1967-01-12

Mr. Speaker:: A suggestion has been made that special reprints be ordered of yesterday's Hansard containing speeches made by hon. members relating to the birthday anniversary of Canada's first Prime Minister. If the house agrees, I will be pleased to order reprints for the convenience of hon. members.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to raise a question of privilege touching some information which was given to the house yesterday in relation to my notice of motion for the production of papers No. 191 which related to correspondence between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and any other person, group or organization, excepting any other department or agency of government.
In dealing with this motion the Associate Minister of National Defence said, as reported on page 11664 of Hansard:
I wish to inform the hon. member that there have been no correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or any official thereof and any other person, group or organization relating to the application of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code or the deferment or suspension of any part thereof. Therefore I suggest to the hon. member that he might wish to withdraw his motion.
This I did. Subsequent to that, this morning, it came to my attention that there is certain correspondence, to which I should like to refer briefly. I have here a copy of a memorandum dated July 6, 1965, signed by one Guy Coderre. The address at the top of the memo is "Vice president, administration, Ottawa", of the C.B.C. and it is addressed to all the staff. The first paragraph reads as follows:
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
With the introduction of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code effective July 1st, 1965, it is
important that you be made aware of its implications on your conditions of employment with the C.B.C.
I have also a letter signed by one Clive B. McKee, director of industrial and talent relations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, dated August 24, 1965 and addressed Mr. H. W. Sedgwick, Canadian vice president of I.A.T.S.E. While specific reference is not made in this letter to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code in those words, the second paragraph in the letter states that the corporation has applied to the Department of Labour for deferment of the act, and the implication is that that is the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.
I have another letter dated October 13, 1965 signed by Mr. C. T. Kelley, assistant director of industrial and talent relations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, addressed to the same Mr. Sedgwick of I.A.T.S.E. In this letter specific reference is made to the code in the following words:
I am now able to confirm that, effective July 1, 1965, contract employees who work on a statutory holiday will be granted another day off in lieu, in accordance with section 31 of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.
Finally, Mr. Speaker. I have a memorandum from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation signed by Mr. D. J. van Bommel dated December 17, 1965 referring to a legal opinion they had received stating that certain people were not employees under the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, and under the circumstances were not covered by the code.
Based upon that, Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is that there was erroneous information given to the house yesterday. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the question of the refusal to produce the documents referred to in notice of motion for production of papers No. 191 be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.


Mr. Speaker:: Before considering the motion proposed by the hon. member for Skeena a decision would have to be made by the Chair as to whether there is here a prima facie case of privilege. I would think it might be advisable to give the minister responsible, who is not in the house this afternoon, an opportunity to study these representations
11690	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry and comments which have just been made by the hon. member for Skeena, and that the matter be allowed to stand in the meantime.



VACANCIES

Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice, pursuant to section 10 of the House of Commons Act, that a vacancy has occurred in the representation of the House of Commons for the electoral district of Hull, in the province of Quebec, by reason of the death of Mr. Alexis Caron, the member therefor.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice pursuant to section 10 of the House of Commons Act that a vacancy has occurred in the representation of the House of Commons for the electoral district of Sudbury, in the province of Ontario, by reason of the death of Mr. David Rodger Mitchell, the member therefor.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether in a reported statement of the Secretary of State-certain matters were averred by her regarding the return, as it were, of the prodigal son, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon)-she was speaking government policy when she said:
I always thought he was the glue who made us a team...
We were just a collection of individuals before he came hack into the cabinet.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think I shall let the Secretary of State deal with the matter herself on her return.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a sticky question. I hope the minister will be able to deal with it.



CAPE BRETON-LEGISLATION RESPECTING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question about the announcement he made

DEBATES	January 12, 1967
on December 29 concerning the program for assisting the coal industry in Cape Breton. Is it the government's intention to bring down legislation dealing with the matter at the present session, or is that being left until the new session later in 1967?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we hope the negotiations will have been concluded in time to bring down legislation dealing with that part of the agreement which requires legislation. We hope that will be during this session.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister if, prior to that, there will be any opportunity for the government to report on the program, or if there will be any discussion of the various proposals contained in the Prime Minister's statement of December 29.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure now whether there would be that opportunity, but I shall look into that point.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has he any word regarding the outcome of the federal power commission hearings and the application of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines that the commission has been considering in recent weeks?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisier of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The case is progressing interestingly. The examiner will receive written arguments-I think it is on the 17th of this month-and will then hear oral presentation on the 24th if my memory is correct. We hope this means that he will then be in a position to make a decision with respect to the future of this application.

Mr. Speaker, I did not elaborate sufficiently in my answer to the hon. member for Red Deer a moment ago, and with your permission I will add to what I said.
The federal power commission by an order of December 23 remanded the proceedings to the presiding examiner, with the direction that there be incorporated in the record the documents tabled in this house with regard to
January 12, 1967	COMMONS
the Great Lakes matter, and subsequently-provided to the commission by Great Lakes.
The examiner, in keeping with the commission's order, has given all parties until January 17 to file any motions, requests, etc. as a preliminary to a conference on January 24 which it is hoped may result in the establishment of a timetable for whatever proceedings the examiner may, in the circumstances, find to be appropriate. My hope remains the same.



EXPO '67 REPORTED DISCRIMINATION IN HIRING PRACTICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce as he is the minister reporting to parliament for Expo '67. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a letter in today's Montreal Gazette alleging discrimination, in the hiring practices at Expo '67, against English speaking Canadians? What action has the minister taken to investigate this matter?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, my attention has just been drawn to this by the hon. member. I thank him for doing so. This is the first I have known of it. I shall take his question as notice and look into the matter.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry and relates to the serious problem of air pollution. Sir, once again representatives of the motor vehicle industry in Canada have stated that if there are no regulations in Canada, as in the United States, relating to clear air passages in cars, this feature will only be offered to Canadians as an extra cost option. Will the minister make representations to the motor vehicle industry and report back to the house as soon as possible on this state of affairs?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to discuss this problem with the motor vehicle manufacturers.
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY



STEPS TO MEET TRADE DEFICIT WITH UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the report from the United States commerce department in Washington that a Canadian economic slowdown is anticipated, but that "United States exports to Canada, which rose at a phenomenal 20 per cent in the first nine months of
1966,	should make further gains in 1967", will the minister advise what he intends to do to meet this ever rising trade deficit between Canada and the United States?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the course of the Canadian economy is not determined by any report written in the United States. It is determined by significant economic factors in Canada, which point to a good year in
1967.



SKIING-WINNING OF CHAMPIONSHIP BY NANCY GREENE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the right hon. Prime Minister would wish to comment on the achievements of Canada's national ski team, particularly the magnificent performance of Canada's Nancy Greene, who hails from Rossland in Kootenay West and who has outclassed the world's skiing elite to win her third international ski championship in Europe during the past week. I must say, before the Prime Minister answers or comments, that I was particularly touched when they remembered their ancient backwoods member of parliament by sending him a Christmas card signed by all members of the team.
Righf Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
I am glad to deal with the question asked by the ancient, backwoods member. I am sure all members of the house have read with great pleasure of the skiing triumphs of Miss Nancy Greene.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: She is not only a great skier and a constituent of the hon. member for Kootenay West, but a fine young lady. I hope she will continue these triumphs, and that at the end of the season she will be the international champion.
January 12, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



NOVA SCOTIA-TRANSFER OF COAL OPERATIONS TO CROWN CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: My question is for the Prime Minister. Is the right hon. gentleman in a position today to reply to questions I posed to him on Monday last with regard to the large scale lay-off of workers at the DOSCO steel plant, and a communication sent to the Prime Minister subsequently by the president of St. Francis Xavier University, Dr. Malcolm MacLellan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did get the telegram and I replied to it. I am sorry I do not have the reply at hand. I will have it with me tomorrow, and perhaps I shall be able to deal with the hon. member's question then.


