be granting to the Registrar General's department authority to usurp provincial jurisdiction in that it would allow national associations of professional people normally under provincial jurisdiction to incorporate it under federal charter.


Richard Albert Bell: It is really the reverse. My point was the fear that the Registrar General would not have that authority.


John Napier Turner: It adds up to the same thing. I am advised that despite the fact that the professions or associations involved would, if it is a matter of disciplinary action, be governed by a provincial legislature, there is nothing to prevent doctors, teachers or dentists or members of the bar uniting in a national body and thereby coming under federal jurisdiction, because the action contemplated is not the activity of teaching or of being a doctor but of associating with fellow professionals or fellow students, and this is clearly within the authority of parliament.

If there were any object of the association seeking incorporation which included licensing, or qualification of members, or discipline, which come under provincial jurisdiction, those objects would have to be stricken out before letters patent were granted or before parliament could give its consent.
In conclusion, I am advised that the proposed amendment enlarges the powers under section 144 of the Canada Corporations Act and would not prevent the incorporation of corporations whose objects, being of the character described or a like character, involved the bringing together in an association, without shares and without pecuniary gain to members, of persons of a like profession, occupation or interest within Canada, as distinct from being within one province.


Richard Albert Bell: It will, of course, be obvious that I have discussed this matter with members of the government who shared my fears. I just want to have an unqualified undertaking from the Acting Registrar General that the inclusion in this legislation of the words "to which the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends" would not in any way prevent the incorporation by letters patent of such bodies as have previously been incorporated-the Canadian Teachers Federation, the Canadian Guild of Dispensing Opticians, the Bible Society, the Cancer Society and similar organizations?


John Napier Turner: Within the limits of the hon. gentleman's remarks and of my understand-I can give that undertaking.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be
read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, by leave.


John Napier Turner: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Rapp:: May I ask the acting leader of the house to inform us what the business of the house will be on Monday next?
January 13, 1967

Business of the House


John Napier Turner: Acting for the acting house and in the third instance item 84, the Interleader I should like to inform hon. members pretation Act. that the order of business on Monday will be,
first, item 92, the transport bill. If somehow It being eight minutes after six o'clock the we complete our discussion of that measure house adjourned, without question put, pursu-we will call item 79, the C.N.R. financing bill, ant to standing order.

January 13, 1987



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
The Canadian Wheat Board today announced the final payment on wheat delivered to the board during the crop year 1965-66.
Producers delivered a total of 559,790,073 bushels of wheat to the board in the 1965-66 crop year which included 18,369 bushels of Durum wheat. The amount of the final payment to be distributed to producers is $270,028,575 of which $9,948,861 will be distributed to producers who delivered Durum wheat. This is not a payment by the government of Canada, but represents the net returns of the Canadian Wheat Board in the marketing of western Canadian wheat for the 1965-66 crop year.
The average final payment for wheat other than Durum is 48.087 cents per bushel. The average final payment for Durum wheat is 52.549 cents per bushel.
The board will commence issuing final payment cheques to producers on January 17, 1967.
The final payment is being made on a grade basis as prescribed in the Canadian Wheat
Board Act. The rates of final payment for the principal grades of wheat are as follows:
Red Spring Wheat grades:		Final Payment
[Stage Direction]
No. 1
[Stage Direction]
Manitoba Northern
[Stage Direction]
(cents per bushel) 49.202
[Stage Direction]
No. 2
[Stage Direction]
Manitoba Northern
[Stage Direction]
50.138
[Stage Direction]
No. 3
[Stage Direction]
Manitoba Northern
[Stage Direction]
45.806
[Stage Direction]
No. 4
[Stage Direction]
Manitoba Northern
[Stage Direction]
47.253
[Stage Direction]
No. 5
[Stage Direction]
Wheat
[Stage Direction]
53.559
[Stage Direction]
No. 6
[Stage Direction]
Wheat
[Stage Direction]
56.034
[Stage Direction]
Feed
[Stage Direction]
Wheat
[Stage Direction]
57.148
[Stage Direction]
Amber Durum grades:
[Stage Direction]
Final Payment
[Stage Direction]
No. 1
[Stage Direction]
C.W. Amber Durum
[Stage Direction]
(cents per bushel) 53.188
[Stage Direction]
No. 2
[Stage Direction]
C.W. Amber Durum
[Stage Direction]
54.284
[Stage Direction]
No. 3
[Stage Direction]
C.W. Amber Durum
[Stage Direction]
51.952
[Stage Direction]
Extra
[Stage Direction]
No. 4 C.W. Amber Durum
[Stage Direction]
53.407
[Stage Direction]
No. 4
[Stage Direction]
C.W. Amber Durum
[Stage Direction]
51.723
[Stage Direction]
No. 5
[Stage Direction]
C.W. Amber Durum
[Stage Direction]
51.045
[Stage Direction]
No. 6
[Stage Direction]
C.W. Amber Durum
[Stage Direction]
53.390
[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 16, 1967