1967-01-17

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of National Revenue whether it is a fact that the Treasury Board ruled in favour of suspending the 10 per cent limit on the amount of bank shares which may be held under one ownership as far as the Bank of Western Canada is concerned. Are the directors of this company Sinclair Stevens, Coyne and others? What is the reason behind this unilateral concession, and under what authority was the ruling made to suspend the provision until July 1, 1967?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Since this is a very involved question, I should like to take it as notice.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister will take it as notice. Will he take a further question as notice and tell us what is the proportion of shares presently owned by British International Finance of Toronto. Is the Globe and Mail correct in its assumption that this company, having given certain undertakings at the time of its incorporation, now will have in excess of 50 per cent of the shares of a bank which was supposed to be one with the interests of western Canada at heart?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this question as notice but I want to say I am not responsible for what the Globe and Mail says.


John George Diefenbaker: That sentence should end with the word "responsible".



MEETING IN BRITAIN OF FINANCE MINISTERS RESPECTING INTEREST RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question
23033-751J
to the Minister of Finance concerning a meeting which is to be held next week end in London at the invitation of Prime Minister Wilson, at which the United States, Germany, Italy and France will confer with the British government regarding escalation of interest rates and explore ways and means of achieving a rational and timely easing of monetary conditions.
In view of Canada's great interest in this connection and the repercussions which the meeting may have upon the Canadian economy, is Canada to be represented at this conference and has she been invited?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as reported from Washington yesterday, the finance ministers of the United States, Britain, Germany, France and Italy have been invited by the British government to meet in Britain next week end to discuss, among other things, the level of interest rates in the United States and Europe. In Europe and North America interest rates have risen to very high levels in recent years, reflecting the heavy dependence placed by these countries on the use of monetary policy to restrain inflationary pressures. I am happy that in recent weeks there has been some decline in interest rates.
The meeting is at the initiative of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has presumably invited those countries whose domestic interest rates have the greatest international influence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Callaghan, sent a personal note to me so there would be no misunderstanding about the purpose of the meeting. The Secretary of the Treasury of the United States telephoned me to advise me along the same lines. It is desirable that countries should co-operate closely to harmonize their economic policies, and we in Canada will naturally keep in close touch with these developments.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question in view of the effect this will have on the Canadian economy may I ask the minister will Canada at least have an observer at the conference, or is any machinery set up by which we will be kept fully informed as to any decisions which may arise from the conference?

January 17, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have been kept very fully informed both by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of the Treasury in the United States. Mr. Debre spoke to me about the conference when he was here the other day, and both the chancellor and the secretary of the treasury have said that as soon as the meetings are over they will keep me fully informed about the outcome and upon what, we hope, will be a good result.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Roslhern):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if this is another case where the United States will speak for *Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Red Deer wish to ask a supplementary question?


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In replying to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States did the Minister of Finance indicate that it would be well if Canada were represented also; or does he imply that the interest rate problem in North America, to which the minister referred, is strictly the responsibility of the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my answer to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, the principal factor affecting the international level of interest rates, which of course become reflected in Canada, are interest rates in Europe and the United States, and we do hope these countries will co-operate in such a way that interest rates generally will come down because this will have a very good effect in Canada.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetfe (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
The government has accepted the principle of the bonus for bilingualism and has decided to grant a 7 per cent bonus to bilingual civil servants. Could the Prime Minister tell us when the government intends to pay this bonus to bilingual employees, and will there be any retroactivity in this regard?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the regulations have been laid

down to deal with the matter of compensation for employees where a knowledge of both languages is important. I will have to look into the latter part of the question concerning where these regulations do or will apply.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I might inform the hon. member that I have learned now that the bilingual bonus, in those cases in which it is effective, has been made retroactive to October 1, 1966.



OMBUDSMAN-REQUEST FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING APPOINTMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. the Prime Minister. A few weeks ago the Prime Minister mentioned that before long he would be announcing a policy relating to the establishment of the office of ombudsman. In view of the fact that a majority of the provinces have indicated that in their current legislative sessions they will be providing for such an office, does the Prime Minister have any statement to make in this regard at this time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not today, Mr. Speaker. I hope in a day or two to be able to make a short statement. I do not believe the majority of the provinces have decided to appoint an ombudsman, although some provinces have. This is a very important question in its relationship to the provincial and federal governments. This is one aspect of the matter which we are considering.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the NIinister of Labour whether all applications for deferment, particularly in the field of railway running trades workers have been dealt with under the Canada Labour (Standards) Code hours of work section. The minister said he might be in a position to give an answer today.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that this matter has been under discussion for some time.
My departmental officials have had discussions with the railway companies and unions
January 17, 1967

in order to try to work out an accommodation of hours which would conform to the code and which at the same time would not bring about any substantial variations in take home pay. It is very difficult to reach a definite conclusion at this time.
The discussions I think have been constructive up to this time, but a vote by some unions is now being taken on the question of the recent wage negotiations. I can assure the house that the matter is being treated as one of urgency.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This arises from some answers he gave yesterday and from a television interview I think last night. At that time the minister stated that the international control commission had been discussing the possibility of the commission being used to promote negotiations for peace in Viet Nam, but that at the present time this discussion had ended or had resulted in failure. May I ask the minister whether the refusal or failure on the part of the United States to end the bombing in North Viet Nam is one of the reasons or the major reason that Poland could not agree that the present is the appropriate time to take such steps?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that is not the
only reason for the position that country has taken with regard to the usefulness of the commission, which it feels ultimately may be useful. It is a fact, however, that Poland is among those countries which feel there should be an unconditional cessation of the bombing prior to action being taken by the north.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister whether Canada has taken the position that there should be an unconditional cessation of the bombing of North Viet Nam as a prelude to the possibility of negotiations for peace, or has Canada's position been the opposite?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The position we take in this matter, of course, has nothing to do with the fact that up until now there has not been full agreement concerning when the commission might be used to meet the objectives we have in mind.


Michael Starr: What is the position?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend asks what is our position. In a matter of this great importance I should have thought the hon. gentleman would have recognized that this commission, on which Canada has served now for 12 years, is one of the channels which might be thought to be most capable of serving the purpose that Canada, India and Poland believe ultimately must be served.


Michael Starr: What is the position?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The position
Canada takes with regard to this matter is that we have supported the statement made by Mr. Goldberg of the United States, which advances the position very considerably.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that Victor Moore, Canada's representative on the I.C.C., is returning to Canada shortly, and in view of the uncertainty in the minds of many about the continuing usefulness of the I.C.C., I wonder whether the minister would recommend that Mr. Moore be called before, the external affairs committee, even in camera, so we might have a much better understanding of this problem.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think my hon. friend would be in error in concluding that the international commission even now does not enjoy the opportunity of playing a constructive role in this difficult situation. If there had been no commission I am sure we would not have been able to maintain the contacts on both sides which we have been able to maintain.
Mr. Moore was in Hanoi, going there on January 6. He left Hanoi yesterday and will shortly be returning to Canada. After he has made a report one will be in a better position to deal with the question just asked.
However, Mr. Speaker, I should doubt very much that it would be in the interests of ending this war for us to have public disclosure of all these matters. I think the time has come when it should be recognized that in this kind of situation more might be gained by quiet diplomacy than by other methods which have been pursued by certain other people.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs request Canada's representative on the commission to look into the reported murder of prisoners of


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Yes, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Before I pose my question I should like to tell him how happy are his friends on this side of the house that he escaped what could have been a very serious accident and is safe today. It is safer in the air than on the road.
Before the recess the minister said he would examine United States regulations relating to pollution of the air in cities as they pertain to the clean air package which is to be mandated into cars to be built and imported into the United States. In view of the pollution problem in our own cities, can we in Canada expect similar regulations to protect Canadian cities this year?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his good wishes, which I noticed were not unanimously shared even by members on this side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do intend to have a word with the Minister of Industry on this point, and I will answer the hon. member's question at a very early date.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I should now like to pose a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the fact that the industry has stated that in Canada these features would be extra cost optionals only -that is, these clean air package features-and in view of the fact that the Minister of Industry has said he would make representations to the industry, may I ask him whether he has done so and can now assure the house and the Canadian people that these clean air package features will be standard equipment in cars in Canada in the future, as they will be in the United States?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had the opportunity of carrying out my under taking to have discussions with the industry.


William Heward Grafftey: -and the population in the cities of Canada are faced with a fait accompli.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the recent extension of the authority of the maritime transportation unions trustees for a year, and in view of the interest of many members of this house, members of trade unions and other people in the activities of the trustees, will the trustees be asked to appear before the House of Commons committee on labour and employment in the near future?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. Unfortunately I got it just as I was coming into the house and have not had a chance to consider it fully. I think there is merit in the suggestion. I understand the trustees are now working on their annual report for the year 1966; in fact I have received a letter to this effect within the last two weeks. While I cannot make a definite commitment because the board of trustees have to be consulted as well as the chairman of the house committee, I think there is merit in the suggestion made by the hon. member. When the annual report is available, as I hope it will be at a relatively early date, it will be tabled and distributed. Since the board of trustees are responsible to this house I would hope that some arrangement could be worked out along the lines of the suggestion made by my hon. friend.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. If the report does not contain anything more than the last one it will not take very long to complete it. Would the minister also prevail upon them to be frank in their disclosures and answers to questions of committee members when they are here next time?
January 17, 1967



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister received a letter from the Fisheries Council of Canada protesting gross inaccuracies in a C.B.C. documentary entitled "Harvest of the Sea"? If so, what steps is he taking to protect the fishing industry from further distortions of this kind?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, as I happen to have seen this program on television on the evening of January 3 I must admit that it had many serious inaccuracies and distorted facts regarding the position of the Canadian fisheries in the centennial year. I did receive representations from the Fisheries Council of Canada and from some of its agencies raising very strong objection to this particular program.
I understand that a tape and transcript of this program have now been secured by officials of the department, who are reviewing the text and will make known their comments to the proper authorities.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker I would ask the Minister of Fisheries whether "the proper authorities" include the Secretary of State in her responsibility.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: This will be decided later, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Transport.
Since the Canadian National Railways are not governed by any specific regulation with respect to bilingualism, and in view of the fact that several regrettable incidents have occurred lately on Canadian Pacific Railways in the Montreal area, would the hon. minister advise the railway companies-including the C.P.R.-to finally recognize the bilingual character of Canada in our centennial year, and to set down effective regulations in this regard for the benefit of passengers?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I feel this is a very broad question and the hon. member will probably want to bring it up at ten o'clock.


Maurice Allard: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker I have a question I would like to ask the Minister of Finance. Can the minister say whether a decision has been reached on the long standing proposal to increase the pensions of superannuated civil servants; and if so, will this increase be added to the pension or made by way of a cost of living bonus?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this question has been referred to a committee of this house.



COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF PENSIONS OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Can he tell us when the meetings of the joint committee on the public service of Canada will be resumed so we can conclude our work on the collective bargaining legislation and proceed to our discussion of the pensions of retired civil servants?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, of course it is the responsibility of the chairman of the committee to decide when the meetings will be held. I hope they will be held in the very near future so the three particular bills may be completed, and the committee may proceed to consideration of the matter to which the hon. member referred.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the hon. member for Ottawa East, in his capacity as chairman of the committee, whether he knows when our meetings will be resumed?


Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad the hon. member asked me that question. I thought he was aware that I expect we will resume our meetings next Tuesday.

January 17, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



LETTER TO MINISTER FROM NATIONAL CITY BANK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer the question put to me yesterday by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who asked whether there was in existence a letter written a month before the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gordon), who was then minister of finance, met with Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. McFadden. I have examined the files and spoken to my colleague the Minister without Portfolio.


Michael Starr: Which one, the one on the front benches or the one further back?


Mitchell William Sharp: The only letter on file from the First National City Bank to the minister of finance is dated two days before the meeting that took place on July 18, and it simply confirms that an appointment had been made.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like a clarification of some points in the answer by the Minister of Finance concerning the alleged letter written by the First National City Bank of New York. Did I understand the minister correctly when he said he had only searched his records for one month back, or did he search them a little further back than one month.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have my doubts regarding the propriety of this question. The hon. member is now engaging in argument with the minister. I do not wish to stand in the way of the hon. member obtaining information, but perhaps this question should not be pursued too far.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, there is an urgency about this particular question because this group of people are bringing a brief before the standing committee next week. In view of the rumours which are flying around in financial circles that there is evidence on their side which has not been made available to us we would like to know what we will have to face. My question requires a simple yes or no answer. I am not trying to cause trouble to the minister, but did he simply search his files for the last month or did he search them further back?


Mitchell William Sharp: We searched diligently through the files, and the only letter we could find addressed to the Minister of Finance by the

First National City Bank was the letter to which I have just referred.
May I add also that I was a little puzzled by the reference to the existence of such a letter in Mr. Gordon's book. This gave me the pleasure of reading the book again, and I found no such reference.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the first time the minister has had any pleasure in reading anything by the former minister of finance. If I did nothing but that I would have made a wonderful contribution.
I should like to ask the Minister without Portfolio, who has been blushing here unseen and unheard, whether he was correctly reported in the statement that strong pressure was brought against him when he was minister of finance to bring about an alteration in the decision of the Canadian government regarding the rules which would be applicable to the Mercantile Bank.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the question is in order. I do not see how this question can be asked of the minister in his present administrative capacity.


An hon. Member:: He does not have any.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure the minister has an all-comprehensive capacity as a member of the cabinet. I believe he was ready to answer my question.


Mr. Speaker:: This is what I was afraid of. Is the Minister without Portfolio rising on a question of privilege?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister without Portfolio):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to say how pleased I am to know that the right hon. gentleman has been spending so much time reading my book. I thank him.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to learn that my inference yesterday was well founded.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I ask one more question of the Minister of Finance. The letter from the National City Bank to which the minister referred indicated that it confirmed an appointment, so there must have been some sort of contact between the National City Bank and the Minister of Finance in order for this appointment to be made. Did the letter originate with the National City Bank or the Minister of Finance?
January 17, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously this is argument. I do not see how the hon. member can suggest this is a question. Again, perhaps I could allow the minister to answer this question and then we could go on to another one.


Mitchell William Sharp: I think it is quite clear from the file and also from the text that this appointment had been made orally. This letter to the former minister of finance begins:
This will just reconfirm an appointment with you for twelve o'clock noon on Thursday, July 18, as arranged by Mr. Rasminsky.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance and Receiver General if he would reply to the question I put to him yesterday as to whether he has received representations concerning the Mercantile Bank from the Chase Manhattan Bank which is also presided over by a member of the Rockefeller family?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am very anxious that I should answer these questions accurately, and the search of the file has not been completed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I ask one short question of the Minister of Finance. Now that he has read a part of that letter, would he table it?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will be happy to do so.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I would like to ask the minister whether he has any announcement to make to the house in regard to amendments to the National Housing Act to alleviate the shortage that exists. Has he any new approach or announcement to make now, or will such an announcement be made before the conclusion of this session?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: think I stated the other day that this matter was being studied and that, if and when the government had any change of policy to announce, it would be announced.


Eric Alfred Winkler: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us whether the announcement will be made in the very
Inquiries of the Ministry near future, before the conclusion of the current session?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am hopeful that certain changes in the act will be introduced if not during the present session then early in the next session.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Yesterday in answer to a similar question he announced that symposiums and conferences were to be set up across the country. Have these symposiums and conferences been given a date before which they must report their findings to the minister and to the government.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Public conferences do not have to report to anyone. The provincial governments concerned and the federal government are inviting the mayors and reeves of municipalities, the heads of housing authorities, representatives of investment firms and others interested to gather in provincial capitals-although in one or two cases the meetings will take place elsewhere than in the capital cities-to discuss problems related to housing. The provincial and federal governments wish to have their views. We hope that some constructive suggestions will emerge from the nine or ten conferences that have been planned. The dates have been fixed for all of them, although the date for the meeting that is to be held in Manitoba has not been confirmed as yet. The meetings are jointly sponsored by the federal and provincial governments concerned.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the announcement made early this week that the University of British Columbia student association has invited Adolf von Thadden to speak in Vancouver later this month and in the light of the uproar which has arisen as a result of the purported invitation to von Thadden by the C.B.C., I should like to ask the minister whether he received any representations asking him to intercede in that matter and to prevent the appearance of von Thadden in this country.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I received representations at the time the C.B.C.
11884	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry invited von Thadden. Since that time I have not received any further representations. I heard the rumour that the student organization wishes to invite von Thadden. I am checking at present whether in fact this invitation has been extended.


David Lewis: May I take it from the minister's answer that von Thadden is not yet in Canada?


Jean Marchand: Just before coming to the house I heard an interview over the radio during which it was said that von Thadden was somewhere in the Canary islands. Therefore I presume he is not in Canada, unless he made an unregistered arrival.



SKIING-SHORTAGE OF FUNDS FOR NATIONAL TEAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Kootenay West addressed a question to my parliamentary secretary based on what he described as the very unexpected and distressing news that the national ski team of Canada is running out of funds and will have to return to Canada before the international ski competitions in Europe have been completed.
In view of this news report I asked that a review be made of the fitness grants given to the Canadian Amateur Ski Association this year. I was assured that the association received the financial assistance it had requested from the federal government for the European competitions. Yesterday the director of the fitness and amateur sports directorate telephoned Mr. Pierre Alain, the president of the Canadian Amateur Ski Association to verify the situation. Mr. Alain confirmed that there was no financial problem and that the team could complete its tour as originally planned.
While I am on my feet I should like to support the statement made by the hon. member for Kootenay West with respect to the magnificent performance of Miss Nancy Greene, who will be returning to Canada and to whom we will have an opportunity to pay an appropriate tribute in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

DEBATES	January 17, 1967



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the difficulty experienced by farmers during 1966 in calculating and reporting contributions under the Canada Pension Plan for part time help, is the department seeking to find some simpler way of doing this so the problem will not be experienced again in 1967?


Edgar John Benson: In order that contributors to the Canada Pension Plan may receive credit for their contributions, no matter where they work during the year, some record of course is necessary. There is a limited exemption with respect to farmers, and the department will be looking at the experience of this year. Of course the government will be considering what alterations are necessary to the Canada Pension Plan as it presently exists.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue if he has found any system yet whereby employers' over-contributions will be repaid to them.


Edgar John Benson: I have indicated several times previously that what we are going to do is look at the results of the reports put in by employers, which are due I believe by February 28 of this year, under the Canada Pension Plan. When we have received those, we will look at this general problem knowing its true nature and extent.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he can inform the house when we can expect legislation arising from the report of the committee looking into family planning and birth control.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not in
a position to indicate when any legislation will be forthcoming. The subject matter of the committee report is now under consideration by the department.
January 17, 1967



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Transport, whom I wish to congratulate for his splendid performance in piloting his bill.
Here is my question: has the minister received a report from Mr. Fortier or a member of the Board of Transport Commissioners concerning the Dorion tragedy, and is he in a position to give the reference order for the federal inquiry to be instituted, which reference order might cover the whole problem of grade crossings?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I was so busily engaged in my magnificent effort yesterday that I was not able to personally examine Mr. Fortier's report. I am afraid I cannot answer the rest of the hon. gentleman's question.



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
In view of the financial disaster of the Prudential Finance Corporation and its subsidiaries, are Canadian citizens who have insured their properties through that institution entitled to full compensation in case of fire?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think this question is in order.



TEXTILES-EFFECT OF POSSIBLE IMPORTS FROM AUSTRALIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Further to the recent statement by Australian manufacturers about glutting the Canadian market with textile products, is it the intention of the minister to get in touch 23033-7521
Inquiries of the Ministry with the government authorities of that country to prevent such grievous harm to the Canadian textile industry?

Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): I am not familiar with the background of this question, so I shall have to take it as notice and give an answer at a later date.



FLAX-STATEMENT ON REQUEST FOR OPEN QUOTA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Perhaps I could answer the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Medicine Hat concerning quotas for flaxseed. I discussed this question with the wheat board, and they informed me the present quota for flaxseed is eight bushels per seeded acre, and is the same as the quota in effect at this time last year. The wheat board has informed me also that the present quota on flaxseed of eight bushels per seeded acre is, in their opinion, at the appropriate level in relation to existing market demand.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Can he assure the house that the new political party which calls itself the Bulldog party will be given full opportunity to express its views on the C.B.C. network, and especially on the French network?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Is the right hon. Prime Minister aware that a new political party has been formed within the federal civil service, going by the name of Canadian Bulldog party, where we find people who are greater advocates of separatism, I am told, than those we have in Quebec?
Now then-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe the question has been put previously and the question-


David Réal Caouette: No, Mr. Speaker. The question raised a while ago was aimed at finding out whether Canadian Bulldog party members would be admitted to the French network of



January 17, 1967
Transportation
the C.B.C. This is not at all what I want to ask the right hon. Prime Minister. Here is what I want to know: will the civil service tolerate, within its organization, such a political taction which definitely wants to promote disunity in Canada and to break with the French-Canadian element?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think it would be quite inappropriate to form a Bulldog party inside the civil service, or indeed any other kind of political party.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 16, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-231, to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions-Mr. Pickersgill-Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening clause 50 of the bill was being discussed. There was an understanding that when the committee resumed today clause 42. together with the amendment by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, would be the first item considered.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
On clause 42.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, my amendment has been discussed considerably. I do not think anything either side can add would do anything, and I suggest that we take a vote to see where the committee stands.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. member's suggestion is very good.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest we proceed at once to determine the feeling of the committee with respect to the amendment, for which I regret I cannot vote.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. When subclause or section 314D of clause 42 was discussed the hon. member moved the following amendment-


Michael Starr: Order, please.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for
Qu'Appelle moved to amend clause 42 as it relates to proposed new section 314D subparagraph 1 by adding after the word "to" which appears in line 6 of page 29 the following "or direct as it sees fit".
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 64; nays, 79.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1 wonder if I could now ask if it is agreeable to the hon. member for Springfield that I ask my colleague the Minister of Justice to move the amendment, based on the suggestion the hon. gentleman made, to paragraph 3 of clause 314D of the Railway Act. The amendment would strike out lines 27 to 35 inclusive on page 29 of the bill as reprinted and substitute the following words. I do not know if hon. members want me to read it; if not, perhaps the Minister of Justice might move it.