John George Diefenbaker: In connection with the same matter, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he received any communication from Mr. Frank Maclnnis, president of the federation of farmers and businessmen of Inverness county. Whether he has or not, will he give consideration to their request that having regard to the hardships and poverty endured for years by displaced miners and their families in Inverness county, where no other opportunity for employment of any kind exists, the government, in the appointment of members of the crown corporation, will see to it that a resident of the county of Inverness is appointed as one of the directors of that corporation in order that the views of Inverness county may receive full consideration?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not certain whether I have received the telegram in question. I will be glad to look into the matter and reply tomorrow. Meanwhile, as the right hon. gentleman knows, a very wide ranging program of economic and industrial development in the area is contemplated, and I am sure all the inhabitants of the area will benefit from it. As to representation on the board of the corporation as requested in the telegram, I will be glad to look into this aspect.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: My supplementary question is related to the question asked by my hon. friend from Cape Breton North and Victoria. I would ask the Prime Minister whether the negotiations about which he spoke, involving the take over

of the Dominion Coal Company for a fixed price or in accordance with whatever other arrangements might be made, could not be extended so as to take over DOSCO itself, since the Hawker-Siddeley group paid such a small price for the complex in the beginning. By taking over DOSCO and establishing a crown corporation the transfer by DOSCO of the steel operation from its present location to Quebec might be avoided. The company is using the situation as a springboard for transferring the whole operation-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breion South):: Would the right hon. gentleman consider the purchase of DOSCO as a unit in order to maintain the steel operation where it now is, rather than provide a springboard for the transfer to Quebec?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a far reaching question involving government intervention in industry, and one which I certainly do not wish to answer on the orders of the day. It is too important to deal with in this way. There will be an opportunity to discuss this whole matter before long in connection with legislation, or even earlier. This will be one of the aspects of the question that will be considered.


Robert Muir: Supplementary to the answer given by the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, he stated that there will be an opportunity for discussion in regard to negotiations, decisions, far reaching programs and so on. Am I to understand this also includes what is to be done for the Sydney steel workers at DOSCO? I assume that when he previously mentioned taking over private industry, that pertained to the coal industry. Does he mean this is going to have an effect on the steel industry also?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, any program of industrial development will include the whole area and all industry, and any discussion of this matter would naturally include discussion of economic and industrial development generally.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As
a supplementary question, last Monday I asked the Prime Minister if in setting up the crown corporation to deal with the coal industry he would give some thought to the steel industry, particularly if there is any continued phasing out of the steel industry in Cape Breton? He stated that this was to apply solely to the coal industry. Could we have some
January 12, 1967

assurance now that the government will give consideration to the question of the steel industry at the same time legislation is brought down to deal with the coal industry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the program that I have been talking about deals primarily with the coal industry and industrial development and economic development in the area, and all factors that concern economic and industrial development will be under consideration.


Malcolm MacInnis: The
negotiations that the government is going to enter into will be with Dominion Coal, but will the Prime Minister keep in mind that this also concerns DOSCO and the assets of Dominion Coal? Would he review the matter to see if it would be legal for the government to take over DOSCO instead of just Dominion Coal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am quite aware of the relationship between the two, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Could the minister advise the house what progress is being made by the National Energy Board in negotiations with its opposite numbers in the United States government regarding the setting of progressively increasing targets for the sale of gas and oil to the United States market year by year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Great progress, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, could the minister give us a little more information than just the bland general answer "great progress?"


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is a fairly general question to be dealt with on orders of the day but I might say, as the hon. member knows very well, that this is an annual rite. Each year the Canadian government presents its case in Washington; we are preparing that case now and we will be presenting it to the Americans soon.
23033-740J
Inquiries of the Ministry EDUCATION



TORONTO-POSSIBLE CLOSING OF SCHOOLS FOR IMMIGRANT CHILDREN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the minister received a communication from the chairman of the Toronto board of education in relation to the possible early closing of English language schools for immigrant children? If so, has the government considered or will it consider financial assistance to prevent this closing of schools which are so important for these youngsters who have come to Canada?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember having received such a communication from the chairman of the school board. I shall check into this and possibly may be able to give an answer tomorrow.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can the minister elaborate on press reports that he will be making a statement on the Carrothers commission report some time in mid-February? If so, will this statement be made by the minister in the Territories, possibly through the medium of the C.B.C. northern service?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can do anything at this time other than reiterate what I have already said. I hope to make an announcement with respect to the adoption of those portions of the Carrothers report which we can embrace at once, and with respect to the appointment of a new commissioner for the Northwest Territories, within a month's time. It is my hope that I will make that announcement within the Territories.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Could the minister tell us whether at that time he will also designate the new capital of the Northwest Territories. This is a question I asked quite some time ago.


Arthur Laing: That decision will be announced at that time also.
11694	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: 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:: Order. It would seem that this question is of a very special nature and I believe it should more properly be entered on the order paper.


Maurice Allard: I shall bring it up at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-REQUEST FOR CLEMENCY FOR JAILED UNION LEADERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Is he considering granting additional clemency to Mr. Paddy Neal and Tom Clark, the two trade unionists who went back to jail following the Christmas period? I do not know whether you would call it a recess, but these two persons were released for the Christmas period. Would the minister consider granting additional clemency and releasing them from jail immediately?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: The
case involving the two gentlemen mentioned by the hon. member is under active consideration.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I had intended addressing to the Minister of Finance. In his absence, because of the nature of the question perhaps I might direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister. Would the government reconsider its decision to permitting the sale of the

DEBATES	January 12, 1967
$20 gold centennial pieces only in the expensive sets at a price of $40 each, and permit people to purchase them individually? I ask the question because a great many members have had requests that they be permitted to purchase them at their face value.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to take the matter into consideration and discuss it with my hon. friend the Minister of Finance.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I think I should direct either to the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wonder if I could be informed whether there is an approximate date for the next meeting of the Canada-United States interparliamentary committee, and if so where that committee meeting will take place.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My understanding is that this is a question which should be directed to the Speaker. Perhaps the hon. member would wish to do so in writing. As I understand it the question concerns the Canada-United States interparliamentary group. If the hon. member will get in touch with Mr. Speaker that information will be given.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Now that the government has made arrangements to purchase and import 2J million pounds of New Zealand butter, would the minister assure the house that when this butter is sold to the Canadian housewife it will be labelled in such a way as to state the country of origin? Will he also assure the house that it will in no way jeopardize the high quality of Canadian butter?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, this butter will be up to Canadian standards. I think it will be sold entirely on the west coast. The amount of butter being imported is in fact sufficient only for two days' normal consumption in Canada. In respect of the matter of labelling, I will be
January 12, 1967

glad to take that portion of my hon. friend's question as notice.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Will this butter be sold at stabilized Canadian prices?


John James Greene: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he can give us an indication of how much more butter will be imported this year.


John James Greene: At the present time this is the only plan for immediate importation. If more is needed in order to protect the stability of prices and supply of the product quality for the benefit of both the consumers and the farmers, more will be imported later. To the best of my knowledge, however, this is the only plan for importation at the present time.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. Would the minister inform us how soon we may expect the government to honour its commitment and pay to the fishermen of the Atlantic provinces the subsidy promised for the construction of boats in the 35 to 45 foot class?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, all applications for subsidies in respect of either the 35 or 45 foot class are being looked into and are being paid as soon as it is determined that they meet the requirements for the subsidy payment.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with the urgent matter of strikes under federal jurisdiction. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether the task force set up to make recommendations in respect of improving government-management-labour relations legislation has been given a specific date by which it is to report its findings.
Inquiries of the Ministry question. No specific date has been set for the task force to report. The urgency of the matters referred to them has been drawn to their attention, however, with the request that they report as quickly as possible. As I said previously, I doubt whether we will have a comprehensive report for at least a year, but it may be, and I would so hope, that we will have an interim report in the meantime.



COMMUNIST CHINA-ASSURANCE OF PAYMENT FOR WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the political unrest in China at the present time has the government received a satisfactory assurance which guarantees payment for the wheat being sold to that country.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will remember that this question was asked on Monday last. I do not think there is anything I can add to it.



THE MINISTRY


[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 Prime Minister. In view of the statement he made on Monday may I ask whether he is ready to indicate to the house the duties which are to be assigned to the new Minister without Portfolio? In particular, can he say whether the new minister will have any responsibility relating to consumer affairs?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not in a position to add anything to what I said last Monday, which I believe was nothing.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I should like
Transport. Board has can extend


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: to address to the Minister of Mr. Speaker, the task force was set up by the Inasmuch as the Ontario Municipal Prime Minister, but I think I can answer the ruled that the town of Port Credit
January 12, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry its municipal boundary one mile into lake Ontario, and since that town has announced that it wishes to oversee the installation oi water pipe lines, is the Department of Transport abdicating its authority under the Navigable Waters Protection Act in this matter, as the Department of Public Works did?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think I would have to seek legal advice before I attempted to answer this question. I will be glad to do so.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. May I ask whether the minister is aware of the statement which emanated from a session of the regional advisory committee on Indian affairs in the maritimes to the effect that more concern is being shown toward animals to see that they are properly fed and sheltered than to the Indians of Canada. Would he cause an investigation to be carried out to ascertain the reason for the aforementioned statement?