Mr. Cardin:: I move:
That Bill C-231, an act to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions be amended by striking out lines 27 to 35, inclusive, on page 29 of the bill, as reprinted, and by substituting therefor the following:
(3) Where a recommendation is made by the commission under subsection (1), the commission shall report its recommendation to the governor in council; and, if the recommendation involves one or more railway companies in cost or losses not recoverable under section 314E or is for that or any other reason not acceptable to one or more of such companies, the governor in council may take such legislative or other action as he considers necessary in the public interest.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: On division.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment carry?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: On division.
Amendment agreed to on division.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 42 as amended carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. member for Nickel Belt wishes to speak.


Mr. Fawcett:: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 314D. I furnished the minister with a copy. Before I formally move it I wish to explain to the committee its purpose. The amendment would form subclause 6 of section 314D. I have a limited number of
January 17, 1967

January 17, 1967
Transportation
with me that there were very tew permanent employees involved in the maintenance of way on these lines. The great proportion of this work was carried out by floating gangs which work for one or two days a week on one branch line and for a day or two on another.
As a result there are not many permanent employees working along these lines but, as I have said, if there is only one he should be entitled to compensation. We must take account of the fact that if a section crew or a section foreman is established at some point where a branch line is abandoned, the value of their property, if they have property, would be considerably reduced. They will have to sell at a loss and then incur a much higher cost in establishing themselves in new homes. This is one of the reasons for the recommendation of the former standing committee that some compensation should be paid to employees affected in such circumstances.
I do not intend to drag this out any longer. My proposed amendment, moved by myself and seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, reads as follows:
That Bill C-231 be amended by adding in clause 314D after sub-clause (5) thereof, the following as sub-clause (6):
(6) Notwithstanding anything in section 182 of the said Act, where a company makes any change, alteration or deviation in its railway or any portion thereof or abandons any portion or branch line thereof which results in loss of employment by any of its employees either directly or through the exercise of seniority, the company shall compensate such employees as the commission deems proper for any financial loss caused to them by change of residence or loss of employment necessitated thereby.
My arguments in favour of having this provision included in the bill are substantiated by the fact that it was included in the old bill, No. C-120 It was recognized that provision should be made for employees dislocated as a result of branch line abandonment. This position was supported by the former standing committee, and I would appreciate it if hon. members would now give full consideration to it.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you put the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to consider whether it is one which it is competent to a private member to move on this particular bill. The hon. gentleman was quite correct in saying a similar clause was included in the bill which I introduced in 1964, but that bill in many respects was dissimilar to the present one. My reason for not including

a provision of this sort in the present bill should be apparent to all hon. members. Certain developments have taken place since that time. My colleague, the Minister of Labour, indicated that he was considering other measures of a similar character and therefore it was decided that this bill should not include any provisions with respect to labour relations.
For that reason I submit that the amendment is beyond the scope of the bill and seeks to extend the scope of the bill. I also maintain that in seeking to extend the scope of the bill, if it were to be at all effective there would be expenditures which certainly are not contemplated in the bill and would constitute a charge on the treasury without there being a message from the crown in that connection. For those two reasons I ask Your Honour to consider whether the amendment is appropriate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, not having anticipated that this point of order would be raised I do not have before me the terms of the resolution that preceded the bill. The minister is making the broad assertion that the amendment exceeds those provisions, and I think at some point we should have a chance to look at the wording of the resolution. I know that we dealt with the resolution a long time ago, last August or September.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was August 29.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As to the point that the amendment involves an expenditure of money and therefore is beyond the power of a private member to propose, I would point out that the amendment requires the company, not the government, to compensate employees for any loss that may be sustained. Therefore, the minister cannot argue that this is a matter involving expenditure out of the treasury.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the simplest thing would be to read the resolution which is to be found at page 787 of Votes and Proceedings for August 29. It reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to define a national transportation policy for Canada suited to modern transportation requirements and to establish a national transportation authority to effect the objectives of the national transportation policy; to provide for new methods of fixing freight rates and for the rationalization of branch lines of railway and passenger train services; to authorize the payment from the Consolidated Revenue Fund by way of assistance to permit of orderly adjustment to the new freight rate structures and the removal of other forms of assistance to railways; to authorize the payment of assistance from
January 17, 1967

the Consolidated Revenue Fund to railway companies where they are required to maintain uneconomic branch lines or passenger train services in operation for the public good; to authorize payments to maintain the prevailing level of At and East freight rates on grain; to permit certain grants to be made from the Railway Grade Crossing Fund for a further period of three years beyond January 31, 1967; to authorize agreements relating to the carriage by rail of Her Majesty's mail and members of the Canadian Forces and police travelling on Her Majesty's service; to provide for the administration of commodity pipe lines, extra-provincial motor vehicle transport and water transport within the context of the national transportation policy, and to provide further for other matters consequential upon or related or incidental to any of the foregoing.
It will be seen from the terms of the resolution that it is quite comprehensive but also quite specific, and it would seem to me, sir, that it would not include this particular kind of amendment under any of the heads contained in it. For that reason I think Your Honour should consider whether or not the amendment is in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for reading the entire resolution into the record. Meantime I too have found it in Hansard for the same date at page 7743, and I would like to direct Your Honour's special attention to the last phrase in the resolution:
-and to provide further for other matters consequential upon or related or incidental to any of the foregoing.
I realize that when the government drafted the resolution it put those words in there to protect itself in case something was wanted in the bill that was not specifically spelled out in the earlier parts of the resolution, but surely that protection works both ways. If that protection for something that is "consequential upon or related or incidental to any of the foregoing" is available to the government, it is also available to private members of the house. One of the things covered in the resolution is the rationalization of railway services and I do not think it can be denied that the amendment moved by my colleague from Nickel Belt deals with something that is consequential upon rationalization of railway services.
The minister raised two points. One was that the proposition in the amendment goes beyond the scope of the resolution. I argue that it does not go beyond it by any stretch of the imagination. The words are clear that there can be in the bill "matters consequential upon or related or incidental to any of the foregoing." The proposition advanced by the hon. member for Nickel Belt is not something
Transportation
de novo; it is something that is consequential upon changes of policy by the railway companies.
The other point that the minister tried to make was that the amendment would involve the expenditure of government moneys and therefore was not open to a private member to move. I point out that the amendment calls for the companies to compensate employees. I remind the minister that it has been quite possible to have such things as labour code legislation and so on presented to the house without a prior resolution because where legislation requires companies to make payments, even the Canadian National Railways, that is not regarded as money out of the public treasury.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I submit, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that neither point raised by the minister is a valid objection to the proposition that is before us. Apart from all this, I am a little dumbfounded, after all that has been said about the virtues of the Freedman report and all the praise which has been heaped on it, that the minister would raise any objection to this amendment. This is something which ought to be debated and I hope we will have that debate no matter what happens. I submit that in any case you should have no difficulty, Mr. Chairman, in finding that this amendment is neither beyond the scope of the resolution nor does it call for the expenditure of government money. I suggest, therefore, that it is clearly in order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Although I do not attach as much importance to this as I do to the question of the scope of the bill, I might remind the hon. member, in respect of the second point that when the present Speaker was Deputy Speaker I sought to make the same argument the hon. gentleman has made in respect of an amendment having to do with the Expo Corporation. At that time, notwithstanding what I thought was a very eloquent and logical argument on my part, Mr. Speaker, who was the then Deputy Speaker, decided against me. He decided that it would be a charge upon the Expo Corporation. He ruled the proposed amendment out of order notwithstanding the fact that the government itself was seeking at that time to make the amendment.
If that was a good decision, then surely a charge of this kind in its ultimate effect would be against the treasury so long as the Canadian National Railways do not make a

January 17, 1987
Transportation
profit. I do not regard that argument as being as strong as the argument about the scope of the bill. I should like to direct the hon. gentleman's attention to the wording of the amendment itself where it says:
Where a company makes any change, alteration or deviation in its railway or any portion thereof-
That does not deal simply with branch line abandonment or rationalization; it deals with every aspect of the railway system. It seems to me that, ipso facto, that is beyond the scope of the bill. Certainly it is not as a consequence of any of these other specific matters which are referred to in the bill.
The main reason I did not include the rather limited amendment which I proposed in respect of Bill C-120 is that after that bill was introduced the situation did seem to be altered by the report of the Freedman commission. Also because of the experience at that time it seems to me that this is not an appropriate matter to be dealt with incidentally under transport policy. It seemed to me that the whole question of labour relations and its consequences upon employees would be dealt with more appropriately by the Minister of Labour. For that reason I decided I would not attempt to deal in this bill with one very small part of the field but would leave the matter to the Department of Labour which department we know at the present time is giving consideration to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I make just one point in respect of the continuing argument of the minister that this amendment would cost money. The point I should like to draw to Your Honour's attention is that when the government's labour code was before the house in 1964 I, as a private member, moved an amendment to the effect that the number of statutory holidays be increased by one. The addition of that holiday cost the Canadian National Railways money.


An hon. Member:: And the C.B.C.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, the C.B.C. and a number of other emanations of the crown as well. Nevertheless it was accepted as being in order, voted upon and passed. Even some of the powerful corporations affected did not appeal to the courts on the ground that it was invalid because a private member moved it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman knows there could not be an appeal to the courts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that this argument is much more valid here than in respect of the
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
Expo Corporation which was operating on direct grants.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Grants from the provincial government and the city of Montreal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly there have been many cases where labour legislation has required companies, including the C.N.R., to do things which might cost money. Amendments of this nature have been made to bills by private members. I think the point in this regard is quite clear.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the amendment is out of order but even if it is I suggest the minister might make a gesture in this regard by arranging for the amendment to be moved by one of his colleagues. He has been doing this continually in respect of this bill. This would get around his argument, if there is any validity to it. I am sure that if the officials were on the floor they would tell us that there would be very few persons involved. If the minister would accept this amendment it would be a gesture on behalf of these few employees who might be dislocated. The minister uses strange methods to dismiss these amendments. Sometimes he tells us there are financial implications; other times he tells us that it is not within our competence to deal with them. Once or twice he even dragged the poor old senators into it. He cannot have it both ways, Mr. Chairman.
When there have been financial implications involved the minister has accepted some of these amendments by arranging for his colleagues to move them. I suggest that if he would do that in this instance it would be a nice gesture. The hon. member for Nickel Belt has a very great interest in the employees because he himself is a former railway employee. He has brought this matter forward very sincerely. The minister is receiving credit for being flexible in his views. Why does he not accept this amendment by having it moved by one of his colleagues? If he did so, we would be happy and I am sure our intentions would be appreciated by the employees across the country.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, I rise first of all to suggest to you that as I read the resolution which has been submitted by the government it gives this committee ample scope to deal with the amendment moved by my colleague the hon. member for Nickel Belt. What
January 17, 1967

does the resolution say? I should like to read part of it:
To provide ior new methods of fixing freight rates and for the rationalization of branch lines of railway and passenger train services; to authorize the payment from the consolidated revenue fund by way of assistance to permit of orderly adjustment to the new freight rate structures and the removal of other forms of assistance to railways: to authorize the payment of assistance from the consolidated revenue fund to railway companies where they are required to maintain uneconomic branch lines or passenger train services in operation for the public good;
We are going through this bill clause by clause. We have been discussing this very detailed bill at great length. Time and again hon. members on both sides of the house have made suggestions and offered amendments, the purpose of which is simply to ensure that where the railway companies have to do something which may not be economically feasible the people of Canada will make up the losses. I suggest that in the year 1967 it is poor policy to bring in a bill to protect the Railways against all losses they may have to incur in carrying out the transportation policy of this country. However, to say at the same time to workers who will be affected by rationalization, workers who as a result of the abandonment of branch lines will have to move to another town with their families, that their rights are second class compared with the rights of the railway company is an injustice. Yet essentially, Mr. Chairman, that is what the minister is saying.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The scope of this amendment makes clear that we are dealing with rationalization, which I suggest to the minister will mean dislocation of the lives of the railway workers. I do not know whether they will be few in number, as suggested by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, or many, as suggested by the hon. member for Nickel Belt. Indeed, I do not think that consideration is important. The important principle involved here is that railway workers should not be required to carry the whole burden of this kind of dislocation and drastic change.
Let us think about the events which led to the appointment of Mr. Justice Freedman as a commissioner. The C.N.R. decided to extend the runs of certain of their employees and as a result of this thinking workers at Nakina would have had to move because it would no longer be a turn-around point. As a result of their fears, and despite the assurances given at the time to the then minister of transport by the president of the C.N.R. that nothing
Transportation
serious would eventuate, there was a work stoppage which tied up the C.N.R. virtually from one end of Canada to the other. That is how important the workers of the C.N.R. believed this issue to be.
In the result, Mr. Justice Freedman was appointed by this government to inquire into the matter. He made a report which was supported by all parties in the house. What Mr. Justice Freedman said essentially-I will not go into the details of his report or quote it-was that the railway workers have a right to protection when drastic changes are decided upon by the railway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman is speaking to the point of order. Perhaps it would be more orderly if we were to decide whether the amendment is in order. If it is not in order, then it appears to me to be not debatable. We should not take up the time of the committee if it is not in order. If it is in order then the hon. gentleman's remarks will be thoroughly relevant.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order I can only repeat what I said a few moments ago. This bill deals with the whole question of rationalization and of compensating the railways where the abandonment of branch lines leads to losses by the railways. In cases where the railways are required to continue services which lose money the government can also compensate the railways. Therefore it seems obvious to me that not only do we have the right to deal with the effects of this kind of rationalization and the changes which will be brought about for the workers by any drastic revisions made by the railways but that this is the correct time to discuss the matter. I suggest that the amendment is in order and should be considered now.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge you to accept the amendment. Without repeating some of the arguments which have been made I should like to remind you, if I may, as an example of the scope of the bill, that the other day the hon. member for Port Arthur, with the support of the minister who told us he had taken an active part in designing the amendment, moved an amendment which has since been adopted by this committee and is now clause 20 of the bill.
There is not a word in this amendment which specifically refers to the matter with which that amendment dealt. You recall, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
January 17, 1967
Transportation
Chairman, that that amendment was concerned with the situation where one of the modes of transport involved in the bill wished to acquire, either directly or indirectly, an interest, by purchase, lease, merger, consolidation, or otherwise, in the business or undertaking of any person whose principal business is transportation, whether or not such business or undertaking was subject to the jurisdiction of parliament, and notice had to be given to the commission. Provision was also made in that amendment for how the commission should deal with the matter. According to the final words of that amendment the commission may, by the provisions of the amendment, disallow any acquisition sought by any company in the field of transportation. I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that there is absolutely nothing in this resolution other than the last words-


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about the very first words?


David Lewis: The very first words referred to defining a national transportation policy for Canada. If it is wide enough to include legislation to deal with consolidation, merger and acquisition, then it is surely wide enough also to include protection for workers who are affected by any action taken by the commission.
For the life of me, Mr. Chairman, I do not see how it is possible to suggest that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur covers what this amendment seeks to do. There is not another clause or subclause in this bill dealing with the subject matter of the amendment which is now clause 20 of the bill. There is not a word in the resolution suggesting that this bill is intended to deal with what essentially is the monopolistic acquisition of other transportation property. The minister introduced the amendment and the committee was ready to deal with it because obviously it was something consequential upon or related to the national transportation policy referred to in this bill.
I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment before the committee falls much more clearly within those words than did the amendment accepted by the Chair and voted on by the committee. Can anyone who is not trying to be frivolous or fractious suggest that the consequences to employees of the rationalization of rail services are not a result of that rationalization? Can anyone logically 
argue that the result of rationalization in regard to the employees is not a direct consequence of the rationalization which is provided in this bill, the entire machinery of which deals with and encourages rationalization of the railways?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The amendment to which I have referred and which was, as I said, passed by this committee was in my respectful opinion a proper amendment precisely because it too dealt with the rationalization of the transportation services in Canada. There is also the fact that the basis of the bill is competition and this competition would be ended if one mode of transport got a monopoly over other modes of transport or if one company in one mode of transport got a monopolistic hold over other modes. In precisely the same way is this amendment proper and within the scope of the resolution.
I also respectfully urge that it is entirely within the actual spirit and letter of the bill before us, if I may put it that way, and of the particular section before us, because what we are dealing with in clause 42 and more particularly in new section 314D is precisely the subject matter of (a) encouraging rationalization, (b) the consequences of rationalization on the railways and (c), how the consequences of that rationalization are to be dealt with. I urge upon you, Mr. Chairman, that what this amendment deals with is on all fours in principle with precisely what the section deals with, namely, the encouragement of rationalization, the consequences of that rationalization upon employees affected thereby, and the way in which those consequences are to be dealt with. The only difference is that the bill before you now provides that the consequences to the railways, if they are adverse, are to be met out of the public treasury, whereas this amendment says that the consequences to the employees, if they are adverse, are to be met by compensation determined by the commission, again tying it directly to the bill which deals with the commission. The amendment provides that in this event the company concerned shall compensate such employees.
May I make two more points, Mr. Chairman. They are intended to support the procedural argument even though they necessarily deal in part with the merits of this question. I would remind the minister and you, sir, if I may, of some of the things the minister said. Unless I have misread this clause of the bill, section 182 of the Railway
January 17, 1967

Act is not deleted, so to the extent that section 182 of the Railway Act remains and provides compensation tor employees it is still in the law. If you took the Railway Act and Bill C-231 together, you would still have a provision in the total transportation legislation for the limited kind of compensation which section 182 of the Railway Act now provides. All this amendment does is extend the principle and the application of the contents of section 182 of the Railway Act. In that way I respectfully submit it is again entirely in order because it relates to policy and other statute which this bill seeks to amend.
I think it would be nothing less, and I use these words deliberately, than heartless and thoughtless on the part of this parliament and the minister if we spent weeks adopting a bill that deals in large measure with rationalization, were careful in every instance where rationalization may affect the railways adversely to provide for compensation to them from the public treasury, and did nothing to compensate those workers affected by rationalization. We even provide in this bill, as was argued yesterday, that within the first three years of the coming into force of this law there is to be a study of the Crowsnest pass rates to ascertain whether they are compensatory, and if the commission feels they are not compensatory the governor in council may compensate the railways for the losses involved.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


David Lewis: That is the way I read it -"may" compensate them; I do not say "shall".


John Whitney Pickersgill: The governor in council may make a recommendation to parliament but the Governor in Council cannot compensate the railways.