Arthur Laing: Well, Mr. Speaker, words are easy; I do not know where these words originated. A very great number of things are being done at the present time to improve the situation of the Indians. A very large sum of money has been voted by the house for this purpose. I think we are making some very good progress indeed.


Robert Muir: In view of what the minister has said would he have an investigation carried out in the maritime provinces to ascertain the reason such a statement would come from a regional commission of this type?


Arthur Laing: Yes; I certainly will be interested in finding out who made the statement and to what he was referring.



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barneit (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of


Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises from an invitation I received from the secretary of the Canadian council of resource ministers to attend in Montreal the reshowing of the National Film Board's film which was shown at the pollution conference last fall.
I should like to ask the minister whether he could arrange to have this film shown on Parliament Hill so members of parliament would have an opportunity of seeing for themselves this dramatic presentation of pollution conditions and their consequences in Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will make inquiries in this regard, but let me correct the hon. member's impression. The film was not made by the National Film Board, which is a great institution; it was made by Crawley Films.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether he can make a report to the house regarding the progress of the investigation by the R.C.M. Police into the activities of the Hudson's Bay Company in tampering with the mail.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the R.C.M.P. have interviewed some people and reports have been made and turned over to the Postmaster General. I believe he will be taking appropriate action as a result of those reports.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether he cares to relate to the house what is taking place.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: We have not as yet received the report from the R.C.M.P., Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a long way from there to there.


Frank Howard: May I ask another supplementary question, though I do not know to whom I should direct it. Would the Prime Minister care to receive some documentary evidence I have which proves that the Hudson's Bay Company has conducted itself in a criminal way by tampering with the mail and by altering cheques?
January 12, 1967



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Following the report handed to the cabinet concerning grievances raised by the C.N.T.U. ten months ago with regard to the Canada Labour Relations Board, is the right hon. Prime Minister now in a position to make the statement he promised in the house last December 21, as recorded on page 11460 of Hansard. I quote:
I sincerely hope when we reassemble I will be able to make a more definitive statement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this matter was heard by the Canada Labour Relations Board on Monday. The decision by the chairman of that board has been reserved, and I do not think it would be proper for me to make any statement while the matter is still under consideration by that board.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and relates to his remarks to the house during the question period on Monday regarding the possibility of special commemoration of the new flag by a new public holiday. Is the Prime Minister giving consideration to the adoption of Gordon Sinclair's suggestion that February 15 be named as a new public holiday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the matters I have on the agenda for discussion with the Secretary of State as soon as she returns.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to add to the agenda for that discussion, but I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Now that he and his staff have successfully delivered all the Christmas and New Year's mail, would it be possible for them to arrange to
Transportation
deliver the subject matter of notice of motion for production of papers No. 182, which was passed by this house on November 16 of last year?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I will look into that, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 10, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-231, to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions-Mr. Pickersgill-Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order, please. When the committee rose on Tuesday, January 10, 1967, clause 19 of the bill was about to be discussed, clauses 1, 16, 17 and 18 having been stood.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I understand that clause 17 was stood so I could give some consideration to various points which had been raised. I have now had an opportunity to give that consideration and to consult with my officials. If we could revert to clause 17 I would be very happy to communicate to the committee what I have learned.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree now to revert to clause 17?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 17-Committees.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should deal first with the point raised by the member for Edmonton-Strathcona. In doing so I must confess to the committee that I was perhaps not as familiar as I really should have been-though I am not learned in the law and have never practiced before the Board of Transport Commissioners-with the details of the procedure before that board.
It is within the powers of the board as it now exists, and will therefore be within the powers of the new commission, to review and even to rehear any case before or after it renders a decision. I understand it is also within the powers of the governor in council on appeal to ask to have a rehearing or a review. Therefore the very laudable object the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona had in mind is met by the law as it exists. Perhaps I should have known that, but the

January 12, 1967
Transportation
fact is I did not. Apparently that deals with the first point.
The main discussion we had on clause 17 related to the question of whether there should be a larger quorum for the new kind of review, which is and will be of a somewhat more formal character than is provided in clause 17 subclause 4, because this is a new kind of subject matter which would come before this commission. It could not have come before the Board of Transport Commissioners which does not now have jurisdiction over many modes of transportation.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The hon. member for Springfield suggested that there should be a larger quorum for these hearings than would be required for the hearings of one of the committees, and the hon. member for York South raised a question which I confess quite frankly-I do not apologize for this, I just confess it-I did not understand because I am not a lawyer. However, I think I have now been sufficiently instructed to understand it. The hon. member for York South seemed to imply that because it was provided in this case that a review could not be conducted by the committee which had heard the case originally no member of that committee could sit on the review. I have had the best legal advice I could obtain on the subject and was informed that all that the provision means in law is that the particular committee could not conduct the review but that any members of the committee, even those who were at the original hearing, are not prohibited from participating in the review. They would do so not as members of the committee but as members of the commission. I was also told that it had been a long-standing practice of the Board of Transport Commissioners in its hearings and reviews and it has frequently happened that some of those who have participated in an original hearing have also participated in a review.
The hon. member for Acadia raised a point, which was also raised by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and the hon. member for Peace River, that it might be difficult to constitute an appropriate review without having some of the members of the original committee participate in the review because they would have some expertise or at any rate greater knowledge of the particular mode of transport about which the review was to be conducted. I had thought that it would not be appropriate for those persons who had heard the case in the first instance to take part in such a review. I was told that there is a

distinction in law between a review and an appeal, that these reviews are not appeals and that there is not only no reason why someone who took part in the original hearing should not sit in review but that in many cases it is highly desirable that they should do so, and that this would be found to have been the practice of the board over the years. When one reflects on it I think it becomes quite apparent why this would seem to be appropriate.
I believe that this disposes of all the points except the one raised by the hon. member for Springfield. I would agree at once that in the case of a review under clause 17 subclause (4) it would certainly be necessary to have a larger number of commissioners sitting than would have sat on the original hearing. This would almost be essential, particularly as it would be desirable to have taking part in the review members of some of the other committees and particularly of the one related to the other mode of transport which was asking for the review. Therefore the only question that seems to be left of those that were raised is whether parliament should prescribe a higher quorum for such reviews than is done for the Board of Transport Commissioners at the present time.
I am told that on balance, in such reviews as have been conducted by the Board of Transport Commissioners over the years, it has always been the case that a large number of commissioners have sat than at the original hearing. In the new legislation and in the law as it now stands it is provided that the commission will have authority to set a larger quorum for any particular purpose if it wishes to do so and also that the Governor in Council can prescribe such larger quorum if he feels that the commission has not made adequate provision for such a review.
I find that this point was very carefully considered by the legal advisers of the Board of Transport Commissioners, of the Air Transport Board and the law officers of the Department of Justice, and that after they had weighed the pros and cons it was their view that the provisions in this regard, which had all been very carefully thought out, were adequate to meet all these needs. It was felt that an attempt to prescribe, in some particular circumstance, another quorum was not really necessary and that in view of the law and the practice in jurisprudence there would be no real doubt as to what would happen in fact.
January 12, 19G7



In view of the desire which I think practically all hon. members have expressed to keep the commission as flexible as possible, and in view of the point that I think I made earlier, in reply to the initial observations of the hon. member for Springfield, I am sure it would be the intention of any government, even of the government of which his friends might form a part some day, to appoint responsible adults to such a commission. In view of this it was not considered really necessary, though it would not be harmful perhaps, to attempt to make more detailed prescriptions. On balance I think I am satisfied with these arguments, which I can assure hon. members are not at all political considerations as I demonstrated amply the other evening by the very considerable lack of knowledge that I displayed on that occasion. However, in view of the advice that I have been given by the draftsmen it would not appear to me and I would not feel disposed in all the circumstances, because I think I have met every one of the considerations which were raised in quite a reasonable way on the advice that I have received from quite responsible officers, to recommend that we make any further changes to clause 17.


Mr. Schreyer:: I do not rise to press my suggestion further that the quorum should be increased. However, I should like the minister to clarify one small point in this connection. The bill provides that the quorum shall be as is provided in section 12 of the Railway Act. In that section the quorum is stipulated to be two, but that relates to a seven-man board. The provision now before us relates to that section of the Railway Act and applies it mutatis mutandis. Does this mean that the quorum of the 17-man commission shall be two or that it shall be in the ratio two-seventeenths to 17? I should like this point clarified. I thank the minister for his veiled offer to participate in a coalition government some day.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, the offer has seven veils. I believe that the complicated and ingenious arithmetic the hon. member has suggested is the kind he and I as laymen might suggest but it would shock the learned members of the house. I believe the minimum quorum for any purpose is two. Of course, this does not alter the power of the commission to set a higher quorum for any particular purpose at any particular time it wishes to do so.
Transportation


Melvin James McQuaid: Do I understand the minister to mean that the Governor in Council will make a regulation requiring that the majority membership of the board of review shall consist of members who did not sit on the original hearing? If this is not the case, there is not much purpose in having a review. There should be a guarantee that the majority of members of the board of review shall be members who did not sit on the original hearing. Otherwise the board would really be reviewing its own decision. Have we the assurance there will be an order in council passed to that effect?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not believe I said I would, but I said we could. I hope it would not be necessary. I hope the commission itself, and I think this is very much more desirable, will take care of the matter. If the Governor in Council has to do this, then I think it should be done here. I do not believe it will be necessary at all. If in any circumstances the Governor in Council comes to the conclusion that the commission is not adequately meeting the situation or is not following the practice which I am told has always been followed, then it would be competent for the Governor in Council to repair the situation.


Melvin James McQuaid: Does the minister not think it would be a safeguard to write the provision into the legislation? I know we have every confidence in the men who will be appointed, but experience has shown that unless these things are written into the regulations there is a tendency to ignore them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have already expressed the view, which is not primarily mine but which I accept, that in view of the experience in this particular situation over a long period of years it is not necessary. There might be a situation arise in which prescribed, specific rules might cause vexatious delays. In some cases the review might be of such a simple character that it could be accomplished quickly, perhaps by the addition of one person to the original two. I do not imagine that situation would likely arise, but my advice is that it would be preferable not to include any further statutory restrictions but to allow the commission to deal with situations as they arise. If it appears that the commission is not dealing adequately with such situations, there is always an appeal to the Governor in Council and the Governor in Council may, of his own motion, take the necessary remedial action. It seems to me the situation is quite thoroughly safeguarded.
Transportation


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: While we try to unravel what the minister said, may I ask if he has any information about the question to which I referred concerning an order? What happens to an order between the time it has been made and the time the appeal or review is under way? I ask this because during the committee hearings, as I recall, someone complained of hardship. I should like to know what the law is now and if there has been any change in this regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is nothing in the law now that sets aside the effect of an order while a review is being undertaken. The board has the power, if a review is required and some injury would be done by a continuation of the order, to issue a stop order. The commission would have this power too. It is felt, however, that if this were a requirement there might be vexatious demands for reviews merely to gum up the works. Experience shows that the present provision does allow the situation to be dealt with adequately. I apologize to the hon. gentleman because I had a notation on this matter but I overlooked it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Clause 19?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think we could go on with clause 18. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona asked that it be allowed to stand because clause 17 had been allowed to stand.
On clause 18-Appeal.


Mr. Howe (Wellingion-Huron):: There is a reference in this clause to a licence to operate a motor vehicle. Would it be necessary for anyone applying for one of these licences to have a provincial licence?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe you cannot operate a motor vehicle in any province in Canada without having a licence on it. There is nothing this parliament can do to change that requirement and we are not trying to change it. The reference is not to a licence to drive the vehicle but to a licence to carry on business between two provinces or between a province and a foreign country. The issuance of licences to operate vehicles is entirely a matter within provincial jurisdiction. We are not in any way purporting to deal with that. We would be dealing with a licence to permit this motor vehicle undertaking to cross provincial boundaries.


William Marvin Howe: Would it not be better to spell that out in the bill, that a

January 12, 1967
person applying for a federal licence must have a provincial licence before he applies?


John Whitney Pickersgill: His vehicle must be licensed or the provincial police will stop him from going along the roads.


William Marvin Howe: We know that when commercial vehicles go from one province to another they have to have a licence in each province. Will this rule still apply?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I imagine there is nothing we can do about that. This would be a matter entirely within provincial jurisdiction. If the provinces require it, of course it would be up to them.


William Marvin Howe: If a commercial vehicle were travelling from Halifax to Vancouver, would it have to have nine provincial licences and a federal licence?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman will appreciate that is none of our business in this house. If two provinces agree they will respect each other's licence plates, as they do for pleasure cars, that is up to them. I have only an Ontario licence on my car but if I had the time I would be able to drive it in any province. I believe the provinces require some commercial vehicles to be licensed in each province, but that is entirely a provincial matter and is not dealt with in this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 19-Regulations.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Thomas Miller Bell: Can I get
verification of my thinking from the minister? I mention this point because the minister referred to the Governor in Council with regard to clauses 17 and 18. Do I now understand that under clause 19 and clause 35, which also has to do with regulations, the commission can set its own regulations and that it is not necessary to get the approval of the Governor in Council? Am I also correct that should the Governor in Council desire to intervene and become involved as the minister suggests, the commission probably would not take this action even if it wanted to?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the commission does have the power to make its own rules. If I am wrong in this I will get legal advice and make an abject apology to the hon. member, but I think my interpretation is correct, that if these rules seem to be unjust, vexatious or anything like that the

January 12, 1967

Governor in Council could then direct the commission to change any specific rule.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 20-Annual re-port to Governor in Council.
Mr. Andras:: Mr. Chairman, at this stage of the bill I shall suggest an amendment, the effect of which will be to introduce a new clause 20 and the subsequent clauses will require to be renumbered. I hope that my explanation for this action will commend the amendment to hon. members and will receive their support.
The bill before the house defines a national transportation policy. Inherent in that policy and essential to its success is the application of the principle that each mode of transport is to compete in order that there be an economic, adequate and efficient transportation system making the best use of all available transport modes in the country.
Many representations have been made about Bill No. C-231 and I think that the standing committee on transport and communications has done an excellent job. The committee certainly heard many submissions and it has approved many amendments in order to make the bill a more effective piece of legislation. But there is one very important development in the field of transportation which I personally should like to see the bill cover more fully, and I refer to the power of one form of transport to enter another transportation field and, as it were, to buy up and control the competition.
One of the more important principles in Bill No. C-231 is that whenever competition exists in transportation that competition should work to the advantage of the people of Canada. The interplay of competition certainly produces new and better ways of moving freight. It suggests new ways of reducing costs and is a strong restraining force on freight rates. We are dealing with a bill which will establish a new pattern of growth and development for all modes of transport under federal jurisdiction, and it seems to me that to fail to include in that bill a provision which will give some safeguard to the continuance of competition would undermine the bill's objective of competition in the transportation field
I acknowledge that there are situations in which common ownership of competing modes of transport may be in the public interest. For example, 1 can see certain situations in which the use of trucks by railways, not just in urban areas for pick-up and delivery but on
Transportation
intercity routes, may definitely establish a desirable integration of services. However, I also believe that we should empower the new Canadian Transport Commission to take a look at the ability of one mode of transport to gain control of a competing mode. I believe that the commission should have the authority in the public interest to restrain any policy or action by one mode of transport which would permit it to use its economic power to gain monopolistic control and to manipulate, as it were, competitive transport media.
In the Atlantic provinces and in western Canada the issue of control of one mode of transport by another is probably of greater public import than in central Canada. The extensive network of inland waterways and transportation services such as there is in central Canada does not exist in the Atlantic provinces or in the west. In the Atlantic provinces and in the west there are not as many trucking firms to compete with the railways.
I do not think that the entry of one form of transport into another can be dealt with by attempting to turn back the clock. I would be against disrupting the present pattern of services by suggesting that any form of transport be forced to divest itself of control of facilities which to date were legitimately acquired. I think we should perhaps accept the status quo as we find it at this time, but I also believe we have to look into the future and plan for the future. In particular, we should ensure that no sudden move can be made outside the authority of the Canadian Transport Commission to change radically the composition of the Canadian transportation industry by one mode deciding on its own how much of a competing mode it will acquire. I think that one form of transport should perhaps be able to experiment and to develop services in another mode, but I do not think that the public interest of this country will be served if moves are permitted in the transportation field which will seriously affect the amount of competition between the modes.
Accordingly, with that in mind I move:
That Bill C-231 be amended
(a)	by inserting immediately after clause 19 on page 12 of the bill, as reprinted, the following: Notice of proposed Acquisition.
"20. (1) A railway company, commodity pipeline company, company engaged in water transportation, or person operating a motor vehicle undertaking or an air carrier, to which the legislative jurisdiction of parliament of Canada extends, that proposes to acquire, 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 is