David Lewis: The governor in council may make a recommendation to parliament to compensate the railways; that is fine. But we have provided here for compensation to the railways for any losses generally. I am not going into detail in this respect, Mr. Chairman, so forgive me for using a general phrase which necessarily is not entirely accurate but is accurate enough for the purpose of our discussion. We are providing that if there are losses in the application of the Crowsnest pass rates we shall after three years compensate the railways. But there is not a single, solitary word in this bill about compensating the workers of the railway who might have to
Transportation
move from one place to another as a result of the rationalization which this bill requires, or who might, without even being afforded the opportunity of moving, lose their jobs and suffer other losses as well.
If the minister insists on asking the Chair to rule this amendment out of order and if, as I hope is the case, the Chair holds that it is in order and the minister insists on opposing it, he will justify the worst fears of the workers of the railways and other modes of transportation in this country. These are fears that I may frankly say I have, namely, that this is a bill not really to deal with a transportation policy as a whole, because you cannot have an effective or adequate transportation policy without employees, but a bill primarily con-cernd with guaranteeing the railways that they will be compensated, without any consideration for the workers of the railways who may be affected by the policies laid out in the bill.
I urge the minister to accept this amendment despite his statement that it was not the intention to introduce industrial relations matters into the bill. This is not a question of industrial or labour relations. The actual implementation of the recommendations of the Freedman report will require other legislation. That will involve negotiation between the railway companies, the unions, and so on. This amendment is precisely in the spirit of the rest of the bill. When the railways are hurt they should be compensated, and we say that when the workers are hurt they should be compensated. I should like to understand how the minister morally and in social terms is able to make a distinction between the two forms of compensation.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to say a word on the amendment. The railway committee studied precisely this matter a number of years ago in respect of Bill C-15 introduced by the former member for Port Arthur. The committee studied that bill at length and reported favourably on it to the House of Commons. It said that steps should be taken along the lines of the bill. The minister of the day, the same Minister of Transport, agreed with this and informed the committee that legislation would be introduced somewhat along the lines of the bill.
I urge the minister to take a close look at this amendment. He may wish to ask that the clause be stood while his officials consider the amendment. I urge that even though he may

January 17, 1967
Transportation
prefer the amendment to be drawn in a narrower form, he should not disregard it completely. In fact, the minister could bring in an amendment which might well fall under subsection (3) of new section 314D more appropriately. This subsection could provide for the commission reporting to the governor in council its findings with regard to any alteration or deviation in respect of a branch line which would disrupt employment. Under subsection 3 the commission could report to the governor in council.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I am suggesting this so that we may get on with the legislation. We on this side of the house have been trying to co-operate and to make some progress every day. Here we have a very important technical point. An amendment has been suggested and I am sure the hon. member who moved it would not object to the consideration of this amendment by the minister who could give it to his draftsmen to examine and perhaps make some changes to it if considered necessary or even include it in a clause which would allow the commission to report to the governor in council that compensation should be paid in case of the alteration or deviation of any branch line resulting in direct hardship to the employees or by reason of the exercise of seniority in the company.
All I am asking of the minister is that he should agree to stand this clause. We will be considering the transportation bill again tomorrow and in the intervening time this point can be studied very carefully in consultation with the draftsmen of the bill and the mover of the amendment. Certainly the amendment deserves consideration and perhaps the minister could work out something which would be agreeable to him. In a sense this amendment falls within the scope of the rationalization of railway lines. It does not broaden the financial aspect of the bill, particularly if the commission were to hear briefs, study the abandonment of branch lines or their rationalization and report to the governor in council that such and such were the conditions.
The minister has been in a very co-operative mood throughout the consideration of this legislation. I know that he wants to proceed with it as quickly as possible, as we do on this side of the house. I ask him to agree to have the clause stood for consideration for another day of the suggestion put forward in this amendment and to proceed at the present time with other clauses of the bill. I urge the minister to do this in order that we may make

some headway in the passage of this legislation.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, having listened to the debate I should like to support the proposed amendment. The value of debating clauses in the house is that it allows people to get information. Their attention is drawn to matters which they may have overlooked. Having listened to the debate I must say that I am impressed with the arguments which have been brought forward so far. Before the chairman rules on the validity of the amendment may I say that the suggestion which has been made recently that the amendment stand for study by the minister is a sensible one and is preferable to the more strict and formal method of ruling one way or another on the amendment. I do not know of any bill that has been brought before the house which has been subjected to so many amendments in the standing committee stage and now in committee of the whole. One more amendment will not delay the proceedings at all. In fact, if the minister is as wise as some people who do not know him as well as I do tend to think he is he would stand this amendment and perhaps modify it if he and his legal advisers think that it is drawn too broadly.
I was impressed with the argument that in the course of developing a national transportation policy our job is not solely to consider the economic strength or weakness of the railway corporations but also to consider the people who are employed by those corporations and without whose activities they would not be of much value. This amendment follows along the line of the suggestions made by Mr. Justice Freedman. Yesterday when we were talking about another section the minister was at pains to point out that a royal commission which had been appointed by the government of our party had made certain recommendations and that therefore we should be prepared to accept its findings. I myself have never taken that point of view with regard to royal commissions. However, here is the minister's chance to apply his own argument and accept the findings of the royal commission headed by Mr. Justice Freedman.
Undoubtedly this is a vital matter in so far as the employees of the railways are concerned. If automation or other changes throw them out of work unexpectedly, then every provision should be made to see that they will not suffer loss of employment. Their interests are of equal importance to us as the interests
January 17, 1967

of the railways and the interests of the government in its responsibility for transportation.
I conclude by simply reinforcing the arguments that have already been made urging the minister to look at this amendment and to consult his advisers to see if it cannot be accepted. If it goes beyond the scope of the resolution and involves an expenditure of money, the minister may ask one of his colleagues to move an appropriate amendment. It is as simple as that. I think that the minister, after hearing the suggestions made from this side of the house, will decide that this matter deserves to be covered in the legislation.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The Chair is ready to make a ruling on the amendment if that is the wish of the committee. First of all I should like to thank hon. members who have taken part in the discussion on this point of order. I should point out also that there is no question in the mind of the Chair as to the importance of the problem. However, the responsibility of the Chair is not to decide on the importance of the problem as related to the railways and to the men concerned but to decide whether or not the amendment is proeedurally correct.
I listened very carefully to the statement made by the hon. member for Nickel Belt and also to the statements made by the hon. members for Winnipeg North Centre, Winnipeg North, Winnipeg South Centre and Acadia. I have also taken into account the argument presented by the minister.
First of all I should say that I think there are three things to be considered here. Whether or not there are financial implications in this amendment is a matter of opinion. The Chair is not particularly impressed with that argument although I recognize there are conditions that might flow from this amendment which would indeed have financial implications. However, the Chair is of the opinion that this amendment does go beyond the scope of the bill. I believe that the question which has been raised by the hon. member for Nickel Belt more properly comes within the realm of labour relations as applied to the railways. I am of the opinion also that the amendment as moved by the hon. member for Nickel Belt is perhaps not particularly relevant to the proposed section 314D.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I might refer hon. members to page 549 of May's seventeenth edition where it is stated:
An amendment Is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill-
Transportation
I have read the amendment very carefully, I have listened to the arguments presented by members, and it is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Nickel Belt is not relevant to the clause now before the committee and is outside the scope of the bill. I therefore rule the amendment out of order.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, with great regret and without any loss of respect of Your Honour, I appeal your decision to the Speaker.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
Mr. Speaker, the question is an appeal to Mr. Speaker from a decision of the chairman of the committee of the whole pursuant to section 4 of standing order 59. In committee of the whole when clause 42 subclause 314D of Bill C-231 was being considered the hon. member for Nickel Belt proposed an amendment as follows:
"That Bill C-231 be amended by adding in clause 314D after subclause (5) thereof, the following as subclause (6):
(6) Notwithstanding anything in section 182 of the said act, where a company makes any change, alteration or deviation in its railway or any portion thereof or abandons any portion or branchline thereof which results in loss of employment by any of its employees either directly or through the exercise of seniority, the company shall compensate such employees as the commission deems proper for any financial loss caused to them by change of residence or loss of employment necessitated thereby."
Using paragraph 1, page 549 of May's seventeenth edition, I ruled the amendment out of order in that it was outside the scope of the bill and irrelevant to the clause then being considered by the committee, whereupon the hon. member for York South appealed the decision to Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, although this procedure is provided in our provisional standing orders we always regret employing it because it seems to suggest that we are setting two occupants of the chair against each other. Let me assure Your Honour and the chairman of the committee of the whole that this is not so. We feel the issue involved in this amendment is so important that it deserves the consideration of at least two judicial heads.
When the amendment was moved by the hon. member for Nickel Belt the Minister of Transport raised two points of objection. I mention these to fill Your Honour in about what has happened. One point the minister raised was not accepted by the chairman of the committee of the whole, the contention that this amendment would involve the expenditure of public moneys. We were able to

January 17, 1967
Transportation
show that the requirement of the amendment is that any compensation would have to be paid by the companies concerned and we were also able to cite certain precedents in support of an amendment of this kind.
The other point the Minister of Transport put forward was to the effect that this amendment was outside the scope of the resolution preceding the bill. During the procedural debate in committee of the whole the entire resolution preceding the bill was read into the record. The resolution is lengthy and appears on page 7743 of Hansard for August 29, 1966. The resolution spells out the many purposes the government had in mind in proposing Bill C-231 and its concluding words were as follows:
-and to provide further for other matters consequential upon or related or incidental to any of the foregoing.
It was our contention in committee of the whole and it is our contention now that that wording is extremely wide and that it makes possible amendments dealing, as the very words say, with any matters consequential upon or related or incidental to any of the foregoing matters covered in the bill.
The whole issue posed by the amendment of the hon. member for Nickel Belt is that consequences experienced by railway workers, as a result of railway rationalization or other steps taken, should be taken care of. It is quite clear that the bill provides for compensation when the consequences of rationalization affect the railway companies. Our contention is that when the consequences affect employees they should also be taken care of. It may seem as if I am getting to the substance, but the point is that if the consequences in the one instance are within the scope of the bill, surely the consequences in the other instance are also within the scope of the bill.
Perhaps in what I have just now said I am recognizing that the chairman of the committee of the whole house used slightly different language from that used by the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport talked about the amendment being beyond the scope of the resolution. I think it would be fair to say that on this point he made his whole case on that basis.
I note that the chairman of the committee of the whole did not use that language. In fact, he accepted our argument that the amendment of the hon. member for Nickel Belt is not beyond the scope of the resolution preceding the bill because, after all, it makes provision for other matters consequential upon or related or incidental to any of the

foregoing, although he did say we had gone beyond the scope of the bill.
The chairman of the committee of the whole house relied on a citation in May's seventeenth edition, page 589, paragraph 1, which deals with the scope of a bill. I suggest that the scope of the bill before us is largely related to the question of compensation because of losses, adjustments, changes, rationalization and so on. So far as the scope of the bill is concerned, there is no question about that. What we are now talking about is that the consequences to employees of rationalization should be considered as part of the bill, e (4:50 p.m.)
I would point out to Your Honour that this bill is in part a new piece of legislation and in part a bill amending certain acts which are already on our statute books. In section 182 of the Railway Act there is already provision for compensation to employees adversely affected as a result of changes of policy with respect to lines. But there has been a ruling that section 182 of the present act does not provide for compensation to employees when there is total abandonment. Therefore I am contending that this amendment is completely within the scope of the present legislation. It proposes that what is already in the law, namely, that there should be compensation to employees when there is an alteration in a line, should also apply when the consequences are those which flow from the complete abandonment of a line of railway or a divisional point.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if you study the whole thing as a piece, 314E which talks about compensation to the companies as a result of changes which take place and section 182 of the Railway Act which is part of this total package of legislation, I submit that included in this whole framework is the question of what is done as a consequence of railway policy changes which are injurious. If such changes are injurious to the companies, compensation is available. If they are injurious to employees, compensation is available but only in certain circumstances. The amendment proposes that in the case of total abandonment of a divisional point, branch line, or whatever it may be, compensation would be available.
Again I speak with a great deal of respect not only for Your Honour but for the chairman of the committee of the whole house when I express my earnest feeling that this is a case where Your Honour would, after careful consideration-you might even wish to reserve decision on the question-be justified in
January 17, 1967

doing what has never yet been done, that is, make a ruling opposite to that made by the chairman of the committee of the whole. He did not accept the argument that the money provisions presented any problem. He said so in very plain language. I contend that by implication he did not accept the argument of the Minister of Transport that the amendment goes beyond the terms of the resolution which preceded the bill. I have spelled that out by quoting the concluding words of the resolution.
What he did use as a basis for ruling the amendment out of order was the contention, as he saw it, that the amendment was beyond the scope of the bill and that it was not relevant to the particular section we are considering at the present time, which is new section 314D. My argument is that this bill is seriously and widely concerned with compensation where injury is suffered because of changes, and that to talk about compensation to employees as a result of those changes is certainly within its scope. We also contend that 314D, which deals specifically with the machinery for providing some of these compensation payments, is the part of the bill in which this matter ought to be dealt with.
For these reasons I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to give this matter your earnest consideration. I think it is an important point. Other amendments have been accepted while we have been in committee. The other day we considered an amendment by the hon. member for Port Arthur dealing with situations where companies purchase each other's lines, something which was not mentioned in the resolution preceding the bill and something which in my view is hardly within the scope of the measure. Yet it was allowed, voted on and passed. It even included provision for information to be given to the combines investigation branch.
I might even mention an amendment which was moved the other day by the hon. member for Peace River. It was defeated after a vote but at least it was found to be in order. It sought to provide for the setting up of a special committee of the House of Commons by statutory arrangement, something to which there was no reference whatsoever in the resolution. There have been other such amendments put forward as we have proceeded in our consideration of this bill. To contend now that this particular proposal is beyond the scope of the bill is a contention which in my submission is hard to maintain. I submit that in a bill which is concerned with compensation as a result of changes this amendment
Transportation
is more of a piece with the legislation than some of the other amendments which have been dealt with. I therefore hope that Your Honour, either now or after considering the matter, will find that this amendment should be allowed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that Your Honour really needs my assistance in this matter, since I agree with the judgment of the chairman of the committee. But I should like very briefly to review the points which have been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I know he did not deliberately misrepresent me, but my first words when I called the amendment into question-


Mr. Mongrain:: I apologize for interrupting the minister while he is speaking but I should like to ask him a question. Does he not think this amendment is superfluous as a result of the introduction by the government of a bill which appears to cover this subject under the title, in French, "Recyclage de la Main-d'ceuvre"?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In order to avoid destroying the consecutiveness of what I have to say, perhaps I could reply to that question after I have dealt with the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
As I began to point out, the very first words I used in taking exception to the amendment were that it was beyond the scope of the bill. It is true that the second time I spoke I used the terms of the resolution because they comprise a handy table of contents of the bill. But my main argument was based on my first assertion that the subject matter was beyond the scope of the bill. So the Chair did not reach a decision on the basis of an argument which was not in fact placed before it. I should like to make that clear.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The only other point which could arise with respect to the resolution, beyond its being a handy table of contents, is that in certain contingencies there might be a charge on the treasury as a result of the amendment, but my main point was that the amendment was clearly beyond the scope of the bill. The hon. gentleman talks about the bill as though the principle of it was compensation. The principle of the bill is not compensation at all. The principle is to create a new situation where compensation will not be necessary.
The real purpose of the bill is clearly indicated in the resolution, namely, to set up a

January 17, 1967
Transportation
national transport policy and, in that context, to lay down certain general principles, one of which is competition. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur was for the purpose of making surer that there would be competition and that the provisions of clause 1 of the bill would operate. Therefore it came entirely within the scope of the bill.
What the proposed amendment is concerned with is the relationship between railway companies and their employees. It does not deal with any other kind of companies covered by the legislation. The railway companies are singled out in this connection. The hon. gentleman is quite correct when he says that the Railway Act does this, in some particulars, but the hon. gentleman is an old hand here and knows as well as I do that the scope of an act which is being amended is not what is before the house. It is the scope of the bill that is doing the amending. That is all that is before the Chair when a question of order is raised whether or not something is beyond the scope of the bill.
The Railway Act deals with all kinds of matters that we are not attempting to disturb by this bill in any way. To deal with a subject covered by the Railway Act which we are not amending in this bill is exactly the kind of situation envisaged in the citation read by the chairman of the committee, on which in part he based his judgment.
Also in support of the chairman's ruling I would point out that the amendment was not relevant to the clause itself. The clause deals primarily with the abandonment of branch lines and with certan very limited kinds of rationalization incidental to the abandonment or re-arrangement of branch lines. The amendment purports to deal with any change whatsoever made by a railway company, any change, alteration or deviation in its operation, on its main line, in its hotels, or in anything over which it exercises control, including abandonment of branch lines and certain things incidental thereto. Therefore it would be a very suitable subject for legislation on its own, and it has been indicated on a good many occasions that the broad subject matter will become the subject of legislation. But to suggest that an amendment or a purported amendment, under the guise of being incidental to one small aspect of railways should affect the whole railway structure, is not beyond the scope of a bill such as this seems to be arguing in the face of the obvious content of the purported amendment itself. It is

for those reasons that I feel the Chair did not err in making the judgment.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To answer the hon. gentleman's question, if Your Honour thinks it would be relevant for me to do so, I think certain aspects of the matter which this purported amendment seeks to cover are in fact covered by legislation which is administered by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, although I have some doubt that all aspects of it are so covered.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, having carefully read the amendment and the provisions of new section 314D in clause 42 I believe there is some validity to the argument that what is introduced in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Nickel Belt does go beyond the scope of what is contained in new section 314D. In fact, I suggest that the chairman of the committee made a proper ruling when he said that the amendment went beyond what is contained in that new section. However, I must disagree with his suggestion that what the amendment proposes goes beyond the scope of the whole bill. I find myself in a measure of agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others in that the resolution preceding the bill suggested that the bill would deal with certain matters and with related and consequential matters. That must be broad enough to include the consequences to employees as the result of abandonment and other acts covered in the bill.
The minister argued that the amendment went beyond the scope of the resolution because the resolution did not provide for a charge on the treasury to deal with compensation to employees. I suggest that the amendment does not call for a charge on the public treasury to pay compensation to employees for the consequences of abandonment, such as a change of residence and other losses that they may suffer. What the amendment suggests is that authority be vested in the commission to order or direct a company to compensate employees for such loss.
There are many other clauses in the bill which give the commission authority to issue directives to railway companies that will cost the companies money. A directive made under the terms of the amendment would, I
January 17, 1967

suggest, be no more out of order than others which would impose a cost on railway companies. Therefore I do not believe the amendment is out of order on those grounds.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
For this resaon I am concerned about the ruling that the amendment is beyond the scope of the whole bill because there are other parts of the bill to which this amendment, or a modification of it, could more properly be moved. I suggest, for instance, new section 314E which deals with claims, the right to claim, the determination of claims, the payment of claims and so on. But even that new section I suggest deals with claims made for costs incurred in the the continuance of a branch line; it does not deal with claims which may arise as a result of the abandoning of a branch line. So perhaps this amendment would also be beyond the scope of what is contained in new section 314E. Therefore, while I am in some measure in agreement with the ruling that the amendment is beyond the scope of new section 314D, I take exception to that part of the ruling that it is beyond the scope of the whole bill and beyond the scope of the resolution preceding the bill. I do so because of the other argument I advanced a few moments ago.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that your ruling would be in line with the chairman's ruling to the effect that the amendment is beyond the scope of this clause but that you would rule it is not beyond the scope of the bill for this kind of subject matter to be introduced in an appropriate place.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to add to your difficulty, but I take it that the procedure at the moment is under provisional standing order 59(4). The chairman has ruled on this matter and has made his decision on another ground than the financial aspect. He has virtually said that the financial argument does not apply. I am wondering whether in hearing this appeal you have the right to go back into this matter. That is one subject you will have to consider. I should like to refer to the argument of the minister that the amendment is presented at the wrong place in the bill and has application to the wrong clause. I believe we have been moving here and there in the bill because of the difficulty of renumbering. Therefore I suggest that the argument concerning where the amendment is introduced in the bill is not applicable.
It appears to me that the main argument
centres around the scope of the bill. Mention
Transportation
has been made of the resolution itself. I feel that our consideration of the bill has been very broad. Subjects have been introduced such as the Combines Investigation Act. New sections have been placed right in the middle of the bill. I suggest that the bill is very broad and comprehensive. Therefore so far as the scope is concerned I feel it would be very difficult to rule the amendment out on that ground.


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no further arguments to be advanced for the guidance of the Chair, perhaps I might be permitted to give a ruling at this point. By way of introduction the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to the general reluctance of hon. members to appeal under the provisions of the provisional standing order which provides for an appeal from the chairman of the committee of the whole to the Speaker. Certainly this is a standing order which is difficult of application. Be that as it may, I believe it is the duty of the Chair to accept its responsibility in spite of the fact that the standing order may be difficult in respect of its application.
If I may refer first to the argument of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, he questioned the possibility of the Chair ruling on the second aspect of the argument which was advanced in committee, that is, the financial provisions of the bill. I do not think it is necessary for me even to refer to this. As I understand the ruling, it is not actually based on that argument. The chairman said he had no doubt in respect of it and went on to base his ruling on other procedural aspects of the matter.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre based his argument mainly on the contention that the amendment comes within the scope of the bill itself. The Minister of Transport has argued against this and has suggested that in his view the essence of the proposed amendment does go beyond the terms of the clause itself and also beyond the terms of the bill.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat goes half way. He suggests that the amendment although it is beyond the terms of the clause, should not be ruled out of order because it does not go beyond the purport of the whole bill. Obviously there are arguments which could be advanced both ways in respect of the positions taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Medicine Hat as well as in respect of the argument advanced by the Minister of Transport.