January 12, 1967
Transportation
subject to the jurisdiction of parliament, shall give notice of the proposed acquisition to the commission.
Publication.
(2)	The commission shall give or cause to be given such public or other notice of any proposed acquisition referred to in subsection (1) as to it appears to be reasonable in the circumstances. Objection.
(3)	Any person affected by a proposed acquisition referred to in subsection (1) or any association or other body representing carriers or transportation undertakings affected by such acquisition may, within such time as may be prescribed by the commission, object to the commission against such acquisition on the grounds that it will unduly restrict competition or otherwise be prejudicial to the public interest.
Investigation and Approval by Commission.
(4)	Where objection is made pursuant to subsection (3) the commission
(a)	shall make such investigation, including the holding of public hearings, as in its opinion is necessary or desirable in the public interest; and
(b)	may approve such acquisition unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the commission that such acquisition will unduly restrict competition or otherwise be prejudicial to the public interest;
and any such acquisition, to which objection is made within the time limited therefor by the commission, is void unless approved by the commission. Construction.
(5)	Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize any acquisition of an interest in any other company that is prohibited by any act of the parliament of Canada."
(b)	by renumbering clause 20 on page 12 of the bill, as reprinted, as clause 21; and
(c)	by striking out clause 21 and the heading thereto on page 13 of the bill, as reprinted.
I have copies of the amendment in French and in English.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before you put the amendment may I say that, as must be quite apparent from the fact that I have copies of the amendment, the hon. gentleman was good enough not only to take the advice I offered the other day, as did several other hon. members, and let me know in advance that he was going to move the amendment but he also discussed its content with me. The amendment is quite acceptable to me and to the government. It is an amendment which in substance was suggested by the Canadian Trucking Association, and I think it meets with the general philosophical attitude that parliament has expressed over and over again, that we should be very chary indeed of allowing monopolies to develop if that can reasonably be avoided.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
When the amendment is put, therefore, if hon. members are disposed to accept it I can assure them as sponsor of the bill that I shall

be quite happy. I might suggest-and I make this point now to the hon. member-with reference to part (c), that part of the amendment striking out clause 21, that if the amendment is accepted I shall be moving an amendment to clause 94, where it seems appropriate to re-insert this same provision. The reason for doing it in this apparently roundabout way is that it saves renumbering the rest of the clauses in the bill. The present clause 20 would be clause 21 and we should not have to go through the action of renumbering the rest of the clauses. I thought I ought to give that explanation; otherwise hon. members would be puzzled by part (c).


Mr. Baldwin:: Might I address a question to the minister and to the hon. member proposing the amendment? Has this matter been checked to see if there is any conflict with the restrictive trade practices legislation or the Criminal Code? Is there a conflict anywhere? Is the amendment consistent with the wishes of parliament, with the carrying out of the purposes of parliament as embodied in the restrictive trade practices legislation or the various sections of acts covering restrictive trade practices? That is the point occurring to me. Looking at this matter at first blush it seems that we are moving in the right direction. It would be a great pity if this legislation were amended by a clause which subsequently is found to create conflict. Has the minister considered this matter or have his advisers considered it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did. Because of the words of this amendment, which will be recognized as quite an important one, and because the hon. gentleman gave me notice of his desire to do this when we were in committee before the Christmas recess, I asked the opinion of the draftsmen and of the law officers of the Department of Justice. I am assured that not only in their opinion is there no conflict but that the amendment is within the spirit of other legislative enactments.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Before the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond speaks may I put the motion as moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Dispense, sir.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Priiiie:: Mr. Chairman, a couple of questions come to mind in this connection. Having had no advance notice, we have not had time to study this amendment. The first
January 12, 1967

question which comes to my mind, speaking as an individual, is this. Is the intent altogether good? This amendment brings up the whole subject of bigness of corporations and how we control it. It seems to me that often we concern ourselves with bigness and try to prevent it simply because we do not control it adequately through some public agency. In many instances I can see that more efficient production, if you like, in the transport field might be brought about by major companies controlling more than one mode of transport. We could accept bigness if there were adequate public control. That is one aspect of this matter that comes to mind.
I know it is late in the day to raise it but there is also the point that the two major railway companies already own many trucking firms. In my province, and I am thinking of the area between the Okanagan valley and the Pacific coast, the major trucking lines moving fruit in that area at the present time are owned by the railway companies. Have the minister and the hon. member for Port Arthur done any research into the point I have raised? What percentage of the major - trucking firms in the country is owned by railway companies? I wish to pose those two points to the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I immediately say a word in this regard. I think there are those in the trucking industry who would suggest that we should go much farther than this amendment goes and order the railway companies to divest themselves of all their trucking operations except those-representations of this kind have been made to me by some truckers-strictly ancillary to railway operations, such as delivery trucks in a town. I do not feel that in a bill like this we would want to embark upon such a fundamental change of practice as that would involve. I do not feel I should be willing to accept an amendment that would forbid future acquisitions. There is something in what the hon. gentleman says. Sometimes it may be more efficient to have one mode of transport owned by another. The public may be able to get better service that way.
What this amendment does, and I think very effectively, is to say that whenever anyone wants a hearing, when there is notice of acquisition of one mode of transport by another, a hearing shall be held to determine whether that acquisition is in the public interest and whether that amalgamation should take place. If the commission reaches the conclusion that on balance it would be in the
Transportation
public interest to have that common ownership, it would be agreeable to the amalgamation. If the commission felt that amalgamation would create a monopoly apt to be injurious, it would not be agreeable to it.
I congratulate the hon. gentleman for having produced this amendment. It will give us not the best of both worlds but the better, one might say, of both worlds.


Thomas Miller Bell: I take it this is the amendment the minister referred to on Tuesday night?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, that is right.


Thomas Miller Bell: It was not the
minister's fault that we did not get it on Tuesday night.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nor was it the hon. gentleman's.


Thomas Miller Bell: This amendment is far-reaching in two respects. Through it, uniquely in this bill, we give the commission directions to do certain things. This cannot be wrong and we ought to consider whether other types of activity should also be controlled in this way. Frankly, I have not fully considered the matter.
The hon. member for Peace River has alluded to something that I think brings in an entirely new principle. Here a new board is being set up and we are asking it to shadow, if you like some activities now coming under other acts administered under the authority of the Department of Justice. This point ought to be considered carefully.
With these two reservations I think the amendment moves toward desirable objectives. The hon. member for Port Arthur has recognized that certain aspects of this matter cannot be retroactive. We really need more time to consider this amendment.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: I should like to say a word about the proposed amendment which, as my hon. friend from Saint John-Albert has said, has far-reaching implications. We already have a Restrictive Trade Practices Commission which concerns itself with questions of monopoly and whether or not a company is destroying competition unduly to the detriment of consumers. It is assumed in the amendment that any inroad by one mode of transportation into another field of transportation might well prove harmful to the public interest. If such an amendment is seriously contemplated now, it is too bad it was not

January 12, 1967
Transportation
enacted before the railways became involved in the trucking business to the extent which has now become evident. I am not sure whether it is harmful to the public interest for railway companies to become involved in the pipe line industry. But they are becoming interested in it, and perhaps it is right that they should do so.
In any case, this amendment does represent a departure from the normal and I suggest we should stand it for the time being. We shall be discussing this bill for another day, I would expect, and perhaps we can deal with the matter tomorrow or on Monday. In the interval we could consider whether this proposal conflicts with any provision of the Combines Investigation Act and whether it is likely to give rise to other complications.


Gerald William Baldwin: If this is going to be done the minister might give some reflection to another aspect. Subclause (3) of the new proposed clause 20 provides that any person affected by a proposed acquisition referred to in subclause (1) may object. This would appear to restrict the people who can participate in proceedings before the commission to those who are within the wording "any person affected", and I think this is probably right. One would not wish to have a multiplicity of interests before the commission at this stage. The point I should like to make is: Does the decision of the commission in this respect then become, as I suspect it will, subject to the provisions of clause 16(2)(a), which refers to a review of any act of a carrier and entitles any person to appear where that person has reason to believe there is a prejudicial effect?
The minister may see what I am trying to say in my awkward way. Let us assume this amendment is adopted and let us assume that there have been proceedings under the new clause 20 where the commission has acted and which involve a carrier enlarging his activities by absorbing another business. Does that then become an act of the carrier which is subject to review under clause 16? Does it mean that a person, meaning a much wider group of people, may challenge that this particular act is not in the public interest and thereby necessitate a further review? The minister probably sees what I am getting at. He might give some thought to it and consider it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My thought would be that it would not be necessary to go to clause 16 because any person affected would not necessarily be the other carrier. It could be a provincial government in the province in which

any such amalgamation was taking place. If a truck line in the Okanagan were being taken over by the C.P.R., I do not think the government of Nova Scotia would be a person affected. But the government of British Columbia or the municipalities in the area might be. I do not think it is necessary to rely on the public interest in clause 16 at all. They would have the right to intervene in the first instance.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister has not grasped what I have in mind. If I am correct and if this may happen, there would then be two reviews, first, the hearing by the board under clause 20 and, second, the right of review under clause 16. "Person" under 16 comprises in my view a far wider multitude of people than the persons covered in clause 20. This is the point I am making and which I am asking the minister to consider. Would he give some thought to it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure my legal advisers have been listening to the hon. gentleman, perhaps with more comprehension than I have. The suggestion that we should stand the proposed amendment is agreeable to me. Perhaps in doing so we should deal with the proposed clause 20 and pass it subject to its being amended in an automatic way if we accept this other amendment later.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is agreeable, but would the minister clarify the matter of the new numbers? We have an amendment here and are finding it difficult to fit it in. We shall have to bring it in before clause 94.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If it is a new amendment which would involve another clause I suggest tentatively, at any rate, because I can always introduce yet another amendment to do something about the numbering, that the hon. member might move any such amendment as clause 20A. This would avoid complications for the time being. If it were accepted and if it were felt that the numbering was becoming untidy, I am sure it would not be beyond the wit of the lawyers when we get to the end of the bill to move an amendment which would renumber all the clauses and get over the difficulty.


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Quebec truckers, I am pleased to speak on the amendment to clause 20. Hon. members will not be surprised, of course, by my intervention on behalf of the trucking
January 12, 1967



industry, because since I was first elected to the house, that is on February 10, 1964, I have shown here on several occasions my interest for that industry.
As early as May 27, 1964, I put on the Votes and Proceedings of the house a notice of motion which appeared at page 25 of the order paper on June 3, 1964 and read as follows:
That, In the opinion of this house, the government should not implement the recommendations of the royal commission on transportation, better known as the MacPherson commission, which suggests, among other things, that the railway companies be free to set up a trucking system.
o (4:10 p.m.)
That motion did not come up for discussion, because the time allocated to the house for consideration of notices of motion was exhausted before it could be called by the Speaker.
On April 26, 1966, I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) a question about the depreciation rate on trucks. On May 10, 1966, on the adjournment motion, I made brief representations to the Minister of Finance, asking him to reconsider maintaining the depreciation rate on trucks at 30 per cent instead of 20 per cent, as proposed in his budget speech. I can say that this intervention was successful, because the Minister of Finance revised his position on the depreciation rate on trucks and kept it at 30 per cent.
The amendment proposed by the honourable member for Port Arthur (Mr. Andras) reads as follows:
That Bill No. C-231, entitled 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
(a) by inserting immediately after clause 19 on page 12 of the bill, as reprinted, the following: Notice of proposed Acquisition.
"20, (1) A railway company, commodity pipeline company, company engaged in water transportation, or person operating a motor vehicle undertaking or an air carrier, to which the legislative jurisdiction of parliament of Canada extends, that proposes to acquire, 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 is subject to the jurisdiction of parliament, shall give notice of the proposed acquisition to the commission.
I am glad to support this amendment for, to my mind, the trucking industry is of the highest importance to the economy of the country as a whole. It represents investments of over a billion dollars and, at the present time, in the province of Quebec alone, 55,000 employees depend on it for their livelihood.
Transportation
One Canadian out of 20 works for the trucking industry. One dollar out of 13, whether in wages, in salaries or in other revenues in the field of Canadian labour, comes from transport.
It is strange to note that former federal governments, since the advent of trucking, failed to take that industry into consideration in the various laws affecting the trucking interests in the field of competition.
However, a Liberal government has finally decided to review the whole national policy on transportation, taking into account all modes of transport including the trucking industry. They should be commended for creating such a precedent and I am convinced that the trucking industry will know how to show its appreciation for this significant and important step.
The various trucking associations in the country had been requesting a new national policy on transportation for a long time. As reported in the Canadian Trucking Association Review, dated April 23, 1965, the association will ask the federal government to introduce a new federal legislation authorizing provincial control boards, controlling extra-provincial trucking, to work together as a single unit. Such a legislation would therefore maintain provincial control boards as control agencies authorized to meet legally as a joint control board to deal with requests for extra-provincial trucking.
The July 14, 1965 issue of this association's review refers to the fact that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) is carrying on his series of speeches advocating the establishment of a national transportation authority, and it says that his appeal for such authority is the first logical statement of a truly positive federal approach to national transportation problems in many years.
It seems to me it is urgent to establish a national transportation policy in Canada. Even though the province of Quebec has set the example by passing adequate legislation, the fact remains that truck transportation has developed into a coast-to-coast operation and that all that legislation must be coordinated by a federal act.
The C.T.A., or Canadian Trucking Association, is satisfied with the bill under study and the amendment under discussion, since it made representations in that direction, that is for the following reasons:
First, to put an end to the multiplicity of hearings by many provincial boards.

January 12, 1967
Transportation
Second, to remove the conflicts from one province to another because of the permits granted for the same extra-provincial company.
Third, to set forth regulations governing extra-provincial rates throughout Canada.
Fourth, to establish adequate legal control over the property transfers of extraprovincial companies.
Fifth, to put an end to the continued failure to apply the extra-provincial regulations, under the Motor Vehicle Transport Act.
In the province of Quebec particularly, the Transport Control Board supervises and controls a large number of owners of freight and passenger public transport companies.
Since the organization has already been set up, it is contemplated in the amendment to use the good offices of the boards now in existence in all provinces, for they have the experience and the qualifications to settle the problems of the trucking industry. They are the best existing organizations, and they are ready to co-operate with the federal government in the application of this transport legislation.
I am happy to point out that within Canada, Quebec now has, according to numerous public statements, the best legislation to protect the interests of both truckers and shippers. With only 11 per cent of the railroads in Canada, and with 30 per cent of the Canadian population, Quebec had to rely more heavily on highway transport. This explains the extraordinary development of this industry in that province.
The truckers associations have energetically and frequently protested against government paternalism in the shape of subsidies given to the railways. They maintain that the government should rather give subsidies to the shippers, who could then choose their own method of transport. The proposed amendment also aims to prevent intervention by the railways in the trucking industry. In a country where we extol freedom of speech, religion, movement, enterprise, the individual, private property, the press and freedom of choice with regard to political parties, we should also advocate free enterprise with regard to trucking companies and allow the various enterprises to compete freely.
Any user should be free to choose freely the method of transport he prefers. It is important that the income and expenditures of each method of transport should balance, each method of transport assuming the responsibility of its financial equilibrium. The
[Mr. Leblanc (Laurier) .1
words "freedom of choice of the user" are calling, of course, for competition, the only factor able to guarantee the user the lowest transportation rate, the conditions of a healthy competition and the financial balance of all the businesses.
That definition of free enterprise with regard to the trucking industry is supported by the "Union internationale des transports routiers" of Geneva, in its brief published in July 1962. As reported on page 13 of that document, it states:
On the other hand, the I.R.U. maintains as absolute prerequisites the two propositions hereunder which are liable to be accepted in all the economic systems, whether they are competitive or not. Prerequisite No. 1-Freedom of choice of the user.
The user must be able, in all freedom and taking into account the utilization factor which he defines for his own needs, to choose his method of transport and his transportation firm, or to decide that he will attend to the transportation himself.
Prerequisite No. 2-Financial balance.
The income and expenditures of each method of transport and each transportation firm must balance, each firm assuming the responsibility of its financial balance.
As a matter of fact, the role of the state is not to supplement private enterprise but rather to co-operate with it so as to improve the economy of the whole country. On April 20, 1966, when I commented on the budget, I made a statement of principle concerning the success of free enterprise in Canada and the need for continuation of this system in the country by adapting it to modem needs.
Here, in this country, we have the following statement made by the Newfoundland royal commission:
The C.N.R. and C.N. Transportation Limited should not be allowed to buy private trucking firms and they should not be permitted to have direct control over private trucking companies.
And, further on:
Their operations should be limited to freight transportation from one station to another and they should not be allowed to compete directly with private trucking.
Moreover, the brief submitted by the government of the province of Quebec to the royal commission on transportation in Canada, in December 1960, contains the following statement:
Section 302.
We believe that the railways should increase the efficiency of their service, trucking being for them simply a limited extension of their rail operations. But we object to the railways having control or a near monopoly of the trucking industry at the expense of the independent truckers and to the
January 12, 1967