January 17, 1967
Transportation
It is my view that this is a matter of judgment. The chairman of the committee of the whole has weighed both arguments. He is familiar with the terms of the bill. He has had the bill before him in committee for many days. In his judgment, after hearing lengthy argument, he has ruled that the amendment proposed is beyond the purport of the clause and the bill. In view of the uncertainty in respect of the general question I do not think I should substitute my judgment for that of the chairman who has heard the argument. I have also heard the argument, which I understand was repeated in capsule form, and I must conclude that I have to support the decision of the chairman of the committee.
The committee will now resume its consideration of the bill.
And the house having resumed in committee.
On clause 42-


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Chairman, before we leave new section 314D I should like to make some remarks and observations in respect of subsection (4). Actually I had hoped to do so before the hon. member for Nickel Belt took the floor, but the Minister of Transport invited him to move his amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was seeking to preserve his right because he had spoken to me last evening.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Yes. I am not complaining; I am merely stating the reason I have not made these remarks earlier. I should like to appeal to members of the committee and the minister to look at subsection (4) of new section 314D in this way: I would hope we would be able to tighten up the wording of this provision so that it could be refined and made more brief. I do not think it is fair, as is the case here, to give the commission powers and terms of reference which read in such a very general and imprecise way. I hope that in this paragraph we can provide some specific terms of reference to complement, not to contradict, the general terms of reference given here.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
As I understand the intent or purport of subsection (4) it is that the commission may, when considering applications for abandonment, take into consideration such matters as increased cost to the community, increased cost of road building to the municipalities and the provinces, and losses to people who hold

investments that might be described as rail-tied. The commission may also take into consideration such matters as increased cost of production to farmers as a result of abandonment from having to haul their grain a considerable distance farther to the shipping point. I take it that all these things can be taken into account by the commission in considering applications for abandonment.
The ground on which the commission takes these matters into consideration is, I assume, to be found in the proposed section 314D (4). It is one thing, Mr. Chairman, for a member of the committee to assume this; it is quite another thing to have it clearly embodied in the statute. I therefore ask the minister whether he will consider giving consideration to an amendment which I should like to move at this time. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt:
That clause 314D (4) he amended by adding to subparagraph (b) the following:
"and in particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in respect of any action causing or likely to cause increased expenditures by municipal or provincial authorities, or increased costs of production or sudden losses to holders of rail-tied investment".
If I may continue my argument in support of this amendment, I suggest to the minister that if he were to give some thought to the consideration which took place when the bill was before the standing committee he would recall some hon. members, myself included, raising the question of what might be done with respect to new problems which would crop up as a result of the passage of this bill. For example, the bill provides for abandonment of certain lines. It provides the procedure by which abandonment applications shall be heard and approved or rejected. In the event that abandonments are granted it is obvious that such action will have a great many ramifications of the kind to which I have already made brief reference.
When a farmer is required to move grain by truck an additional distance to some rail centre it is a fact the farmer's cost of production increases in a very substantial manner. It is estimated that the cost of truck haulage of grain runs in the order of a quarter to half a cent per bushel mile. Conceivably it could happen-I am sure it will as a result of the implementation of certain clauses of this bill over the years-that some farmers will simply have to haul their grain 15, 20 or 25 miles farther than they are at the moment because of some rail line abandonment. This means in a very rough and approximate way that a
January 17. 1967

farmer operating a 500-acre farm win find that his cost of operation has increased in the order of $400, $500, $600 or $700 a year because of increased cost of haulage, etc.
The minister should also bear in mind that the Crowsnest rates admittedly are a very direct and great advantage and benefit to western grain producers. No one questions that for a moment. That is one of the reasons the hon. member for Acadia and others have been carrying on quite a running battle on the provisions of this bill having to do with the Crowsnest rates.
Let me relate this point to the provisions in this particular clause of the bill. If a branch line is abandoned and a farmer has to haul his grain a little farther, it really means two things. First of all, it means increased cost of haulage and increased production costs. Second, it means that the Crowsnest rates are to some degree being pulled away from him and denied him. Up to a given point in time that farmer will have had the advantage of the statutory grain haulage rates. If a local branch line is abandoned and he has to haul his grain by truck he loses a fraction of the advantage he receives from the Crowsnest statutory rates.
What we are doing in effect is this. By adopting this course of action and allowing abandonments to take place, which in certain cases may well be necessary, we are taking away from individual producers certain statutory advantages which others will continue to enjoy. It therefore follows that the commission should-at least, someone should and I presume the commission should in the first instance-take into consideration the fact that a farmer's cost of production is going to go up as a result of particular action taken under the provisions of this bill. Second, it should consider the fact that this farmer and others in the same district will be deprived of part of the statutory advantage derived from the Crowsnest rates.
In my view, Mr. Chairman, I am not really expanding the intent of the bill. The minister himself gave me the assurance in committee that the commission can very well take all these things I have enumerated into account. What I am seeking to do by this amendment is to give more clearcut terms of reference to the commission in this respect. It is merely a matter of spelling out specifically something which is generally implied in subsection (4). On that basis I hope that the minister will find no objection to it.
Transportation


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal right away with the points made by the hon. gentleman. The only possible objection I could have to his amendment is that it makes the bill a little longer. It seems to me that it is really substantially redundant. If the hon. member will look at the bottom of page 26 of the bill he will see that section 314C(3) says:
In determining whether an uneconomic branch line or any segment thereof should be abandoned, the commission shall consider all matters that in its opinion are relevant to the public interest including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,-
Then let me read a few of the following paragraphs.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
(b)	the alternative transportation facilities available or likely to be available to the area served by the branch line;
(c)	the period of time reasonably required for the purpose of adjusting any facilities, wholly or in part dependent on the services provided by the branch line, with the least disruption to the economy of the area served by the line;
I do not think (d) is very relevant.
(e) the economic effects of the abandonment of the operation of the branch line on the communities and areas served by the branch line;
There is some doubt in my mind whether the illustrative expansion which the hon. gentleman would seek to put into new section 314D would in fact add anything more than is already comprehended in those three specific directions to the commission. But if he felt it did in any way add something that was not there I would see no objection whatever to including these words, except the original objection I gave-and perhaps, the committee should be inured to it by this time-that I am not too fond of repetition.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise one or two points respecting this amendment and the argument advanced by the hon. member who moved it. What the minister has said with reference to the provisions to be found on page 26 of the bill does not meet the situation entirely. These provisions say that the commission may take into account actual losses, alternative transportation and the economic effects of the abandonment or operation of a branch line. I would like the minister to be completely aware of the fact, if he is not aware of it already, that the commission does not have the authority to change any of the statutes of Canada.

January 17, 1967
Transportation
The fact is that under the Canada Grain Act there is at the moment a restriction respecting the licensing of elevators. If the minister has given any undertaking during the course of the study of the bill here, in the standing committee or anywhere else that the government is going to bring in an amendment to the Canada Grain Act that will allow for the licensing of certain elevators in areas where it may be considered economic to abandon a line, I am pleased, but so far I have not heard of such an undertaking. The Canada Grain Act provides as follows:
"elevator" means any premises into which western grain may be received, or out of which it may be discharged-
Then we find these words:
-directly from or into railway cars or vessels-
There are many places in western Canada, and there happen to be some in my constituency, where an elevator in a community would be a real asset to the farmers in the surrounding area in the making of what we call local deliveries. In many cases large motor transport vehicles come to the elevator and haul most of the grain to mills that are not too far away. If lines were abandoned, under the Canada Grain Act those elevators could no longer be licensed.
In this connection I introduced a bill in the house on two separate occasions, I believe in 1962 and 1963. Of course the bill was talked out both times. I note that the hon. member for Acadia has a bill on the order paper that is almost an exact duplicate of the one I introduced. Farmers could suffer hardship in delivering their grain but the hardship could be eased to some extent if the Canada Grain Act were amended so that the Board of Grain Commissioners could license elevators in certain areas, where railway lines were abandoned. I feel confident that there are some railway lines which in the over-all picture and having regard to their length are uneconomic. However, in certain areas where a line runs parallel to another line the elevator would be a very useful utility if it remained.
As the minister knows, large motor transport vehicles take grain out of an elevator and haul it in this economical way either to a mill or to another elevator for loading into cars on a railway line that is in use. The minister has said that the amendment is redundant and superfluous to the bill. He said it would do very little except make the bill longer. I hope he will at least take into account this one point, namely, that the transport commission will not have the authority

to amend any statute, including the Canada Grain Act. and also that at the moment the Board of Grain Commissioners is prohibited from continuing a licence if a railway line is removed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman has convinced me because I have been looking at the two clauses while he has been talking-that does not mean I was not paying attention to what he was saying-and it seems to me there is a difference I had not observed at first blush between new sections 314C and 314D. It is that new section 314C contains those factors which the commission could license it if it was no longer tied to whether there should be an abandonment but there is no express power to make any recommendations, whereas in subsection (4) of new section 314D there is expressly such power.
Certainly an elevator is a rail based investment. This would not mean that the commission could license it if it was no longer tied to a railway but it could mean they could make representations and recommendations about it. I think it would be beyond the scope of this bill to amend the pertinent section of the Canada Grain Act. I would not feel competent to form any judgment on whether an amendment would be desirable. Although I do not think I have said anything about it in the committee up to this time, I have suggested -I do not think I did it personally but I saw that it was done-to the Canadian Wheat Board and also I believe to the Board of Grain Commissioners, though I am not sure about that, that they should look at this provision in the light of the legislation we are now considering. I believe that is in the process of being done. This would certainly go some distance in meeting the suggestion of the hon. member.
In the circumstances, therefore, it does not appear to me that any change in the wording of the amendment is needed. I believe there is power in the draftsmen to tidy these things up if there is to be any change in punctuation, and so on. In those circumstances, if it was the general feeling of the committee that this amendment would be a useful guide to the commission I would be quite prepared to support it.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the minister for his openmindedness in this respect. I will take only one or two minutes to say that perhaps the only way in which the minister and I disagree in this connection is that the minister seems to think
January 17, 1967

this amendment is perhaps of only middling importance. However, if I may be so bold as to say so, I consider it to be of major significance because somewhere in this legislation someone must be specifically charged with the responsibility of making certain recommendations for remedial action to the appropriate authority when producers are faced with an increased cost of production because of an action taken under the provisions of this bill. This may also happen when a person or persons lose a considerable amount of investment which is tied to a railway location. This may also apply to municipal or provincial governments. Surely it would be quite fair and logical to charge someone with the responsibility of bringing to the attention of the Governor in Council or another appropriate authority, as the case may be, that because of a rail line abandonment the cost of providing alternative transportation facilities, in this case roads, may be likely to increase very substantially.
What I have in mind is that the commission may be faced with an application from the railways to abandon a given stretch of line and the railways may be able to show that they are losing, for example, $500 or $1,000 per rail mile.
On that basis presumably the commission would be disposed to grant approval of the abandonment. However, when submissions are made and it is demonstrated that the cost to the municipality, or jointly to the municipality and the province, of building a road may be in the order of $25,000 or even $30,000 per mile, this should be taken into consideration by the commission which should have someone to turn to in making a recommendation in this regard The amendment would simply specify this direction to the commission for its particular attention.
May I say in closing that it is true that perhaps one could deduce this from the provisions of subsection 4 as now drafted but I see no harm in being more explicit. I should like to make one more point. The minister has a very disarming manner. He gives the members of this committee assurances upon assurances that this will really be done and that this was intended all along. But assurances from a kindhearted minister of the crown are not as binding, I understand, as statutory provisions.


Thomas Miller Bell: He may not
be minister for very long.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quite agreeable to accepting the amendment if that is the wish of the committee.
Transportation


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Edward Richard Schreyer: May I point out to you, sir, that the hon. member for Kootenay West expressed a desire to speak on clause 42?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have had a word with the hon. member for Kootenay West and he agreed to speak on clause 1 when we come back to it. It was agreed some time ago that all the new sections except 314D had been carried and that we would not reopen discussion on them.
On clause 50-


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to hear the minister say that he wanted to shorten the bill. I will offer him the opportunity to do just that. We heard a rather impractical and unusual speech by the minister last night, particularly from a minister who has some ties with western Canada.
With reference to new section 329 of clause 50 he indicated that a review of the Crowsnest pass rates will be undertaken every three years and he implied that it was his opinion and that of the government that the Crowsnest pass rates were not compensatory. He went to a great deal of trouble to buttress his argument with the recommendations of the MacPherson commission. As I have done before in the house, I referred him immediately to the reservations expressed by a member of the commission, Mr. Gobeil. They are entirely relevant and should be put on the record at this time. He said, as appears in the MacPherson commission report:
I cannot, however, accept the other commissioners' decision that a subsidy is required in order to compensate the railways for alleged deficits incurred on the carriage of grain and grain products to export positions. There are three reasons for my disagreement with this decision.
First, I believe that the Canadian Pacific Railway, having obtained certain very real advantages when it undertook-in perpetuity-to accept a ceiling on these grain rates, became party to a contract which is still in effect and which must be abided by.
I should like to say at this point that we in western Canada feel that this is a contract by which the C.P.R. and the other railway must continue to abide. We believe, in view of the fact we have an inviolable contract with the railways, that this is a redundant clause and

January 17, 1967
Transportation
the whole matter cannot be questioned periodically without regard for compensation. Nobody knows what the total amount of the revenue of the C.P.R. was in 1897. We believe that this clause is redundant because we have an inviolable contract with the railways and therefore we cannot accept the government's proposal that it be reviewed in three years time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The contract was with the C.P.R. for carrying grain to Fort William. It has been applied by law to the C.P.R. to carry grain to Vancouver and to the C.N.R. to carry grain to Churchill. In none of these cases was there a contract. It is the law of this parliament which directs this, and this will not be reviewed. All that will be reviewed is the cost which this movement of grain will involve.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I was going to come to the position of the other railway under this contract because I believe that this has already been reviewed twice, early in the 1900's and again in 1925. At that time the rates were made to apply to the C.N.R. when it was formed and we gave up a part of our rights under the Crowsnest pass agreement but we said we would not give up the other rights under the Crowsnest pass agreement which gave us lower rates on goods coming into western Canada. Even in 1925 the railway companies said that if we gave that up they would continue to haul grain at the ceiling rate.
Mr. Gobeil then goes on to say:
Second, I do not believe that the grain cost studies which have been brought before this commission have succeeded in their attempts to measure the extent of the loss which, it is alleged, the railways incur in the movement of grain under statutory rates.
0	(5:50 p.m.)
I am not convinced, furthermore, that the studies in question have been able to establish that there is any loss whatsoever.
Last evening the hon. member for Rosthem dealt particularly with this point. We are not convinced that any loss whatever is incurred.
1	should like to refer the minister again to two minor railways that have been hauling grain under the Crowsnest pass rates for a number of years. One of these railways, the Hudson Bay Railway, has been run by his own department. I believe it was in 1956 or 1957 that the Canadian National took over the operation of the Hudson Bay Railway. I refer the minister to the annual report of the Department of Transport for 1957 which indicates that the Hudson Bay Railway moved a total of 600,000

tons of freight, 78 per cent of which consisted of wheat for export. The balance of traffic was made up of sundry freight and the carriage of passengers. We have been talking about compensatory charges, variable cost charges or, as Donald Gordon said, out of pocket expenses. This line, 78 per cent of whose traffic consisted of export grain, produced a surplus of $34,000 in 1957. This railway is operated by a department of government, and if there is anything in Canada more inefficient than a department of government I have not seen it.
We are talking about costs and I point out that Mr. Gobeil said that the railway had never brought forth a legitimate cost study. We agree with Mr. Gobeil 100 per cent. The figures are not realistic. As he points out in his report, losses on passenger traffic can vary anywhere from $75 million to $255 million, which is a substantial spread.
The other railway about which I want the minister to think for a moment is one that runs through my own constituency, the Northern Alberta Railway. It has been operating since 1927. The great majority of the freight carried by this line is grain under the Crowsnest pass rates. During the last several years the Northern Alberta Railway has never suffered a loss. There is something wrong when these two small railways can carry grain and make money on it while the two larger railways continue to maintain they are losing money hauling grain. We in western Canada do not believe that for a moment. We think that this new section is redundant. As I said earlier, it violates the contract and the cost figures are inaccurate.
The other point I want to make is that the railways have been talking about ton miles. Anyone who has travelled across western Canada by air will appreciate that it is a considerably different problem to haul a ton of grain a mile in western Canada from what it is to haul a ton of grain in some other areas of Canada. The ton-mile costs that the railways continue to use are absolutely irrelevant and are in error. The railways are doing themselves a disservice and almost insulting the intelligence of the people before whom they put these figures. This was Mr. Gobeil's second point and was one of the reasons he could not accept the MacPherson report with regard to subsidies on grain. It is one of the reasons we do not accept it and one of the reasons we say this section is completely redundant. We want it out of there.
January 17, 1967

I quote Mr. Gobeil again:
Third, I believe that, if there is a loss associated with the carriage of grain it is due to the cost of maintaining light density lines rather than the cost of carrying grain.
We suggest to the government that the proposal to review these rates in three years is in error. I appreciate the fact the minister had to leave for a moment so I am directing my remarks to his parliamentary secretary. He comes from British Columbia and is able to appreciate the transportation costs with which we in the prairie provinces are stuck. He must appreciate how strongly we feel about this contract into which our forefathers entered. This contract was the reason people went to western Canada in the first place. They were told by the government of the day that they would be able to settle there. The government gave them the assurance they would be able to get machinery in and their products out to the export market. This was the essence of the Crowsnest pass agreement. We claim that this contract is inviolable. This provision in the bill concerns this contract and we want this provision removed.
If the government feels that this new commission should make studies, that is fine. The commission already has the power under clause 15 to inquire into and report to the minister on the relationship between the various modes of transport within, into and from Canada, and upon the measures that should be adopted in order to achieve coordination in development, regulation and control of the various modes of transport. The commission has the power also to undertake studies and research into the economic aspects of modes of transport within or from Canada. When the government singles out the rates on grain contained in our inviolable contract this means that the government feels it is subsidizing the western grain grower. We immediately and completely reject this idea. We want the government to have a look at this provision. We are not going to accept the government saying to us, we are not really taking away the Crowsnest pass rates; we are going to study them.
As has been pointed out earlier, upon what basis are these rates going to be studied? Are the railways going to present more nonsense about ton-mile costs? Are the railways going to use figures compiled three years ago? What figures are they going to use? We do not want to get involved in this study. The commission has the power to conduct studies in relation to any line or any particular product. Why does the government single out the Crowsnest pass
Transportation
rates? The only provision should be to the effect that these rates will be maintained. We do not want these rates to be studied three years from now, by whom we do not know. We do not want variable costs used about which we know nothing.
There have been innumerable royal commissions on transportation. If you look at the reports of those commissions you will find that all of them suffered from the same problem as that to which Mr. Gobeil referred, namely, the lack of accurate figures. In his report Mr. Gobeil refers to the fact that at the same time witnesses were giving figures on the cost of grain movement the staff of the railway were preparing changes in those cost figures. At the moment we are talking about the C.P.R., a private company. The best estimate this company could make was that it suffered a loss of $2 million on hauling grain under the Crowsnest pass rates.
I suggest to the government and to the parliamentary secretary that this is not too great a cost for the Canadian Pacific to bear considering the real estate it acquired under that agreement. I suggest that the return the company realizes from the real estate alone is far greater than $2 million a year. We feel very strongly that the Canadian Pacific particularly has had the better of the deal. We believe that this provision which enables the entire grain hauling operation to be considered within three years is totally wrong. We will not accept it.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
The hon. member for Acadia referred to the problem of modernization and mechanization. We feel that the raliways have lagged behind. They have done so intentionally to put pressure on the government to change these rates. We believe that this section will allow them to continue applying that pressure. Notwithstanding what the minister argued last evening, I do not accept what he said because the railways have been applying pressure all along. They are past masters at applying pressure on the government to get more money. What did they do in their recent labour difficulties? They did nothing until the matter came to parliament. Then parliament had to pay them money in the form of a subsidy.
I suggest that this section asks the railways to continue behaving as they have been, when they ought to be modernizing and mechanizing, particularly in those areas involving the handling of grain. If we are to continue exporting grain on the scale we have been in the

January 17, 1967
Transportation
last couple of years we must have better railway facilities and the railways must improve their facilities.
I want to refer to what the minister said last night in regard to how the railways will get money for this. The minister suggested or implied-I do not know if he did so on behalf of the government-that the western grain shipper had been subsidized by the other shippers of Canada. I suggest to the minister and his parliamentary secretary that when they look into this matter they will see that westerners have paid a subsidy to the people of central Canada because of the agreed charges which have been in effect for a number of years. The railways had to agree to certain charges because they faced competition from trucks.
I will not argue about geography or discrimination, but the minister suggested that there is discrimination with regard to rates. I say again that this contract is inviolable. I do not believe there will be a review every three years. We have had these reviews before, the Turgeon Commission, the MacPherson Commission and the one before that, all looking into grain hauling. None of them came up with a unanimous answer about grain hauling costs. We want to see the contract maintained. Should the commission want to do its job well, under clause 15 of the bill it can instigate research and studies. It can tell the railways how to haul grain within the ceiling of the Crowsnest pass rates.
The government should provide leadership. It should provide the necessary studies and research so that the railways may know how to accomplish what I have suggested. We feel strongly about the allegations as to costs put forward in all these reports. The costs that the Canadian National put forward in its representations to the standing committee are so clouded and badly based that they are not an accurate yardstick at all.
Two small lines in western Canda, it has been shown, can haul grain at these rates and make compensatory returns. We feel that all railways can do the same. In the last couple of years grain hauling has increased and the income of the railways has been substantial. Their net income has risen because of this increase. We feel that if the railways had procured modern equipment they could have hauled more grain more quickly, we could have sold more grain, and the railways could have increased their own incomes as a result. We do not accept for a moment that the government needs to direct this commission to review these rates every three years.
[Mr. Homer (Jasper-Edson) .1
There are not enough specifics in the bill to show how the commission shall assess the Crowsnest pass rates. In any event, we do not accept the necessity for this review. If the minister wants to shorten this bill he should take out everything after line 29 of clause 50. As I have said, clause 15 gives the commission power to review costs at any time and to make recommendations to the governor in council with regard to them.
If the minister wants to shorten the debate and the bill he should agree to removing everything after subsection 4 of new section 328 in clause 50. We would be a lot farther ahead and we in western Canada would be a lot happier. I cannot impress to strongly on the minister the grave danger he is in by placing on us the stigma of a subsidy-that was the essence of his remarks last night-and the idea that other shippers of Canada are subsidizing western Canada in the movement of grain. We do not accept that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the hon. gentleman wants to be unfair, but I never suggested any such thing. I said that if there was loss I knew of only two ways in which it could be made good. One would be out of the treasury and the other would be out of freight rates paid by other shippers. I said that if there was loss I thought the loss should be made good out of the treasury. At no time did I suggest there was a loss. I refused to put that in the bill this time although I had put it in Bill C-120. I refused to put it in because I thought we ought to find out about it. It is not quite fair to misrepresent me by suggesting that I thought there was a loss just because Mr. MacPherson thought there was. I refuse to accept the view that there is a loss. I also do not regard it as an article of faith that there is no loss. I honestly admit I am ignorant; I do not know. I am entitled to find out what the facts are and the people of Canada, the taxpayers of Canada, are entitled to find out what the facts are. That is all that clause 329 does. It substitutes fact for faith. If the hon. gentleman's faith is justified he ought not to object to the facts.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: This is why I suggested to the minister that we in western Canada object to the stigma of a subsidy. By including this clause the government implies the stigma of a subsidy. Clause 15 gives the commission all the power that is required to study these matters. Let me refer him to paragraph (b) of clause 15 which reads as follows: -undertake studies and research into the economic aspects of all modes of transport within, into or from Canada;
January 17, 1967