detriment of the general public interest. As far as the province of Quebec is concerned, we already use for that purpose the provisions of the Transport Board Act (13 George VI, chapter 21, as amended, the General Regulations and amendments thereto). Section 303.
We remind the railways that their main responsibility to the Canadian people, historically, economically and socially, is to organize an efficient and economical system of railway transportation, and not to engage in the trucking industry. Consequently, we do not want them to touch the trucking industry in the province, except in certain exceptional cases, when required to fulfil efficiently their functions as railways.
Section 304.
We note the assurances given by the railways that their involvement in the trucking industry is not intended to drive out the independent truckers but rather to ensure an extension that would enable them to supply the Canadian public with a better, more adaptable and economical transport service than in the past.
Section 305.
Trucking, as a restricted complement to railway operations must not go beyond pick-up and delivery by railway-owned trucks in metropolitan centers and the principal cities.
In the United States, the railways are barred from trucking and the Financial Times of June 24, 1963 mentions, among other things: [English]
The Interstate Commerce Commission has told the C.N.R. competition, U.S. or Canadian, that no matter how short the route, it will not permit the railway to take over a truck line operating in the United States... all motor carriers in this country should be protected against rail controlled trucks. [DOT] (4:20 p.m.)

In great Britain, the 1962 Transportation Act also bars railway companies from entering the trucking field. Other countries have taken the same position: Germany, Holland, Italy, France and Mexico, among others. These countries have brought down legislation in this regard, leaving the shipping public free to choose their own method of transportation by land, thus providing true competition in the public interest. For the good of the country, it is essential that Canada should have a completely independent system of transportation by land, not only for the reasons which I have just advocated but also for labour considerations. Just imagine, Mr. Chairman, that all means of transportation in Canada-the railways, the bus and truck companies-would be controlled by the same interests, and a strike would occur. It would be a national disaster.
In concluding my comments, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call the attention of the house to the brief submitted in November, 1966, by the Canadian Trucking Association,
Transportation
Inc., to the standing committee on transport and communications with respect to Bill No. C-231. On page 14, paragraph 41, the brief mentions, among other things, under the heading "Access of railways to the trucking field", and I quote:
The independence and the competitive character oi the trucking industry are gradually disappearing. The purchase of trucking companies by the railways and the increasing importance of their trucking operations surely raises the question of future governmental policy in transportation legislation such as Bill No. C-231.
The following lines are found in paragraph 42:
This intrusion of the railways has been going on since 1946, with fluctuations by the C.P.R. between 1946 and 1948, and also in 1957-1958; in the case of the C.N.R. this dates back mostly to 1959.
In paragraph 43, we read the following:
The national transportation policy for Canada outlined in Bill No. C-231 inexorably brings the committee to study the extent to which the railways have entered the competitive trucking field and their position with respect to achieving control of the industry. We respectfully submit it is time that parliament-in view of the importance of the intrusion by the railways and the vast number of services controlled by the railway companies on the highways-went beyond high-sounding explanations concerning "co-ordinated trucking" or "integration of services".
Finally, paragraph 44 reads as follows:
The railway companies can achieve control in a given sector of the trucking industry simply by purchasing any one of six independent trucking companies, say, operating on a given line-
Mr. Chairman, I would have many other things to say but, unfortunately, I have to cut short; however, before I sit down, I would like to add that Canadian and Quebec transport companies are in favour of the new legislation, particularly with respect to the amendment presented by the member for Port Arthur and seconded by myself, and I hope that it will be supported by the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether it might be agreed that the amendment be allowed to stand and that we consider clause 20 now, subject to coming back to the amendment.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur now stand and that clauses 20 and 21 as renumbered in the reprinted version remain as 20 and 21 for the time being?


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, before we reach a decision on that, may I ask a question of the minister? There is something which is

January 12, 1967
Transportation
not very clear in my mind and perhaps is not clear in the mind of the hon. member who moved the amendment. I see here the words "to which the legislative jurisdiction of parliament of Canada extends, that proposes to acquire, directly or indirectly, an interest, by purchase, lease, merger, consolidation or otherwise". Suppose they do not want to acquire, lease or purchase but want to establish something that does not exist. In that case, would the amendment block this loophole? I should like to have the reaction of the mover of the amendment or the minister in this regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would imagine that if a railway company, for example, wanted to establish a new truck line where none existed it would have to follow the procedures which are prescribed for the purpose of establishing such new line. Whatever the law requires at the present time would be as prescribed under the motor vehicles act-I never can remember the name of the act-which now gives the provincial agencies jurisdiction on our behalf over this field. After this bill passes and after our consultations with the provinces, if at some stage in the future we propose to exercise this jurisdiction, then it would be according to whatever rules are laid down for the establishment of a new line. In the case of a pipe line which a railway wished to build, of course it would have to follow the procedures which would be laid down in this bill for a commodity pipe line. If it wished to start a new steamship line, it would have to follow whatever the law may be at the present time.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I am perfectly agreeable to the idea of having this amendment stand, but I would insist on suggesting to the minister that he study the possibility of adding after the words "that proposes" the words "to establish" and then carry on with the words "to acquire, directly or indirectly".


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be very glad to have my legal advisers look at that suggestion. I think it would be better if I do not express any view until they have done so.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment stands.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I might ask for direction at this time. I intend to move an amendment which will be new clause 20A. I am agreeable to carrying clause 20 if it is
[Mr Mongrain.]
understood that this does not prohibit the introduction of my amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


Gerald William Baldwin: After clause 20 has been carried I intend to move the introduction of a new clause 20A as an amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 21-Amendments and repeals.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the hon. member speaks in respect of his amendment may I ask to have clause 21 stand. Until the amendment is disposed of I would not wish to deal with clause 21.
Clause 21 stands.