If that does not cover everything I do not know what it does cover. It covers studies. That part of clause 15 permits the commission to have its economists get their own figures on the cost of moving grain. If the railways can consistently show they are losing on this movement, once they have modernized their equipment and so on, we in western Canada will be willing to accept that. But we are not willing to accept it as things are, and clause 329 suggests by implication that the rest of the Canadian people pay a subsidy to us. We reject that entirely.
I hope the minister will take another look at new section 329 which is redundant because clause 15, paragraphs (b) and (c), provides for certain studies to be undertaken. Why does the minister object? Under clause 15 the commission has authority to make studies. Why does he single out the Crowsnest pass rates? Why does he try to break an inviolable contract.
Last night the hon. member for Mackenzie said that we feel strongly about this contract. The minister knows that. We would move more quickly if the minister would withdraw this part of the bill and go on with the rest of it. Why does he have this provision in the bill? It becomes were verbiage when one considers clause 15. The minister talked of faith. I suggest to the minister that he ought to have faith in his own bill and, if clause 15 means something, he ought to withdraw that part of clause 50 to which I object for the reasons I have outlined.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
Before accepting the wording of the Mac-Pherson commission report in its entirety the minister should read the divergent opinion expressed by Mr. Gobeil. This is important to us in western Canada. We are willing that individual studies should be carried out, preferably on the quiet so that the railways do not know about it and throw in a confusion of figures and talk about ton-miles when they do not mean anything. As to an economic study, fine and dandy; we are ready to stand up to that. But a public inquiry is another matter. None of them so far has produced an accurate assessment of the cost of moving grain. The Turgeon Commission did not do so. The MacPherson Commission certainly failed to do so, as the majority report admits. There were four different sets of figures. The minister would shorten this debate if he would remove clause 50 and have faith in clause 15 because clause 15 gives the board power to undertake all that he wants to do.
Transportation


The Deputy Chairman:: Before I hear from the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre may I ask the indulgence of the committee in order that I may make an announcement concerning the adjournment proceedings at ten o'clock tonight?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It is my duty, pursuant to standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised on the adjournment motion tonight are as follows: the hon member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), Shipping- Winter navigation on the St. Lawrence; the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), Administration of Justice-Petition of Louis Sicotte for a review of his two trials; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), Canadian Centennial-Trail, B.C.-Request for stop-over by centennial train.


Mr. Pascce:: Mr. Chairman, I was waiting to see whether the minister would rise, accept the suggestion made by the last speaker and withdraw this clause, in which case it would have been unnecessary for me to speak again in this debate and emphasize the necessity to preserve the Crowsnest pass rates intact.
I have spoken briefly on this subject on an earlier occasion. Last night I was in agreement with the minister to a certain extent when he indicated that the commission would use its own figures when deciding how much revenue was received from the transportation of grain for export. This evening I feel I am bound to add a few words to what I have said. As a western member I can do no less in defence of the complete maintenance of the statutory provisions governing the Crowsnest pass rates which were established in 1897. The minister must accept some responsibility for my speaking again on this subject because I got the impression from his remarks last night when he addressed the committee that he considered the revenue from hauling grain to be insufficient and that there would be need for a subsidy. We in the west feel that the payment of a subsidy would be the thin edge of the wedge leading to the removal in the end of the statutory grain rate.
Our position is that the revenue derived from hauling grain is compensatory, that it sufficiently repays the railways for hauling this freight. I will try to prove, to my own satisfaction at least, that the revenues in this

January 17, 1967
Transportation
respect are already sufficient. Indeed, the railways are earning money today by transporting grain at the statutory rate. The Canadian Pacific Railway is certainly being recompensed by returns from grants of land made when the transcontinental line was being completed. What I am trying to say is that the statutory agreement on rates was reached as part of a broader agreement whereby the C.P.R. received lands and money grants for building the line. In addition to the money it is earning by transporting grain the company should take into consideration the return it is getting from the crown lands which were granted and from the money which it received.
The minister has heard many arguments in this connection and I do not intend to repeat them all. What I wish to do is put on record opinions expressed in some of the briefs which support our arguments. As we can see from the maps which the minister was good enough to make available to the committee, the prairie west is the one area which stands to lose most if there are changes in the statutory rate. We have discussed this before in the house. I was very concerned about the proposal to remove the bridge subsidy which pays in part for the long haul around Lake Superior. This argument has no direct connection with the point we are now discussing but it does show the vulnerability of the prairie west unless it is given full protection in the sphere of freight rates.
The following comment is from the Country Guide in which Dr. J. C. Gilson of the University of Manitoba is quoted as saying:
The railways must be permitted to operate on a sound economic basis. At the same time, however, nothing must be done which will unduly prejudice the competitive position of western Canadian farmers on the international markets of the future.
It is upon these lines that we are arguing today. We are taking account of the future prospects of the prairie west and we are seeking to bring about the best possible arrangements for railway operation. I know the minister is sympathetic to this argument. I give him that credit. However, there are others behind him who expressed opinions in the standing committee which did not appear to be very sympathetic toward maintenance of the Crowsnest pass rates. In this connection I read statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, as recorded at page 2797 of volume No. 39 of the proceedings before the standing committee on transport and communications. The following appears on that
[Mr. Pascoe.l
page, after presentation of a brief by Mr. Lloyd, leader of the opposition in Saskatchewan:
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to
refer to some remarks Mr. Lloyd made earlier about the grain movement being captive and the shipping of potash being captive. In the sense that grain moves under a statutory rate, certainly the grain trade is not captive to a rate set by the railway, is it?


Mr. Lloyd:: As long as those rates remain.


Grant Deachman: Yes. It is a statutory rate and it is an advantageous statutory rate set long ago by the federal government.


John Edward Lloyd: Whether it is advantageous or not I would say has not really been fully satisfied.


Grant Deachman: Well, it is a statutory rate set by the federal government and one which we have not found people advocating the removal of before this committee.
I certainly agree with that.
One might say that rather than the grain shipper himself being captive, the railway in this instance is the captive, is he not, Mr. Lloyd, because the rate is set for him by the public, or indeed by the very shipper himself?


John Edward Lloyd: No. As I said earlier when I interrupted you, Mr. Deachman, I am not sure that that case has been proven and, as I say, in the bill I share the sentiments of many people-and we heard something of it from Mr. Frawley this morning-that these rates are not necessarily as disadvantageous to the railways as is frequently presumed.
I have read that part of the record because it is my personal opinion that at committee hearings some hon. members were not very sympathetic toward maintaining the Crowsnest pass rates.
At page 2785 of the same committee proceedings the Minister of Transport is recorded as saying:
Regarding the Crowsnest votes-
I guess that means rates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I never had time to revise it.


James Ernest Pascoe: The National Farmers' Union said in its brief:
We recommend, therefore, that net revenues to the C.P.R. in the movement of export grain under the terms of the Crowsnest pass rates agreement be considered in the light of revenues annually accruing to the C.P.R. from related concessions and land grants and the movement of other commodities.
I believe that last phrase about other commodities was a correction to this brief, and it supports my argument about giving consideration to the very large grants made to the C.P.R.
The Saskatchewan government also presented a brief. It is a Liberal government. I have criticized its brief previously and I voice that criticism again. I believe it said that the federal government should go ahead with this bill and it raised no public objection to it. The Liberal party of Manitoba also submitted a brief, I believe some time in November, in which it said:
If there were any suggestions that such a study-
Again referring to the study within the three years.
-could lead to cancellation of Crowsnest rates then the Liberal party of Manitoba would oppose any such move with all the resources at its command.
I remember the discussion on that brief and that the people who presented it were just as concerned as most western members about possible damage to the statutory agreement.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture had this to say:
First, it is unacceptable that there should be provision for subsidy attributable to the movement of grain under the statutory Crowsnest pass rates. We are convinced by careful study that these rates are compensatory, properly considered. In any case they form a basic plank of national economic policy in this country from which the railways and the country have profited and still profit, as well as the farmers. There is therefore no excuse, in our very strongly held opinion, for legislative provisions which run the risk of attributing an alleged transportation "subsidy" to the western grain grower. Such a procedure attaches a stigma of farm subsidy to the Crowsnest rates which is completely uncalled for.
That strongly backs up what was said a few moments ago by the hon. member for Jas-per-Edson in answer to the suggestion that there is a need for a subsidy.
23033-753J
Transportation
On October 18 last Canadian Co-operative Wheat Producers Limited presented a brief to the standing committee in which it said:
The Question of the Crowsnest Pass Statutory and Related Grain Rates
The position of the wheat pools on this question is in no doubt among ourselves or among any members of the Canadian parliament. Our position is that we strongly support the principle of maintaining the Crowsnest pass statutory rates as an instrument of national policy under the control of parliament.
That was part of the argument in which we have been engaged regarding the control of parliament over any decision by the new commission with respect to these rates. These views that 1 have put on record have proved the point I am trying to make.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
I referred previously to the proposal for an inquiry to be held within three years into the revenues and expenses connected with the transport of our western grain. I think that any commission which is set up should not be in too great a hurry with regard to making this revenue and expense inquiry because, as others have mentioned, the handling and transportation of grain is something which is changing very rapidly. Within the next few years there will be even greater changes. 1 certainly think that if this inquiry were postponed for more than three or four years, until the whole transportation system is worked out, there would then be available a better picture of what the operations will be in the years to come.
Supporting the argument concerning changes, I have here a picture from the Western Producer. The picture shows two very large diesel locomotives and the accompanying text states that-
-these two 3,000 horsepower diesel locomotives are among 32 the C.P.R. has ordered for delivery this year.
The reference is to the year 1966.
In a mountain test, the two units hauled 90,000 bushels of Alberta wheat from Calgary to Revel-stoke, showing a 60 per cent greater capacity than locomotives now in use. Previously, they had moved 63 cars from Medicine Hat to Calgary in three hours and 30 minutes, just nine minutes more than the schedule of the C.P.R.'s crack passenger train, The Canadian.
With these very much larger diesel locomotives hauling 90,000 bushels of wheat in one haul, I certainly think the expenses of the railway will be cut down. Another report here states that in 1966 the C.N.R. delivered a total of 138,500 cars carrying some 277 million

January 17, 1967
Transportation
bushels of grain to Fort William, Port Arthur, Churchill, Vancouver and Prince Rupert. It states further that these figures represent 22,531 cars more than were moved in 1965. It also reports that C.N.R. officials have said they expect that this greatly increased movement of grain will continue all winter. The report in the Western Producer goes on to say that the C.P.R. announced gains in profit. Both the net earnings of the C.P.R. and those of the C.N.R. showed a considerable increase for the 10 months reported in 1966.
I believe this strengthens the view I am attempting to express, that within the next few years the whole transportation system in respect of the movement of our grain will be greatly improved. It would seem under these new arrangements that the railways certainly will earn sufficient revenue from the movement of the grain to more than offset the expenses incurred under the Crowsnest pass rates.
I should like to repeat the plea made by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson, that this matter of an inquiry into the revenue and expenses of the railways under the Crowsnest pass rates be not pressed at this time or if it is pressed that there be a longer period before such an inquiry is held. If this section is not to be deleted, then I would suggest that it include some reference to the possibility of the railways using the same running rights, or something along that line. I think this also is something which should reduce the expenses and help the railways in respect of their costs.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, in listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, I was very interested in the quotations to which he referred from the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee on transport and communictaions, and in particular the quotation of the exchange between myself and Mr. Lloyd, the ex-premier of Saskatchewan, on the subject of the Crowsnest pass rates. It is on this subject that 1 wish to make a few remarks. I shall do so, not from the viewpoint of the people on the prairies, but rather from the viewpoint of the farmers in the Fraser valley when they look at the Crowsnest pass rates in relation to the matter of domestic grain. The farmers in the Fraser valley have a problem which they brought to Ottawa some time ago, and which still remains unsolved.
[Mr. Pascoe.l
I should like to refer to new section 328 at page 41 of the bill, where under subsection 1 the Crowsnest pass rates are described as-
-rates on grain and flour moving from any point on any line of railway west of Fort William to Fort William or Port Arthur-
Now, if you will turn to subsection 2 you will see that it refers to rates on grain and flour moving from any point on any line of railway west of Fort William to Vancouver or Prince Rupert, for export. The additional words here are "for export". Then it continues with the words "over any line of railway now or hereafter constructed", and so on. Subsection 3 reads as follows:
Rates on grain and flour moving for export-
Again the words "for export" are used here.
-from any point west of Fort William or Armstrong to Churchill over any line of railway-
That simply means that when grain moves from the prairies eastward to the head of the lakes it moves as grain, but when it moves from the prairies to Vancouver or the western seaboard it moves as export grain, or moves as domestic grain and under different rates.
Under the Crowsnest pass agreement there is one rate for shippers shipping grain eastward, whereas there are two rates in respect of grain being shipped westward to the coast or to Vancouver-an export rate and a domestic rate. When the committee on transport and communications held hearings in respect of this bill, Mr. L. A. Currie, chairman of the feed and grain committee of the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture, and Mr. B. H. Creelman, chairman of the British Columbia Feed Manufacturers Association, appeared. Between them, these two gentlemen and their associations represent virtually all the farmers of British Columbia and the feed grain producers of British Columbia. They presented a brief which deals with this problem, and the effect of it upon those who are users of domestic grain particularly for the feeding of livestock, poultry and so on in British Columbia.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
They point out that the export rate from Calgary to Vancouver is 20 cents a hundredweight or $4 a ton. The domestic rate from Calgary to Vancouver is 65 cents a hundredweight or $13 a ton. So that if you want grain for domestic use or for feed in the Fraser valley you may get it from an elevator in Vancouver and it is the same grain that is poured into ships and sent overseas, in which case it is grain that is moved at $4 a ton.
January 17, 1967

However, if you take the grain from that elevator up to the farms in the Fraser valley, the freight rate now becomes $13 a ton. A federal subsidy applies to this, of course, and absorbs most of that charge. The subsidy amounts to $8.60 a ton between Calgary and Vancouver; with a domestic rate of $13 a ton, there is an abatement of freight charges by way of subsidy of $8.60.
Let us now consider the freight charges from Calgary to Fort William, a much longer rail distance. From Calgary to Fort William the rate is 26 cents a hundredweight or $5.20 a ton. That rate is an export rate as well as a domestic rate. Grain moves at exactly the same freight rate eastward from Calgary whether it is for export or for domestic use.
So if you happen to be feeding poultry or livestock in eastern Canada, Mr. Chairman, your feed carries the same freight rate as export grain. On the other hand, if you happen to be feeding poultry or livestock in the Fraser valley you are going to pay something in the neighbourhood of $8.60 to $9 a ton more for the carriage of your grain.
What the farmers and others interested in British Columbia say is this: Let the railways move this grain at the same rate that grain is moved eastward under the Crowsnest rates and give the farmers in British Columbia precisely the same treatment eastern Canada enjoys in the eastward movement of grain. It is not an amount of grain that is very significant. I understand the whole of the subsidy that is paid is in the neighbourhood of $2 million. The farmers of British Columbia ask that the subsidy be removed and that shipment of grain westward stand on its own feet under the Crowsnest rates. The farmers of British Columbia also ask for the same privileges and advantages when it comes to feeding livestock and poultry as are granted to anyone living east of the head of the lakes.
I suggest this is a reasonable appeal, Mr. Chairman. It is not one which would in any way distort the bill. They have made this appeal to this house and to the Canadian government time and again, and I think it is a very valid one. Therefore, I ask whether the minister would consider the matter at this time.
I realize that the appeal was rejected by the minister at the time these gentlemen appeared before the committee, in part, as he pointed out, because the province of British Columbia had made no particular appeal for the removal of this subsidy.
Transportation


John Whitney Pickersgill: The government of British Columbia said they did not want it removed.


Grant Deachman: That is correct; and it is because the province of British Columbia are the operators of a railway. The operators of railroads are all in favour of keeping the rate up In moving feed grain into the Fraser valley the railway enjoys the umbrella created by the subsidy, and wild horses would not pull Mr. Bennett to Ottawa to ask that his railway forgo the protection the federal government affords it in the form of this subsidy. Mind you, Mr. Chairman, this subsidy goes into the pockets of the treasury of the Pacific Great Eastern, whereas the subsidy provided Canadian railways moving grain into the Fraser valley comes out of the treasury of Canada. So the most I can say is that in its recommendations the province of British Columbia simply reinforced the argument of the farmers for the removal of this subsidy.
There are a couple of ways this can be done, Mr. Chairman. By simply striking out the words "for export" in these proposed sections the government could bring about easy amendment of the bill. The freight rates would then stand on their own feet. Alternatively, if the government wanted to drag its feet on this-and God knows, governments have dragged their feet on this for half a century, in and out of every type of government-it could include in section 329 a provision that this question be examined when the Crowsnest rates come up for review three years from now.
At this time I am sure that an opportunity will present itself to review this question, along with other matters affecting the Crowsnest rates. So I would appeal to the government before the bill passes to reconsider what the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and others have said many times about this question, and to let the people of British Columbia enjoy the same privileges under the Crowsnest rates as the people of Ontario. We would be very happy if this were done, and would fall into the minister's arms in admiration of this bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Grant Deachman: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member now display his courage and move the appropriate amendment to enforce his sound argument? He might get quite a bit of support for it.

January 17, 1967
Transportation


Grant Deachman: The bill is in the hands of the government, Mr. Chairman. If the government moves an amendment to strike out the words "for export", which it is within its power to do, then I will support it.
I have had indications from the hon. member's side of the house that he and his colleagues are not too well disposed toward granting the people of British Columbia the same privileges they themselves enjoy on the prairies. I would not want to move an amendment which I know would only embarrass my hon. friends opposite. I just want to assure the people of British Columbia that justice will be done to farmers in the Fraser valley.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No courage.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Chairman, I wish to support some of the preceding speakers from this side of the house, notably the hon. member for Acadia, the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and the hon. member for Jasper-Edson in the position they have taken with respect to new sections 328 and 329 of this legislation, particularly in so far as the proposed review of the Crowsnest pass rates is concerned.
Section 329 contains a good many flaws. I think some of them were expertly outlined in detail by the province of Manitoba in its brief to the standing committee on transportation. For example the Manitoba brief pointed out that section 329 (1) and section 329A (3) lack a certain consistency in that section 329A (3), to which we will shortly be moving, deals with the movement of grain in bulk for export and the movement of flour for export, by railway to an eastern port from an inland point at levels of rates consistent with section 334, and provides that such rates shall be published in the Canada Gazette.
New section 334 states that rates shall be compensatory and defines what should be considered in determining variable costs for the movement of traffic. Sections 329 (1) and 329A (3) should be consistent, as the Manitoba brief points out. The Manitoba submission goes on to recommend that section 329 (1) be amended in order to supply this missing element of consistency. I am not going into that level of the argument at this point, Mr. Chairman, but I make reference to it to buttress my contention that section 329 of this legislation contains a great many flaws. Of all the flaws the greatest is the reference in the section to costs and to the attention that would be paid that subject in any review. As hon. members of the
(Mr. Churchill.]
house are now well aware, section 329 (1) provides as follows:
Not later than three years after the coming into force of this section, the commission shall inquire into the revenues and costs of railway companies subject to the jurisdiction of parliament that are attributable to the carriage of grain and grain products at the level of rates established or maintained pursuant to section 328-
This section further provides that the commission shall report such revenues and costs to the governor in council and the amount of payments necessary, in the opinion of the commission, to assist such railway companies to meet the costs of operations, etc. This reference to costs is a trap into which some members of the standing committee on transportation are not disposed to fall again. We heard a good deal about costs in the standing committee, particularly railway costs, and many of us have come to the conclusion that at this stage of the game a reference such as that made in section 329 (1) is little short of legalistic quicksand for us, because we have fallen again and again into this trap, where costs in the operation of the railway companies of this country are concerned. The warning signals being up, our personal radar is attuned to the danger this time and we are not disposed to fall into that trap again.
The committee heard a great deal about railway costs, how they would be arrived at and to what extent they would be available in our consideration of this legislation. With your indulgence, sir, I would refer to a specific dissertation on this subject by Professor George H. Borts who was one of the witnesses who appeared before the standing committee on behalf of the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and the Maritimes Transportation Commission. At this juncture I should like to quote from the submission of Professor Borts to the standing committee:
Much has been made in the past of the need to protect the confidential nature of operating cost data of the railways. The railways have argued that public knowledge of such information would place them at a competitive disadvantage with respect to other modes, namely truckers. The competitive, position of the railways vis-a-vis the trucks is supposedly defended by a general ignorance of rail variable costs. The railways feel that if the trucks had such knowledge, they would know which areas of rail traffic are vulnerable to rate competition. Following this argument, the trucks would speedily act to cut rates on such traffic and drive the rail service out.
Professor Borts went on to say:
I find this to be a ludicrous and coloured picture of competition in the marketplace. The rails over time have lost high-rated traffic to the trucks because of the constant pressure of competition pushing both shippers and truckers to find those
January 17, 1967



commodities and services where truck can displace rail. It has not been necessary for these parties to know rail costs. All that is needed is a truck rate and truck service which is better than the rail rate and rail service. That a more perfect knowledge of rail costs would cause additional loss of traffic to the trucks is a hypothetical statement without empirical foundation.
I should like to continue quoting from this submission, Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me that freedom for one more moment. Professor Borts said:
It will not be possible to carry out the costing activities required in this act if rail costs are to be kept confidential. For the costing activities required in this act will necessitate the determination of system average cost scales for the railways, as well as the determination of long-run variable cost for particular items of traffic and branch lines. How can the commission make such information publicly available without revealing rail cost information? How can it carry out its mandate without making such information publicly available? Is the commission to operate in secret?
On the subject of costs that was the position taken by this witness when he appeared before the standing committee. It was echoed and re-echoed, lined and underlined, intensified and re-intensified a score of times as the standing committee met last autumn to consider this proposed legislation. Everywhere the nub of our questioning was for some information about the precise and actual costs data and costing procedures of the railroads, and at every turn we were frustrated in our search; so we were never able to bring any sort of costing or accounting expertise to our deliberations on this subject.
Therefore I suggest that when we consider section 329(1) and (2) and the fact that the commission in carrying out this suggested review will be dealing with revenues and costs in so far as they are available from the railway companies which are handling export grain, there is indeed a legalistic and semantical patch of quicksand contained in that language into which we do not intend to be led blindfold again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Yes, sir.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. gentleman suggesting for one moment that any of the costs of moving grain or any of the revenues which derive from moving grain given in this review would be in any way confidential, because certainly that is not the intent of the bill, nor will it be possible. This bill provides, not merely in this clause but in every other case
Transportation
where there is any possibility envisaged of any payment out of the treasury, that all the figures must be public and subject to examination by any person interested.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: I am grateful for that assurance and I am sure the minister speaks with all conscience and all responsibility when he makes that statement but the fact remains that time and time again we in the standing committee on transportation have run up against this problem of the lack of costing information. Frankly I would have to say that it will have to be demonstrated to us that precise and specific costing information will be available to the commission. If it is available to the commission I would ask why it cannot be made available to the standing committee on transportation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There would have been no difficulty in securing costing figures in the standing committee on the movement of grain by the railways. The cost figures that were in question in the standing committee regarded specific types of traffic on which no subsidy of any kind was proposed to be paid. But the moment the treasury comes into the picture it would be preposterous to suggest that the figures could be kept secret.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: I appreciate that, but there is considerable anxiety and mistrust in certain parts of the country, notably in western Canada, and in certain corners of this house, notably among some members of the standing committee on transportation, as far as the cost figures are concerned. It arises from the difficulty the committee has in that area of investigation.
There are some further remarks I should like to make on this clause, and I should like to continue my speech after the adjournment period. May I call it seven o'clock?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that there was an express understanding about an adjournment but perhaps there was an implied one. I am perfectly agreeable to having the sitting suspended until eight o'clock.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.

January 17, 1967
Transportation


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I understand there has been an agreement that the house will suspend the sitting between seven and eight o'clock. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is there agreement to resumption of the business interrupted a few moments ago?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.




[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-231 to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions-Mr. Pickers-gill-Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 50-Crowsnest pass rates.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Pursuant to an order just passed, I do now leave the chair.



SITTING SUSPENDED


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Chairman, when the committee recessed an hour ago I was in the process of outlining the anxieties of western Canada, and certain members of this committee as well as the standing committee on transportation, relating to the subject of railway costs. I was referring to proposed section 329(1) which contains provisions relating to the revenues and costs with respect to the railways' grain carrying operations, and the information that would be studied by the commission during the review proposed in this legislation. The minister made the point that there should be no cause for concern about the question of costs in this context because the information would be requested by the treasury, and certainly there would be no opportunity for any pertinent data to be withheld. This is encouraging assurance from the minister, and I accept it in good grace.
However, I emphasize what I said before the dinner recess, that a good many of us will have to be shown that this precise costing information that we feel is absolutely essential to the work of the commission will, in [The Deputy Chairman.]
fact, be available. As I suggested, sir, we have experienced considerable frustration going down that path. The hon. member for Rosthern, in an eloquent dissertation in this house yesterday on this subject made this point, and I quote from his remarks as recorded on page 11866 of Hansard:
When we take a look at the cost accounting which was part of the various submissions from the railways in the years gone by, the failure on their part to substantiate their claims that they have incurred losses in the movement of grain under the Crowsnest pass rates, and the failure of this bill to provide what I believe to be the necessary machinery for parliament to study this matter effectively, we must come to the conclusion once again that this is an open door for the railways to make profits which will affect the welfare of western Canada.
I believe the remarks of the hon. member for Rosthern, which I have just quoted, effectively and eloquently crystallize one of the concerns of a great segment of the population of this country, and particularly that concern relating to proposed sections 328 and 329 and their effect on the Crowsnest pass agreement. I have said that this proposed section 329, in my opinion, contains many serious flaws. I said the first and most obvious flaw was inconsistency. In my view a greater flaw is this rather unsubstantiated and unsupportable faith in the revenue and cost figures that are purportedly going to be made available to the commission for this proposed Crowsnest rates.
However, the greatest flaw in the proposed section 329 is the provision for a review within three years after the coming into force of this particular section. I submit, sir, that any attempt to carry out such a review no later than three years after the coming into force of this section will militate against the welfare of the agricultural industry and, in fact, the entire fabric of the economy of western Canada. There may be some sympathy on this side of the house for a suggestion that such a review be held, but it should not be held less than ten years after this legislation comes into force.
This provision would give the country, the railroads and the commission time to adjust to the sweeping and revolutionary changes that are proposed in this legislation, to adjust to the changes in technology that are required and that are imminent in our transportation milieu in this country. It would be a far more realistic bracket in which to operate than would the period of three years or less. The way this proposed section is worded, the period of time could be substantially less than three years. The suggestion is that this review be held not later than three years after the
January 17, 1967



coming into force of this section. Under such a provision it is conceivable the review could be held within a very short period of time. With all the changes that are predicted and predictable under this revolutionary legislation, I submit this is an impractical framework of time within which the commission is to operate. As I say, there may possibly be some sympathy for a review within ten years, but certainly there is little sympathy in this party or amongst the members of the standing committee on transportation for a review to be undertaken within the period of time specified in the proposed section 329.
We, in the west, do not want the Crowsnest rates tampered with at all. This point has been made eloquently by other members of this assembly, but I emphasize and underline the position they took. I feel this is no waste of time for this committee or for the country at large because it is a position that cannot be stressed too strongly. The Crowsnest pass rates, Mr. Chairman, are pillars of industry and enterprise in western Canada and are as important to western Canada as is the question of port parity, for example, to the mari-times. The Crowsnest pass rates, and the whole arrangement surrounding them, were won by dint of great effort, not only spiritually but mentally, by the people of western Canada.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
We do not want them tampered with. It is our concern for this pillar of our economy, in a mysterious type of future only half-revealed by this proposed legislation, which leads many of us, and leads me, to fight this defensive battle with respect to these rates. We do not want to buy a pig in a poke, Mr. Chairman. We know what we have with the Crowsnest agreement. It is a statutory matter. It is set down in perpetuity, or as far as the foreseeable future may be envisioned. We do not want to risk the stability and security of that institution, so vital to the welfare of the basic industry in western Canada; the industry that is in fact vital to the economy and welfare of this nation as a whole.
At some time we may favour a review, but we do not want that written into the legislation. We do not want to commit ourselves in black and white, in the printed word, to a review to be held within three years, as the legislation proposes. We do not want to say, either, in black and white, that we should never be interested in having such a review, or that we could never be persuaded that a review might be practical and necessary. A
Transportation
review of the agreement might well be necessary in short order. But we should prefer to have such an undertaking available to us in an informal way. We should prefer the legislation to be drafted in such a way that no specific reference, for or against the proposed review, is incorporated in it.
Subsections 1 and 2 of section 329 in my opinion threaten the security of the western agricultural industry. They do that, whether the minister admits it or not. Those subclauses threaten the security and the status of our western farm industry, because they provide for a review that in the final analysis will serve only to encourage and incite public opinion against the western farmer.
The freight rate battle has been fought and won, and is incorporated in a statutory way as a policy affecting our national industry and political life. To reopen the issue, to fight it again, to present an opportunity for all the conflicting arguments, vested interests, power groups and all attendant parties to argue their cases again, to introduce again their prejudices and particular attitudes, is, in my estimation an invitation to virtual destruction. At the least, it is an invitation to embarrass the western farmer and the western agricultural industry.
I appeal to the minister to consider complete elimination of section 329 from the proposed legislation. He has listened patiently and responsibly to many representations on this subject during the past few days. Counting his time with the standing committee, he has listened to representations with patience, interest and scholarly mien for four or five months. He has accepted recommendations and amendments in substantial numbers. He has accepted improvements to his legislation. I appeal to him not to spoil his record. I suggest that the ultimate outcome, the ultimate result of the section as it is incorporated in the proposed legislation-the ultimate resolution of the problem, if you like-would be the creation of a situation where the stigma of subsidy would again be imposed on the western farmer. This would do a great disservice to the farmer and to the west in general.
I appeal to the minister who, with admirable and exemplary attention to detail and the feelings of all hon. members of the house, has devoted himself to piloting this bill this far, to let this legislation be his monument, and to consider the request from this side of the house that section 329 be removed. By so doing he would incorporate into the bill a

January 17, 1967
Transportation
respect for the west and its agricultural industry that at present is missing as a result of the wording of the section in question.


Mr. Waison (Assiniboia):: This is again one of the most important clauses of Bill No. C-231, as it pertains to agriculture and western Canada in general. I cannot help thinking of the time when Saskatchewan and Alberta became provinces, and of the fights that the farmers had prior to this time with the railway and grain companies, when they wanted to build a method of transporting and handling their grain.
The Crowsnest rate, set up in 1897 as a statute of Canada, protected the railway companies as well as the farmers who were to use the rails at that time. Over the past 60 years it has been instrumental building up the west, through the railways. We have now come to the point in our history where, through legislation, changes may affect the economy of Canada.
We do not say things should not be reviewed. It in only fair to review some things when we talk about railway abandonment. Some portions of line may be uneconomical to run, and they should be done away with.
Section 329 (1) says:
Not later than three years after the coming into force of this section, the commission shall inquire into the revenues and costs of railway companies subject to the jurisdiction of parliament that are attributable to the carriage of grain and grain products at the level of rates established or maintained pursuant to section 328-
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I said that the agreement was set up for the protection of the railways. It guaranteed them a steady flow of business at certain prices. The agreement gave the farmers of western Canada the only protection they had. When I look at this map of the railways in the prairie provinces it becomes apparent that this vast network is maintained today mainly out of the revenue derived from the haulage of grain. Basically there is nothing else. There is an odd line such as the Pine Point Railway to service mineral developments in the north; there is the occasional branch line to service potash developments. But these are isolated cases. The Crowsnest rates are the only means we have of guaranteeing protection to the farmers and producers who use these railways. When we begin to make provision for a review of revenue not later than three years from now, it is the thin end of the wedge-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is repeating a phrase which two or three of his

hon. friends have used. I have the impression that notwithstanding the fact that I have tried several times to correct it, my efforts have been completely without success. Let me repeat: There is no intention whatever, indeed it is forbidden in this bill, to review the Crowsnest rates. They are frozen as hard as any legislation could possibly freeze them, for all time to come. We have even improved the situation by freezing them specifically for Churchill.
The review has to do with the cost of moving this grain, and nothing else. The review will not endanger the Crowsnest rates in any way whatsoever; in fact, it will safeguard them, and if hon. gentlemen opposite are right in believing that the rates are compensatory, the sooner someone can establish that contention objectively, the better, because then nobody could attack the rates. This is what we are seeking to accomplish.
I am just a little resentful of the implication in the speeches from members opposite that I

and all I have ever done in this house has been to strengthen the Crowsnest rates-am trying in some insidious way to get rid of them. I am doing the exact opposite. But I think the Canadian people are entitled to know what the position really is, since a royal commission appointed by the Leader of the Opposition said that these rates are not compensatory. We do not accept that view, but we do not say the reverse. All we say is that within three years an objective commission must find out what the facts are. If they reach a certain conclusion, they can recommend that a certain payment be made to the railways so that we can safeguard the Crowsnest rates. That is what we are trying to do. When the Meighen government destroyed them after the first world war, the Liberal government brought them back.
I am getting tired of this situation which is developing in the committee. The only time in the history of this country when there was any attack on the Crowsnest rates was after the first world war, and the attack was made by a Conservative government. I think they learned their lesson. We are trying to embed these rates as firmly as we can in the constitution. But hon. members should bear in mind that these rates are the only rates which have guaranteed almost in perpetuity in the whole freight structure in this country in favour of western farmers. All we are saying is that if these rates are not compensatory the treasury should pay for the difference, and not the other freight shippers in the rest of Canada. Surely, this is a reasonable position to take. It
January 17, 1967

is surely not fair for the eastern farmers or for the fishermen of the Atlantic provinces, or for the people of British Columbia to be expected to pay higher freight rates in order to maintain the Crowsnest rates for the benefit of western farmers. If the Crowsnest rates do not themselves pay the costs, then the treasury should make up the difference. That is all this bill says-absolutely all it says. It does not say they are not compensatory.
I think that if hon. gentlemen opposite had the faith they pretend to have, they would not be a bit afraid of this review. The only thing one can conclude from their desperate fear of this review is that they do not really believe what they themselves are saying. If they really believed that the railways are now making money moving grain, why are they worried about having the facts made known to the public? There should not be any concern on their part if the rates are compensatory. The only reason for them to be worried would be if they were not-and I do not understand what worry there would be, then, because the legislation practically says that if the rates are not compensatory the treasury should make up the difference. That is all there is to it, and I think it is about time we faced the facts as they are in the legislation. I have tried to be patient about this and I intend to continue being very patient, but it is hard to go on and on hearing members opposite say the direct opposite of what the plain English in this bill is saying.
That is my only reason for interrupting the hon. gentlemen who, I may say, is one of the least offensive members in the whole house, an hon. member for whom I have the greatest esteem; I only wish that in the kind of occupation in which I engage I could do as well as he has done for himself by raising wheat.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: The minister spoke of the faith which we on this side of the house may, or may not, have. Would the minister not agree that the frustration we have encountered with respect to some of our investigations in the standing committee would not be calculated to enhance our faith in the legislation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I certainly would not agree with that at all. I think it was the hon. member for Winnipeg South, when he was talking about an effort being made to find out certain information about the rates for the movement of commodities other than grain, and the cost with respect to other commodities, who lit the fuse, which blew about two hours later. I make no complaint about the inquiry in the
23033-754J
Transportation
committee; I think the hon. members concerned were entirely within their rights. But as to those other rates, there was no suggestion at all that there was to be any payment out of the treasury.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Before the evening is over I will go through the bill and draw attention to every case where costs have to be made public, so the hon. gentlemen will not have to take my word for it; it is right here in the bill. When it is a question of money going out of the public treasury I do not think hon. members should insinuate that we will not have the most thorough scrutiny of the figures. I think I am properly reluctant when I say I do not wish to force the railways to provide us with confidential information, since we are not going to force shipping companies and air lines that may be competing with them to provide the same information. I think it is the desire of hon. members to treat the railways fairly, but I can say that whoever will be sitting on these treasury benches three years hence, if the review should show that the rates are not compensatory, will have to ask parliament to vote money for the railways and ask the taxpayers of Canada to pay that money. Nobody is going to be as anxious as the government to prove that these rates are compensatory.
Surely it must be apparent to all hon. members that we do not want to have to pay anything to the railways, and that we want them to be in a position to earn their own money so that they do not have to come here asking for handouts. I fervently hope that these Crowsnest pass rates are proven to be compensatory. I fervently hope Mr. Mac-Pherson was "wrong and Mr. Gobeil was right. But after all, we paid a lot of the taxpayers' money to get this royal commission report and we cannot lightly disregard it. All we are saying is that we are not going to accept the word of the MacPherson commission, and since a doubt has been raised then over a three-year period we will resolve that doubt. If, as the result of a three-year review, it is shown that the rates are compensatory, then no government is going to pay on that basis for another year. The rates are going to be under constant scrutiny. The treasury will be constantly anxious to make the railways more efficient and to make then adopt modern methods of carrying grain so that nothing will have to be paid out of the treasury for the carriage of grain. This will be the real objective.

January 17, 1967
Transportation
Hon. members will have to excuse me for speaking a little warmly about this but I think we ought to face the facts in this matter and not be afraid of them. You know, Mr. Chairman, this great wheat economy in western Canada is responsible for the fact that we have a country. If the Fathers of Confederation had been wrong, if this great area that a lot of people did not believe was worth anything had proven not to be worth anything, do you think British Columbia would have remained in confederation very long, with all that distance in between?
We had a poor period in the 1930's, and perhaps we had some doubts in the late 1950's and early 1960's. But let nobody make any mistake about it: With the way the population of the west is growing at the present time, and with the tremendous technological advances there have been in agriculture and in transport, the west will continue to progress.
I do not say that all years will be equally good. The hon. member for Assiniboia would tell me I was an utter fool if I said that. I too was brought up on a farm and I know you cannot get good crops every year. But we all know that wheat is going to continue to be grown in western Canada and that we are skilled enough to get it to the markets without it being a drag on the taxpayers. The world is going to need that wheat so much that, so far ahead as I can see, western Canada is going to be a pillar of this country.


Mr. Fane:: "Going to be"? We are.


Lawrence E. Watson: cannot carry on this business of moving grain efficiently.
I should like to suggest to the minister that if he wishes to clear up the doubt which exists in the minds of the railway users, he should remove this section from the bill. I can see no reason for it. He said that the purpose is to protect the Churchill rates. If this is so, then I would suggest that it should be stated in simple English that the intent is to protect the rates at Churchill, and that is it. Then everyone would be able to understand it.
Earlier I used a phrase which apparently irritated the minister a little. I am going to repeat myself and say again that I think it is the thin edge of the wedge to open the door so that this can be reviewed. It could go on for 10 or 20 years, but eventually this is the one part of the legislation which could open the door so that some time in the years ahead some railway will come along and say this is the loophole they are looking for.
I say that we should abolish this section. I know the minister is anxious to co-operate so that we can get along with this legislation, and we certainly wish to co-operate with him. I believe this is one instance in which there could be a little co-operation. I am a farmer and I believe I speak for the farmers when I say that there are two clauses in this bill which the farmers do understand and those are the clauses which pertain to rail line abandonments and the Crowsnest pass rates. These two clauses are vitally important to every farmer, producer and businessman in western Canada who has anything whatsoever to with the farm economy.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to conclude my remarks by repeating that I believe the minister, who apparently has a good deal of faith in this section, should cut this down and say "This is it", in plain and simple language, so that there can be no doubt between black and white. When one mixes up all the colours it becomes difficult to distinguish any colour. This is the reason I say there is something wrong with this section and this is why I say it should be completely deleted.


Frank John William Fane: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that it would not be necessary for me to speak on the subject of the Crowsnest pass agreement. The minister, however, has not seen fit to withdraw new section 329 subsection 1 of clause 50, and, therefore I find it necessary for me to say a few words. I speak as a prairie farmer from the province of Alberta. It is amazing to me that the minister has not seen fit to withdraw this section. He holds the distinction of
Transportation
somehow being a quasi-westerner. He lived there for a little while and said that he was raised on a farm. One might wonder, however, what has happened to his perspective.
There are things involved in the Crowsnest pass agreement which I have not heard mentioned by any of the eloquent speakers who have preceded me. I thought the minister would have paid attention to such eloquent addresses as those delivered by the hon. members for Rosthern, Mackenzie, Acadia, Jasp-er-Edson, Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Winnipeg South Assiniboia and other hon. members who have spoken but whose addresses my other duties did not permit me to hear. However, the minister is sticking to this new section which appears in this bill. Western farmers believe that the Crowsnest pass agreement was bought and paid for and was supposed to last forever. There was an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway which was supposed to continue in perpetuity. This agreement was bought and paid for when a large section of land in the three prairie provinces was turned over to the Canadian Pacific Railway, along with the mineral and petroleum rights in respect of it. That was supposed to be the payment for this concession to the farmers of western Canada. The Canadian Pacific Railway has made millions, millions and millions of dollars as a result of that payment. No one can tell me that they have not received adequate payment. I say they have received sufficient payment to have the Crowsnest pass agreement remain in effect in perpetuity.
There is one thing which seems to have been overlooked. I should like to quote from the statement the minister made last night. This statement appears at the bottom of the first column on page 11,868 of Hansard for January 16. He said:
The plain fact is that I do not think any member of this house, if he were to stop to reflect, would be doing the cause of the western farmer any good y suggesting that other freight shippers should have to pay higher freight in order to lower the rates on wheat.
What in the name of heaven is the minister talking about? Has no one told him that the farmer, when he delivers the grain which he has grown, whether wheat, oats, barley, flax, rye, or what have you, pays-in the area where I live-a freight rate of 26 cents per 100 pounds in advance for this grain to be hauled either to Vancouver or Fort William? This is the rate he has to pay, regardless of whether it is being moved by the C.N.R. or the C.P.R. Both railways go through the town

January 17, 1967
Transportation
in which I live and the district I represent. That is the situation which exists there.
When it is suggested that the farmer in western Canada is being subsidized or wishes somebody else to pay the freight rates, I should like to ask what other industry in this country or in any country must pay the freight in order to have its products hauled away. I should like the minister to tell me what fairness he sees in this situation. When he speaks of other people paying the freight for the western farmer, he certainly is talking through his hat.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
In my area trains consist of 100 to 135 loaded cars, and no one can tell me that the cost to the railway of hauling 100 loaded cars to Fort William or to Vancouver runs to more than 26 cents a hundred pounds. In my book 100 cars loaded with wheat and hauled to Vancouver or Fort William at 26 cents a hundred pounds brings in to the railway revenue in the vicinity of $35,000 to $40,000, and I am sure this service does not cost more than that to provide.
Anyone who tries to infer that the western farmer is being subsidized and that the railways are not making adequate revenues to pay for their services will certainly have to show me some evidence of this. The situation of the Canadian National Railways is exactly the same as the Canadian Pacific Railway, except that the C.N.R., being a child of the government, may not be run quite so efficiently as the C.P.R. and may be a little more expensive to operate.
Let us suppose, Mr. Chairman, that the government did have to subsidize that railway a little. We are familiar with subsidization by the various governments. I could cite the example of the subsidization of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to the extent of $105 million or more a year. And what do we get for this, Mr. Chairman? If the western farmers were given what they should be given, there would be no freight charges collected from them. The western farmers would not have to pay 26 cents a hundred pounds.
Let me tell you why. The price of wheat or grain is not as high as it was 25 years ago; that is a fact. Therefore anyone who talks of increasing the price of freight by having the rates investigated by a commission, and at the same time argues we should give the railways any money they feel they require from the public treasury, is not being realistic.

As I have said, Mr. Chairman, where would industry be if it had to pay freight rates to transport its products? In that case industry would add the cost of the freight to the price the consumer or user of its goods would pay. This would not be just a charge on the producer any more than any other tax is a charge on the producer.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the minister consider very strongly taking the proposed section 329(1) of clause 50 out of the bill. It should certainly not be in the bill and the people in western Canada will look at it from a very jaundiced point of view. I may have more to say about this a little later. I am happy that the minister decided to lock horns with the member who preceded me and give him a lecture; but I am sure it would have done me as much good as it did him, had the minister been telling me what he thinks are the facts of life. We will have to take the minister back to the west again and show him what these facts are. Then will be the proper time for him to bring this bill forward in the house and expect to have it passed. He will know more about what he is trying to do and will be better acquainted with the views held in the area of the country that is the granary of Canada.


Grant Deachman: Would the hon. member permit a question? He quoted a rate from his area in Alberta to Vancouver of 26 cents a hundred. Is he not speaking only of the export rate, and is the domestic rate to Vancouver not 72 cents a hundred or thereabouts?


Frank John William Fane: As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, all of the grain I have shipped has been at 26 cents per hundredweight, whether shipped westward or eastward. I do not know this 72-cent rate at all. Anyway, if this 72-cent rate is for feed grain used in Canada, I am sure it should not be in existence.


Grant Deachman: I appreciate that very
much.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have not participated in this debate before but I do want briefly to support the proposal made by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. He referred to paragraph (d) of the proposed section 329(2) which reads as follows:
-on grain products other than flour moving for export from any point west of Fort William to Vancouver or Prince Rupert, over any line of railway of the company;
The hon. member proposed the deletion of the words "for export" in that paragraph, and
January 17, 1967

as a city member I want to compliment him on being so considerate of the urgent need of the farmers and those in the interior of British Columbia particularly.
Before proceeding further, Mr. Chairman, I must say that it did my heart good to listen to that beloved old Tory member for Vegreville using the socialist argument in support of the Crowsnest pass rates, and condemning the philosophy of the C.P.R. in refusing to recognize the great privileges they received from the Dominion of Canada with respect to abandonment of lines, reduction of passenger services, and so on. I am sure that this is the result of his close association over a number of months with the group to his left.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I am very interested in this matter from personal experience. Some years ago we were quite interested in the poultry business, which is dependent upon cheap grain. As a matter of fact, as far as I have been able to discover we were the only people who ever had a travelling rooster in Canada, and it was very successful; but I will not go into that story now.
On Monday, October 17 last, the delegates of the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture and the B.C. Feed Manufacturers Association made representations before the standing committee on transport and communications which would give effect to the very proposal made by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. They dealt at length with various sections of the orders under various dates of the Board of Transport Commissioners, and then went on to say, dealing with an order passed on August 25, 1927,
-which based on the "unjust discrimination" clauses in the Railway Act found that such unjust discrimination had been created against Pacific ports when compared with freight rates on all grain moving east by the Crowsnest agreement.
The presentation continued:
They then righted this in part, but only in so far as grain for export was concerned. General Order 448, section 2 read as follows:
"That the rates on grain and flour from prairie points to Vancouver and Prince Rupert for export shall be on the same basis as the rates to Fort William, but in computing such rates, the distance from Calgary to Vancouver via the Canadian Pacific Railway shall be assumed to be the same as from Edmonton to Vancouver via the Canadian National Railway, namely 766 miles."
They went on to urge the same rates for grain going from the prairies into British Columbia as those on grain that is exported. Mr. Currie on page 1849 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the standing
Transportation
committee on transport and communications had this to say-and I am summarizing as much as possible so as not to take too long in presenting this argument:
The changes requested would remove from the government of Canada both the actual cost of the subsidy-
That is freight rate assistance.
-as well as the administrative expense caused by the application of a feed grain assistance policy to B.C. It would also eliminate the problem we have had in the past in operating under a system primarily geared to eastern Canada where alternative water and truck competition kept rate increases on a more realistic basis.
Two final points that must be emphasized are: First, that much of the grain that is fed in British Columbia is initially accepted by the railways at point of shipment as export grain at export rates. It is then drawn from Pacific coast terminal elevators to fill orders for domestic consumption

That means for British Columbia consumption.
-and then an adjustment is made to the railways allowing them the increase between export and domestic rates.
The second point is that even the total of all domestic feed grain shipped into and within the province is such a minute percentage of the total grain shipped for export through B.C. that to follow our recommendation and now ship all grain at the export rate should have only a very minor effect on the revenue of the three railroads concerned.
In closing this presentation, we reiterate that section 50 of Bill C-231 should be amended so that the rates on the shipment of all grain, including millfeeds, going east to "Head of the Lakes" terminals shall be applied to all grains including millfeeds, moving west to Pacific terminals.
Later a letter written by Mr. Cunningham, secretary of the B.C. Feed Manufacturers Association, was read to the committee:


Mr.   Creelman@: I would like to read this letter from the B.C. Feed Manufacturers Association, which I am chairman of this year. The letter is from the secretary and it endorses the brief which we presented.
That is the brief of the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture. Mr. Creelman continued:
It reads:
"Dear Sir:
This association has directed me to advise you that we endorse the brief submitted by the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture. Our members supply almost all of the feed requirements of the livestock and poultry feeders of British Columbia. We are, therefore, responsible to the feeders in the province to exert all possible effort to equalize and stabilize the cost of grain and grain products in British Columbia. We therefore support this

January 17, 1967
Transportation
brief of the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture and any other submission directed towards this end.
Sincerely yours,
B.C. Feed Manufacturers Association
K. H. Cunningham, Secretary."
As far as the interior of British Columbia is concerned, and I am speaking particularly from my personal experience in farming of various types in the southern interior of British Columbia, particularly in the Kootenays, the success of our dairymen, beef feeders and poultrymen depends almost entirely on the price they have to pay for grain. I can speak on this subject from personal experience. We have excellent land and an excellent climate, but all these producers require large volumes of feed grain for their livestock. Ours is high cost land; it is not the type of land that in most cases can be used economically for the growing of large quantities of grain. Therefore in the southeastern portion of British Columbia we have to import the greater part of our grain from the prairie provinces.
For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to hear the approach of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, because sometimes members from the urban centres are inclined to forget us poor old peasant farmers in the country. In this case, however, I thought the hon. member did a good job. There is a great opportunity for the expansion of production in the dairy industry and beef feeding industry in our part of the country. There are increasing opportunities for cattle to be raised there and for an increase in the poultry industry. As a matter of fact, in the southeastern interior of British Columbia we produce at the present time only about 10 per cent of the agricultural products that we consume. We have thousands of acres of excellent land and an excellent climate. All that is required to bring success to the producers engaged in agriculture is satisfactory legislation. In this respect the most satisfactory legislation would be obtained by the deletion of the word "export" as was urged by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture and supported by the B.C. Feed Manufacturers Association.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? In view of his support of the idea proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, would the hon. member for Kootenay West urge the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra to move an amendment in those terms, as I suggested to
[Mr. Herrldge.l
him before the supper adjournment? Then we could have a vote on it, and instead of just speaking about the matter the hon. member for Kootenay West could express his opinion by vote.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I would be quite willing to do that, Mr. Chairman. In fact I can see the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra is almost rising to do so. I would suggest that he, being the first hon. member to mention this matter, and I give him full credit for it, should accept the honour of moving an amendment to that end.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, I have already urged upon the government that they do this. If the government would merely eliminate the words "for export" we would have in British Columbia a rate for domestic grain that is the same as that which exists for eastern Canada. That is all the people of British Columbia ask for, namely equality with the people of eastern Canada. We, like the province of Quebec, beg you here in Ottawa to give us equality.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I had not expected to intervene in the debate again, but tonight in debate on this bill we had a lecture from the Minister of Transport on transportation matters, and on how the members from western Canada should conduct themselves in the House of Commons. As I listened to that lecture I could not help but become convinced more than ever that the minister has forgotten a great deal of the history of this country much of which depicts the development of western Canada, which became the grain bin of the empire and gave this nation favourable trade levels. I say to the minister that he has disregarded the history of railroad building in this country and the effect that it has had on the different parts of this nation. When I say this I am thinking of the maritimes and of nothern Canada as well.
The minister has forgotten also that the railways of this country have practically monopolized rail transportation in so far as bulk shipments are concerned. Under this clause there is a requirement that figures be given with regard to the handling of a certain segment of the operations of the railways. If that is so, then I ask the minister, the government opposite and the country why the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. should not be required to publish figures, not only with regard to the Crowsnest pass rates but also with regard to agreed charges which have been put into effect? Why should we not ask the C.P.R.
January 17, 1967



what their charges are on commodities from Consolidated Mining and from other industries?
If such information were made available to us we in the opposition would then be satisfied that the information that will be placed before the commission will have some regard for the equity which should prevail in the setting of freight rates and the granting of subsidies required for maintenance of transportation in this country. Why should a concern which is a virtual monopoly always hide behind the veil of secrecy, and then come hat in hand to the government of Canada and to the people of this country asking for another subsidy, pleading that it does not have sufficient revenues to meet its expenses? And yet in the brochures that the railway company sends to its shareholders it paints a far different picture with regard to the progress that is being made by its organization.
I say to the minister that the public in this country do not know whether or not agreed charges are fair. In speaking about the Crowsnest pass rates the minister said that they are almost embedded in perpetuity in the constitution of this country. We in western Canada will never accept the word "almost". We believe that they form and integral part of our constitution. We must not forget the price that was paid by Canada to enable the C.P.R. to string a railway across western Canada. At that time there were members in the party opposite, which was then in the opposition in the parliament of this nation, who said that the price paid to link the west and east of Canada was far too great. Now the minister who represents the government once again takes up the cry of the railways who wish to hide behind the veil of secrecy. It is the government of Canada which created the railways which now seek assistance from the government. Why should not the affairs of the railways be made public? There can only be one interpretation of this clause, namely that the minister, regardless of what he said in this debate, has made a commitment to the railways that in three years' time there will be a reappraisal of the whole situation before the benefits accruing from the other sections of this act will be put into effect. Another strait-jacket will be put on the people of this nation with regard to this public utility.
Although tonight I have not been able to search out the facts and figures with regard to the railways, I would suggest to the minister that within the period of next week I could trace the picture very easily and show that
Transportation
there is more to be taken under consideration than the cost and revenues of the railways in handling grain under the Crowsnest pass rates. We have to consider also what went into the forging of this nation when the railway was given its original charter, and what was given to it by the parliament of Canada as an incentive to link the various parts of this nation.
Last night I sketched the picture of the development which has taken place, the increase in the handling of grain in this country since the days when the Crowsnest pass rates first became effective. I mentioned, as did many other members of this house, some of the effects of automation and the improvements which have taken place in the handling of grain. Anyone in western Canada or in any other part of Canada looking at a box car today would realize that there has been no improvement of these facilities made by the railways over a long period of years.
I do not wish to delay the committee but I wish to refer to what has been said by the hon. member for Vegreville, namely that payments on grain are made in advance. There are few commodities in this country of which that can be said. I wish also to refer to something that was said by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra concerning the rates on grain used for domestic consumption. A year ago I purchased 800 pounds of seed grain from Lethbridge, Alberta at a cost of about $30 and shipped it to a place just north of Saskatoon at a cost of $39. I do not need to tell the minister that I could have got into my little truck, driven to Lethbridge, stayed over night in a hotel, had a steak dinner and driven back the next day to Saskatoon, all of it for less than $39.
The minister is trying to tell us that the railways are not making money on the rates they are charging on grain moved in western Canada. This is very difficult to understand for people who have had my experience. I can tell the minister that I was very reluctant to pay the $39, and if it were not for the fact that I was a member of parliament and that I bought the grain from another member of parliament I would not have paid the $39, but would rather have lost the $30 before paying $39 for a $30 shipment.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I hope the minister will take another look at this clause. If the minister cannot delete it entirely, surely he can extend the three-year period to something like 10 or 15 years. This would give the railways a chance to put into

January 17. 1967
Transportation
effect the economies they say they want to put into effect. The railways would have a chance to come to parliament, if they so desired, and prove their point. Do not let them try to put us in the same strait-jacket in which they have tried to keep us over a long period of years. They have come back to us time after time and asked for a subsidy, and pleading for a veil of secrecy over their operations when as everyone knows they enjoy a monopoly in this country.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am encouraged, Mr. Chairman, to say a few more words on this subject, and for two reasons. First, the minister said yesterday he did not believe I was speaking from conviction when I expressed certain ideas on the Crowsnest pass rates. I want to assure him tonight that I was then, and I intend to speak with conviction now. Second, I am encouraged to speak because earlier this evening the minister launched into an attack on members of the opposition, and rather inspired us to take an even keener interest in the subject matter that is under discussion. If the minister is going to contribute every hour on the hour to the debate, naturally we want to play our part, too. We would like to make our contribution to see if we can match in quantity-we exceed in quality-the amount the minister is placing on Hansard with regard to his bill.
I want to draw certain things to the attention of the minister tonight to indicate to him that we are not discussing the Crowsnest pass rates because we do not realize he has given assurance they will not be tampered with. He does not have to rise now and say that I am misconstruing his remarks, or putting a wrong interpretation on this proposed section. I know quite well what it means, and I know quite well that the minister has repeated over and over again that the Crowsnest pass rates are not to be altered.
Unfortunately, he has qualified his statements, and those qualifications are not going to do him any good. They are a clear indication of the lack of real representation in the Liberal party. It is not a national party at the present time. It happens to form the government, but it is not a national party. If it were a national party with representation from all areas of this country, the minister would not have introduced into his bill this reference to the Crowsnest rates. Our party is a national party. We have representation from all across this country. We appreciate and have sympathy for the various sectional problems that arise in Canada. We are within our rights in

discussing this particular subject because the minister introduced it into the bill.
The minister had three choices before him. He indicated this in the course of his remarks during the last two days. He had the MacPherson report in front of him, to which he has referred. He had the option of adopting the subsidy proposals in the MacPherson report. He has told us he rejected that. He had the option of omitting from the bill any reference whatever to the Crowsnest rates. His third option was to introduce a provision such as the one in the bill, suggesting that these rates may be reviewed during the course of the next three years.
Obviously, this was a weak decision. The strongest decision of all would have been to omit this provision from the bill. The second one would have been to accept the MacPherson report and provide a subsidy. He chose the weak option; he made a weak decision. He is uncertain and he wobbles. He said: We will put something in the bill to give the railways an opportunity to state their case again, and we will have another discussion on the Crowsnest rates not later than three years after the proclamation of this bill. The minister opens the door to a review. He glosses this over by saying that if the rates are satisfactory, if we have faith in these rates, then we should not be alarmed if they are reviewed. The minister indicates we are showing our insecurity by saying we do not want them reviewed. This is the way he puts a gloss on it.
I would say this to him, that he has made a mistake in introducing this provision into the bill. He told us tonight, and this was a new argument he used, that far from changing the Crownsnest Pass rates he was putting in an additional safeguard. We have his assurance that the rates will not be touched, and his safeguard is to review them not later than three years after the passage of this bill to see whether or not they are all right or whether or not the railways require compensation. The best safeguard for the Crowsnest pass rates would have been to omit any reference to them from this bill. What the minister has done has been to draw attention to the Crowsnest pass rates.
I was going to quote the minister's words that the hon. member for Vegreville quoted, and I may as well put them on the record again. These words are found at page 11868 of Hansard:
The plain fact is that I do not think any member of the house, if he were to stop to reflect, would be doing the cause of the western farmer any good
January 17, 1967

January 17, 1967
Transportation
review these rates because parliament doubts whether they are satisfactory. For these reasons this section should be eliminated completely. No harm will be done if it is eliminated.
The hon. member for Jasper-Edson earlier today said that clause 15 of the bill gives power to the commission to investigate any matter pertaining to transportation. But, to draw specific attention to one particular item I think is quite wrong. I wonder why the minister has included in here the words "not later than three years". What was the process of thought that encouraged him to put in- and I asked this question yesterday-the words "three years"? What process of thought encouraged him to say, "not later than three years"?
What is the urgency? When you are dealing with a subject of this magnitude, three years brings it forward rapidly. Would it not have been wiser to have waited until the other arrangements had been made with regard to transportation? It would have been wisest to leave the section out altogether. Here we are entering a new era, we hope, with regard to our transportation facilities in Canada. The railways are encouraged to modernize their lines and to become more efficient. Part of the encouragement is to permit them to reduce some of their trackage. Let us accomplish this rationalization process first, and then let us have a look at railway earnings and railway management across this country. Only after that has been done need we look into these other fields which have been contemplated.
I am surprised that instead of waiting for these changes to take place, changes which will take more than three years, the minister encourages the commission to undertake a review of the Crowsnest rates in relation to railway earnings and costs. I do not know how many years it will take before this commission is fully operative and how many years it will be before all problems are settled with regard to abandonment of railway lines and increased efficiency. I feel positive this will take three years, or longer. After the commission is fully operative there will be time enough to look at other aspects of this particular problem, the problem of transportation.
Yesterday and again today the minister referred to the MacPherson report. Our government, the Conservative government, appointed that commission to investigate a problem-a major problem at that time-in 1958 and 1959. Attempting to gain political advantage he mentioned the MacPherson report and

said that our government was prepared to accept the findings of that report. That is not necessarily so. Our thinking on the subject had not been brought to completion. The minister seems to think that, the commission having been appointed, we are now committed in some way or other to the propositions set out in its report. But the MacPherson report is now out of date. Such tremendous changes in technology, transportation, payment for wheat, size of our crops and exports have taken place that the MacPherson report on the subject of grain is out of date.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Attention has been drawn to the fact that in this report there was a minority statement by Mr. Gobeil. This minority statement, Reservations on Grain, as he called it, expresses the opinion of a great many people. I would like to read his three points into the record because I think this is important; we may not be discussing freight rates or Crowsnest pass rates for several years. I think it is important that we should record some of these facts, particularly as the minister has drawn our attention to the MacPherson report. On page 77 of volume 1, the committee will find these reservations by Mr. Gobeil:
First, I believe that the Canadian Pacific Railway, having obtained certain very real advantages when it undertook

in perpetuity-to accept a ceiling on these grain rates, became party to a contract which is still in effect and which must be abided by.
Second, I do not believe that the grain cost studies which have been brought before this commission have succeeded in their attempts to measure the extent of the loss which, it is alleged, the railways incur in the movement of grain under statutory rates. I am not convinced, furthermore, that the studies in question have been able to establish that there is any loss whatsoever.
Third, I believe that, if there is a loss associated with the carriage of grain it is due to the cost of maintaining light density lines rather than the cost of carrying grain.
In effect, he is saying: let us centre our attention on the railways, their trackage, the placements of their lines, their methods of carrying grain, to see whether or not there might be some improvement made, rather than direct our attention to the rates themselves. He concludes on page 90 with this warning:
I oppose the conclusion and recommendation that a portion of the proposed subsidy should be attached to grain on the grounds that:
(a)	The railways have not established that grain is deficit traffic.
(b)	If a deficit does exist it is attributable to low density lines rather than to grain.
(c)	The contract of 1897 is still binding on both parties although in a varied form.
January 17, 1967

(d)	Certain benefits from this agreement have accrued to the C.P.R. which must be balanced against the obligations.
(e)	The western provinces were required to make certain concessions for which they are entitled to the benefits of the agreement as part of their historical and provincial rights.
I think this minority report requires most serious consideration. From what we have heard today from members who have been sitting on the special committee on transportation, it seems there is still dissatisfaction with regard to methods of reporting costs. Similar dissatisfaction was noted at the time the MacPherson commission was sitting. I could read from the report to show that the cost figures submitted were altered, I think on three different occasions by one of the railway companies, and there was uncertainty in the minds of the commission as to whether from the railway presentation it had really got to the root of the matter. The commission's own investigation, and provincial investigations, disclosed different figures. It was all very confused. The MacPherson commission was therefore not able to make a unanimous report and this is the situation in which we find ourselves at the present time.
These are some of the reasons which may be advanced to encourage the minister to take the proper action with regard to this clause. The proper action I suggest-and this would terminate the debate immediately-would be for him to strike out the clause and leave out the provision for a review of the Crowsnest pass rates. Let us get settled down and reorganize national transportation policy before we attempt in any way to create public opinion which would tend to upset rates which have been found to be effective over the years. I could give an instance where the Crowsnest rates were lowered by the C.P.R. during a period when they must have been making sufficient revenue not to worry about those rates. They took unilateral action and lowered them. It is only in recent years that we have found people getting troubled by those rates, and drawing attention to them, but failing in my opinion to prove their case.
I regret that the minister is perpetuating in a statute of Canada an investigation of rates which should be left undisturbed. From 1897 to the present time these rates have been in effect, except for one period in 1919 when they were saved by the Senate of this country.
Here we are in the centennial year suggesting to those people in this country who have some axe to grind in regard to these rates that they should raise this issue, that they will
Transportation
have full authority to do so, that parliament gives its approval to this being done. Then there will arise, again, the sectional differences in this country which constitute part of our trouble. The tampering with the Crowsnest pass rates in 1919, in addition to the rising cost of living and the problems brought about by the war, resulted in a movement which was most disturbing for a period of several years here in the House of Commons.
There are political repercussions which result from dealing with matters that should be left alone, and I am surprised at the failure of the minister, who used to be given credit for considerable political perspicacity, to see that by having this section in the act his party will not gain anything at all out in prairie country. I am surprised that this minister, of all ministers, should be so politically inept. That is not the reputation he enjoyed in days gone by.
The hon. gentleman has not interrupted me, so I intend to interrupt myself, and stop. I had hoped he would rise and say he proposed to take the section out, but he has not done so, and I heretofore move, seconded by my hon. friend from Acadia:
That clause 50 be amended by striking out section 329 on pages 41 and 42.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is with the greatest reluctance I rise, and disregard the excellent advice given me yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre in which he said my failure to follow in the debate brought upon us the flood of eloquence to which we have just listened. I am quite prepared to have a vote immediately after I speak on this amendment, but I ought to point out that the effect of striking the whole of section 329 would be to destroy a part of the legal foundation of the Crowsnest pass rates, because it is in this section that there is a definition of grain, and without that definition the safeguard for those rates would disappear.
However, I do not think there is anything more I can possibly say about the matter in addition to what I said earlier this evening. So far as I am concerned I am quite prepared to have the question put at once.
The Depuiy Chairman: Is the committee ready for the question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Before the question is put I wish to say a word about the amendment and about the Crowsnest pass rates. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre really touched the crux of the problem. We find

January 17, 1967
Transportation
ourselves in centennial year debating the very issue that brought Canada together, that brought the west into confederation, that brought in the province of British Columbia, that established the prairie provinces, namely the Crowsnest pass rates. Now the minister proudly stands up and asks for a speedy vote on this amendment. In effect he says: Let us get the Crowsnest pass rates out of the road, let us erase them. He is not sure that they may have been a mistake a hundred years ago, but he knows they are a mistake now. According to the minister, while they may have brought Canada together a hundred years ago, they are not fulfilling that purpose now, and so we can do away with them.
The Crowsnest pass rates were instituted to attract people to settle the west and guarantee them that their products would move to market over our transportation system at fair and equitable rates. They gave equal opportunity to all farmers to deliver their goods. Many experts have told me that these rates would make money for the railroads if the quota system were abolished if they could move all the grain out of one area in two or three loads. I am not arguing against the quota system. It is part and parcel of the Crowsnest pass rates and gives all farmers equal opportunity to deliver their goods to market.
These rates contributed to the establishment and development of agriculture in the prairie provinces. But now this section in effect is trying to develop public opinion against the Crowsnest pass rates. The section is not necessary. The railroads are now moving twice as much grain as they did ten years ago and are making far more money than they did ten years ago. There is conclusive proof that these rates have not been the cause of loss to the railroads.
In the years 1957 and 1958 operating expenses of the C.N.R. were between $765 million and $800 million. These figures were presented to the MacPherson royal commission. The figures were changed three or four times by the railroad itself, and finally it came to the astounding conclusion that the C.N.R. may have lost $4 million. That figure is astounding when compared to expenditures of between $765 million and $800 million.
At page 82 of volume 1 of the MacPherson commission report Mr. A. R. Gobeil had this to say:
The commission received a number of studies which attempted to prove what the cost of moving grain was. Each time one of those cost studies was

discussed before the commission, the parties admitted errors in their previous study and asked the commission to accept the new cost figures.
It has been said that the movement of grain accounts for 13.2 per cent of the total revenues derived by the C.N.R., but Mr. Donald Gordon told our standing committee that one cannot measure this by total revenue, and that it amounts to 38 per cent or 39 per cent of the ton-miles hauled. I repeat that on this percentage of ton-miles hauled, with total expenses between $765 million and $800 million for the years 1957 and 1958, and after the figures had been revised three times, the best the experts could say was that the C.N.R. may have lost $4 million. The only conclusion I can come to is that a further study within three years is not necessary.
I believe the reason for this new section is that an agreement has been drawn up by the Minister of Transport with the railroads, an agreement stating, in effect: We will give you this if you give us that. Someone suggests that it is a saw-off, but we in the west never like saw-offs unless we know what exchange it involves. What is the exchange in this regard? I suggest the exchange in question is the suggested review, and this review is going to build up public opinion against the Crowsnest pass rates.
The minister sits there and shakes his head. It is all very well for him to do that, but who is going to defend the west?


An hon. Member:: You.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Some hon. member thinks I will. I would love to, but I cannot afford the $11 million expenditure which the governments of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba had to make in order to present a brief to the MacPherson commission. Will we have to spend this amount three times as is suggested in volume I of the MacPherson report? Who is going to suggest that anyone will spend this amount three times? The railways will, because they have dollars and cents at stake. They have a combined effort to present figures to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are losing money and therefore should be subsidized. They will build up public opinion in this three years so that they can cut down the prairie farmers again and again, these people who have proven that today they are the greatest and most efficient producers in the world of food products.


Maurice Rinfret: Order.
January 17, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	11929
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


John (Jack) Henry Horner: May I call it ten o'clock?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the committee might agree to avoid looking at the clock for a while, at least until the hon. gentleman has finished. He is making a very good speech and he should not be interrupted.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. Is there
unanimous agreement that the hon. member be permitted to continue his speech?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, although my mind is clear on this subject and I should like to continue, I would point out that I urged the minister earlier today to hold up a decision in respect of an earlier clause so that we might proceed with the bill. We spent something like one or two hours studying this clause and accomplished very little because the minister failed to take into consideration all the details with regard to that particular clause. Therefore, because I do not think anything can be gained by continuing now I will call it ten o'clock and continue my remarks tomorrow.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue with the consideration of the bill which is now before the committee. At the conclusion of that business we will take the two motions to refer matters to the committee on privileges and elections, then the bill to amend the Judges Act, and then the C.N.R. financing bill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, tonight I would like to deal with a question I had put to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) on December 20 last; I indicated my desire to have it discussed at ten o'clock some evening, and I have the opportunity to do so tonight.
At that time, I had asked the Minister of Transport if his department had investigated-and the question appears on page
11364 of Hansard-the cost of facilitating winter navigation on the St. Lawrence.
The previous evening, in answer to one of my questions the minister had said

and I quote from page 11352 of Hansard:
It would cost many, many millions of dollars which would have to be collected from Canadians in every part of Canada to ensure regular and reliable navigation each winter in the port of Montreal.
The minister said that it would cost many millions of dollars. That is why the next day, December 20, I asked him if his department had investigated the matter in order to find out just how many millions would have to be spent, and I also asked the minister if he was ready to table the results of the inquiry. The minister simply answered: "The matter is under study continuously but I have no special report to make at this moment." In view of the facts, Mr. Speaker, I must ask the minister if the matter is being considered. If he has no special report to make at this moment, why then does he mislead public opinion, stating that it would cost many millions of dollars? Does this statement to the effect that it would cost millions spring from his own imagination? Is this merely a figure he made up, or does he really have true and actual figures?
If he has, then let them be made known to us: let him not mislead us any longer, stating that it would cost many millions of dollars. What does that mean? And if he quotes millions, we want to know where he got those figures and what type of investigation was made. The next day, however, when he had his back to the wall, when he had to give an answer, he said:
The matter is under study continuously but I have no special report to make at this moment.
So, if the minister has nothing special to announce, why does he tell us that it would cost several millions? That is something special in itself.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that it would not cost even one million dollars more a year to keep a channel open the year-round for winter navigation on the river St. Lawrence-because there are icebreakers in sufficient numbers on the St. Lawrence to keep the channel open.
Harbours would not be involved, since the minister himself stated that last year, Montreal harbour was closed one day only. This year, I think it has not closed at all yet. The channel must be kept open and the icebreakers are available. The crews on these vessels
11930	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion are paid for the winter season; various supplies, the oil and fuel to operate these boats the mechanics in charge of maintenance have also been paid. The only thing required now is to order the icebreakers to do their job, instead of impeding them as is currently the case.
I say to the minister that if he is unable to give us exact figures, let him refrain from misleading public opinion by quoting figures at random. On the other hand, if he has exact figures, he should not keep on repeating that it would cost millions. Let him tell us exactly how much it would cost, and where his figures come from; whether a study has been made; whether engineers and competent investigators have inquired about the extra cost.
The minister might, at the same time, tell us how the additional cost is arrived at, since our icebreakers are already available in sufficient numbers, since the Russians are sending their own icebreakers to help us out; their icebreaking ships are being sent to do the work of the Department of Transport. The hon. Minister of Transport is perfectly aware that foreign ships are doing the work of his department on the St. Lawrence and on the seaway during the winter.
On December 19, 1966, as reported on page 11352 of Hansard, the minister said:
-I believe the government is pursuing the right course in doing nothing at the present time to accelerate icebreaking activities, and in doing nothing to impede navigation. Those owners of ships who want to take the risks of plying these waters in winter are not impeded in any way.
Then they are the ones who do the work. Russian icebreakers, especially Russian freighters, are all equipped for such conditions. Therefore, let the minister tell us exactly how many millions it would cost. Not in millions of dollars, but the exact amount of additional costs. Where did the minister take those figures? Could he table in the house the report of the investigation he ordered, to state it would cost millions more? We want to know the facts, to obtain reports. We are no longer satisfied with the mere statement of the minister, because it is too vague. Millions of dollars, what does that mean? Nobody knows. Let him tell us exactly what is the situation and stop making vague statements. We shall then be satisfied with his answer.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon.
[Mr. Gregoire.i
DEBATES	January 17. 1967
member could have chosen a happier day to raise this question, because my hon. friend the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner) is making a speech on this subject this evening in Montreal and is announcing that a further stage in the study of the very difficult problems connected with the ship channel in the St. Lawrence is, as I said the other day, under way. While that study is progressing, most of us realize that he who gives an exact figure is a very courageous man. When you hire some experts to tell you how much money a project is going to cost, you are rather silly to try to give an exact figure before you receive the advice of the experts.
I can tell the hon. gentleman that 100 million will not be enough to assure an adequate channel for winter navigation. As the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) pointed out earlier this session, there is no problem about the channel of the river as far as Trois-Rivieres. But it would be absolutely impossible, with the channel through Lac St. Pierre in the state it now is, to have winter navigation on the scale that exists in the summertime. Indeed the channel is no longer really adequate for the summer traffic, much less the winter traffic. That is why these studies are being carried on on the most urgent basis.
In my view the whole system of the St. Lawrence River and the lakes is the most precious natural asset we Canadians have, and we do not want to make a mess of that asset. It is very important that when we improve the channel between Montreal and Trois-Rivieres we do it properly and do not put in works that will make the situation worse rather than better.
This is why we will have a full-scale model of the whole river from Montreal to the gulf, on which all kinds of tests with models of improvements can be carried out, so that when we do start spending at least 100 million, and probably a good deal more, we will have a result which will be satisfactory. I said the other day, and I repeat, that in respect of those vessels which want to take advantage of the icebreaking that has to be done in order to prevent flooding no one is putting any obstacle in their way. But if there was any attempt-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The time allotted to the minister has now expired.
January 17, 1967



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-LOUIS SICOTTE -REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF TRIALS

Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, I directed the following question to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson):
Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, and since his parliamentary assistant does not yet seem to have been appointed, I shall direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister, to whom I gave notice of my question yesterday.
Are the justice department and the government in receipt of a petition signed by a certain Louis Sicotte who is seeking a review of his two trials for allegedly having been forced under duress to plead guilty and to sign a false affidavit.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it will be possible to give a definite answer to the house tonight and if the R.C.M.P. will be instructed to investigate the matter. But, whatever the purport of the statement, I wish to appeal to the Canadian government and particularly to its legislators to pass efficient legislation protecting human dignity and the respect of the individual.
I do not know personally whether a certain Louis Sicotte is guilty or not, whether he speaks the truth or not. I am not concerned with this point. But if it were true that Canadian policemen brutalize prisoners in order to extort a confession from them, the laws of a civilized country would necessarily have to denounce such methods and the authors of such atrocities. Justice cannot be done where individuals are persecuted and their rights flouted.
The federal bill of rights lays down very worthy principles but, because of the complexity of our political system, the protection and exercise of civil rights and freedoms should more properly come under provincial authority.
It would therefore be urgent that provincial governments should legislate as soon as possible and ratify a provincial act on human rights, so that our citizens can enjoy a more obvious and efficient protection. The federal bill of rights has remained symbolic until now. It expresses the wish that the basic rights of the individuals shall be respected. I quote a part of section 2, chapter 44, assented to 10th August 1960, of the Revised Statutes of Canada:
Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an act of the parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to
(a)	authorize or effect the arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile of any person:
(b)	impose or authorize the imposition of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment;
(c)	deprive a person who has been arrested or detained
(i)	of the right to be informed promptly of the reason for his arrest or detention,
(ii)	of the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, or
(iii)	of the remedy by way of habeas corpus for the determination of the validity of his detention and for his release if the detention is not lawful;
(d)	authorize a court, tribunal, commission, board or other authority to compel a person to give evidence if he is denied counsel, protection against self crimination or other constitutional safeguards;
(e)	deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations;
It behoves more particularly to the provinces to establish standards for the protection of civil freedoms and rights.
It would therefore be important that the government should inquire into the facts and recommend to whom it may concern to act rapidly, because the whole field of individual liberties, democracy and justice is at stake.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, it would be very difficult for anyone in this house to disagree with the very broad principles outlined by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard). In fact, he simply reiterated the responsibility we have here in Ottawa to protect and respect the rights of the individual and human dignity.
I do not agree with him when he says that human rights and our whole judicial system are purely symbolic. Over the years we have had the bill of rights and I think that we must be proud of our judicial system. That does not mean of course that isolated incidents cannot happen, that infractions cannot occur in public bodies, federal as well as provincial, but in general I feel that it is doing the people a disservice to imply that we only pay lip service to the protection of the rights of individuals.
As far as the Sicotte case is concerned, what needs to be established is the role of the federal government in that regard. In fact, an application for a new trial under section 596 of the criminal code has been received from Louis Sicotte's lawyers. It deals with
11932	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion two charges: setting a fire and conspiring to do so. Mr. Sicotte pleaded guilty to both charges on December 6, 1966, in Montreal and he was given a suspended sentence.
The reasons given to justify the application, particularly those of threats and brutal treatment toward Mr. Sicotte, seem to deal with criminal proceedings still pending against 15 people including 12 police officers. In my opinion, it would not be appropriate in the circumstances to grant that request for a new trial as long as those criminal proceedings are not over.
In any event, it is customary for ministers of justice not to use the extraordinary procedures of section 596 of the Criminal Code as long as the claimants have not exhausted the ordinary legal means at their disposal.
I have been informed that to date Mr. Sicotte has made no representations to have this matter reviewed by the Quebec court of appeal which, under its rules for criminal appeals, could grant him a further extension of the time limit for filing an appeal.
And, Mr. Speaker, I have advised Mr. Sicotte's counsel accordingly by a letter under today's date.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL-TRAIL, B.C.- REQUEST FOR STOP BY CENTENNIAL TRAIN

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On
January 13, Mr. Speaker, I addressed the following question to the Secretary of State, which was based on a letter I received from a prominent Liberal in my constituency, a most progressively minded person:
He and many others in my riding-let me say my approach to this question is completely nonpartisan-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?
At that point, Mr. Speaker, you exercised the authority of your office to nip my curiosity in the bud. As I said, this question was based on this letter, as well as other complaints I have received from my constituency. This well known Liberal has written to the Prime Minister about the situation because he is concerned and interested.
According to the program of the train in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, I note that it will be in Victoria January 9 to 16; Nanaimo,

DEBATES	January 17. 1967
January 17 to 19; Vancouver, at the C.P.R. station, January 21 to 26; Vancouver, Canadian National station, January 27 to February 1; Chilliwack, February 2 to 3; Kamloops, February 4 to 6; Kelowna, February 7 to 8; Castlegar, February 10 to 11; Cranbrook, February 12 to 13; Prince Rupert, February 16 to 17; Prince George, February 18 to 21. Including the two stops in Vancouver, there are some ten stops in the province of British Columbia.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I know I have the full support of the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. There is no stop at Revelstoke, although the last spike in the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway was driven at Craigellachie a few miles west of Revelstoke. We both regret that this historic incident was overlooked and the train will not stop at Revelstoke. There is no stop at Nelson, the commercial metropolis of Kootenay West, and there is no stop at Trail. However the train is to stop at Castlegar, some 20 miles from Trail and there is a railway line connecting both points.
There is great interest in this train, particularly amongst the younger people of my constituency. I am very pleased to see that. This arrangement means that there will be quite a number of people in Kootenay West who will have to travel 150 miles to visit this train, in some cases over quite narrow and mountainous roads. The great majority of people in my constituency will have to travel anywhere from 25 to 30 miles. This is a great inconvenience to them. As I have said before, people have expressed their concern and have asked me to raise the question in the house to seek an explanation. I shall look forward to a reply from the parliamentary secretary concerning the circumstances surrounding this itinerary, so that I can forward it to my very interested constituents.


Mr. J. B. Slewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Let me begin by giving the hon. member something of an explanation, Mr. Speaker. I am told that in November, 1964, a representative of the commission endeavoured to locate a suitable site at Trail for a visit by the confederation train, but that no site was found in Trail which met all the requirements established by the commission, by the provincial government, and by the two railway companies. Consequently an alternative site at Castlegar was selected. I must tell the hon. member that I have not had a chance to ask what the various criteria were
January 17. 1967	COMMONS
as laid down by the commission, the provincial government, and the two railway companies.
I do not want to desist, Mr. Speaker, without trying to give the hon. member some consolation.
Those of us who come from eastern Nova Scotia, from Antigonish, Guysborough, Pictou, Inverness, and Richmond counties, hoped fondly that the confederation train would pay us a visit. We hoped that the train would stop at centres such as New Glasgow, or Antigonish, or in the Strait of Canso area. I am not making a maiden speech, so I cannot regale the house with the historic qualifications of these places for such a visit. But when the train itinerary came out we learned that it would visit Truro, Sydney, Halifax, Yarmouth, Kentville, and Amherst. It will make six stops in Nova Scotia during 18 days in October, 1967. In the case of British Columbia
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion I understand there will be 11 stops during 44 days. Of course the hon. member will admit that Nova Scotia's history is somewhat longer than British Columbia's.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Oh?


John B. Stewart: We shall see, it is true, a confederation caravan, but we should have liked to see the confederation train. In eastern Nova Scotia we assume that sound, objective considerations determined the itinerary that has been established. I have not seen an exposition of these considerations but I hope, Mr. Speaker, on the principle that misery loves company, that the hon. member is consoled to some small degree.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am consoled by the hon. member's misery.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Wednesday, January 18, 1967