Gerald William Baldwin: over from the Board of Transport Commissioners and other boards and associations which it will replace, but by two clauses, 35 (o) and 35 (r), it will have additional powers to make regulations of a very substantial nature. Clause 35 (r) gives the commission power to make such regulations as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of the bill. Clause 35 (o) also gives the board the power to impose sanctions and penalties not to exceed $1,000. In other words, it has the power to impose a penalty on anyone who disobeys or is in breach of sections of the act or the regulations. In addition the commission has the power to deal with and make recommendations involving the expenditure over eight years of some $480 million, being the amount required for what we may call phasing out subsidies.
In addition to those powers the commission has the right to recommend to the governor in council or the Minister of Finance-I am not sure which and there may be a distinction-the payment of such sums as in its opinion are required because of losses which are or may be sustained in connection with noneconomic passenger services and branch line services. The commission will have tremendous power in respect of the recommendation and allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars. Never before have so few non-elected people been given so much power in relation to the economic characteristics of this country and the right to deal with all aspects of transportation.
At an earlier stage I gave particulars of an amendment which I intend to move. I have copies in English and French. I may trespass on the time of the committee by reading it but I intend to do so because some members may not have heard it or read it before. My amendment is:
That clause 20 be amended by adding the following subclause:
(1)	As soon as practical after the commencement of the first session of each parliament, in any event not more than 15 days after the commencement of the said session, a committee of 12 members of the House of Commons (to be known as The National Transport Act Committee) shall be appointed for the duration of such parliament according to the practice of this house with reference to the appointment of members to serve on standing committees.
(2)	There shall be a chairman and a vice-chairman of the committee who shall be elected by the members from time to time provided however that the chairman shall be a member of the opposition.
(3)	Save where otherwise provided herein the general practice as established by the Standing Orders shall prevail with regard to the meetings and acts of the said committee.
Transportation
(4)	The powers and duties of the committee are:
(a)	to examine the annual report made to the Governor in Council by the commission and to report to the house with such comments as it thinks fit any items or matters referred to in this report; and
(b)	to enquire into any question which is referred to it by the House of Commons and to report to the house upon that question.
(5)	The committee may, and at the request of the witness giving evidence shall, take in private evidence whether oral or documentary which in the opinion of the committee relates to a secret or confidential matter.
(6)	Where at the request of a witness evidence is taken by the committee in private the committee or member shall not, without the consent in writing of the witness, disclose or publish the whole or part of the evidence.
(7)	Every person competent to give evidence touching any matter under discussion in the committee shall be a compellable witness.
(8)	A person who gives evidence before the committee shall not without just cause (proof whereof shall lie upon him) refuse
(a)	to be sworn or make a statement;
(b)	to answer a question put to him by the committee or member thereof; or
(c)	to produce any document which he is required by the committee to produce.
I brought this matter to the attention of the committee before because in my opinion there is far too much apathy and indifference on the part of the government, members of this house, parliament, the press and the public regarding the extent to which parliament from time to time gives various commissions, boards and crown corporations almost uncontrolled power to regulate and deal with various aspects of our social and economic life. History shows that one of the saddest things about the loss of liberties is the fact that people who had the right and opportunity to do something failed to do so. Step by step, stage by stage and area by area we find that various rights which at one time fell within the control of the elected legislative body of this country have been filched away, eroded and whittled down.
As a result of the immense growth of governmental activity, obviously one can ask whether expert public servants are becoming the masters of the people they are employed to serve. Several other questions arise at the same time. Are not many administrators vested with authority to act as legislator and judge? Is this not a violation of the principles of separation of powers and natural justice? Perhaps the main question is that which involves the fundamental principle of democracy. Does not the growing pattern of administrative regulation undermine the ideal of

January 12, 1967
Transportation
representative government expressed through a popularly elected legislature?
As I said before, I recognize that in the kind of society and world in which we live it would be impossible for governments to operate without boards and tribunals vested with a certain amount of authority including the authority to make regulations and provide punishment for infractions of them. It would be utterly impossible for this or any parliament to deal completely with all the problems which arise and necessitate our attention. However, when we find that someone says, as often happens in companies or groups, I have been directed by this board or association to make a certain return, file certain documents and give some statistical information, we must conclude that this is not good when these directions are made under terms of regulations and enactments which are not part of the statutes. It is fantastic how often we as individuals are now told by appointed officials what we can or cannot do. This is not good because these people do not have a supernatural ability. There has been no laying on of hands. This happens because we as a legislative body have given this right to these people, and it is our responsibility in doing so to ascertain to what extent we can hedge this authority by safeguards in a way which will not interfere with the effective operation and function of these boards. We must make certain that the impact and result of the exercise of these functions do not harm those people who have sent us here.
Perhaps it is a good thing to have this conflict between elected representatives and civil servants. As a matter of fact I think there is far more conflict, as I think there should be, between us who sit in this chamber and those who are appointed. Only in that way can we have good government. However, the weapons and the conditions must be equal. This has been my complaint with regard to so many of the duties which we as members are asked to exercise by those we represent. We simply have not got the equipment, the knowledge and the assistance to do it. I am moving this amendment in that sense.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
As I said before, if the rules had permitted me to do so I would have included a clause by which expert assistance would have been made available to the statutory committee which I proposed. However, because this involved the expenditure of funds and private members are prohibited from so proposing I have not done so, but I would hope that if any

such committee is to be established the government would consider the provision of expert assistance. In a matter as complicated as this, where there are so few people who have adequate and expert knowledge, to set up a committee to do the things which I envisage as the work of this committee would be a completely fruitless exercise unless expert and knowledgeable people who would be in full and constant touch with the members of this committee were available.
I conclude by suggesting that this matter is one of which the government is well aware. When this house was dealing some time ago with the new proposed rules, which are now the interim rules under which the house is operating, I asked the Prime Minister about the possibility of setting up a committee on delegated authority. The answer which the right hon. gentleman gave me at that time indicated that he was well aware of the problem. He referred to Lord Hewart's book, "The New Despotism". He said he understood well the difficulty which faced the government. At that time he indicated that something might be done about the problem, but nothing has been done. I think the government realizes that the problem exists, but naturally the initiative must come from someone outside the government.
For this reason I propose in my amendment the establishment of a statutory committee, which is a novel concept in this country. This committee will sit from parliament to parliament thereby, I hope, building up for the duration of a parliament a body of men who will acquire an expertise and knowledge of this very complicated subject matter which will permit them not to sit as a court of appeal-of course this is absolutely unthinkable vis-a-vis the transport commission-not to obstruct the transport commission, but simply as a window through which we can peer at the operations of this commission. In this way we would be able to see to what extent their acts were having an impact on the social and economic lives of the people of Canada and to see what could be done if, in the opinion of this committee, things were happening which were not contemplated.
I am sure the minister will be the last one to disagree with me when I suggest that there are aspects and features in this bill of which he is not too sure. Where we will be three, four or five years from now is a question which I do not think he or anyone else in this country can answer. The future problems
January 12, 1967



which may face us in transportation can hardly be envisaged at this time in view of the departures which this bill is making. For this reason I urge the government, the minister and all hon. members, irrespective of their political views, to give what support they can to this proposal which I am moving in the form of an amendment.


Mr. Lewis:: May I ask the hon. member a couple of questions? First, I want to ask him whether he would have any objection to having his amendment stand in the same way as other clauses and amendments have been stood. Second, I would like to know from the hon. member, without at the moment expressing any very strong opinion, how he can justify the provision in his amendment whereby evidence can be taken in private which will make it the property of the 12 members of the committee only. As a result neither the committee nor any of its members would be permitted to bring the subject matter of the evidence to the attention of this house. What possible purpose would that serve? Perhaps the hon. member could explain that to me. If it is intended that the committee be a window through which we can peer into the activities of the commission, it can hardly be a window if it is frosted and one cannot see anything through it. If evidence is taken in private, then obviously this house and the country will not know what has been done by the commission as far as that evidence is concerned. If such is the case, -what is the purpose of obtaining any evidence in private in this way?


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Before the hon. member for Peace River rises I think the Chair should read the amendment. It is moved by the hon. member for Peace River that Bill C-231 be amended by adding the following clause-shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could say a word or two? I have indicated that I am in great sympathy with the general objectives that the hon. gentleman has in mind and that were expressed also by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I think it would be desirable to have such a committee although I am not sure that I see why the standing committee on transport and communications of this house is not just as good as some other committee which might be created.
I am in sympathy with the idea which the hon. gentleman quite rightly put forward
Transportation
when he said that he could not include in the amendment the provision of expert assistance because it would involve the expenditure of money. I think I demonstrated my sympathy in this respect by facilitating the work of the standing committee when this bill was before it and by encouraging the commissioners of internal economy who paid for the expert assistance. It may turn out that it is my department which is paying for the expert assistance which the committee received and which was very good. I quite agree with those objectives.
I must say that I share fully the misgivings of the hon. member for York South about secret testimony. Because I am a Privy Councillor and he is not I have another misgiving about how secret the testimony would really be. However, I have a more fundamental objection to the amendment and I think I should indicate it right away because I do not think it is fair to give hon. members the impression that I would be able to support this amendment. I would not be able to support it for the reason that I am a member of the House of Commons and therefore could not support a measure which would permit members of the other place and the Crown to tell us what our rules in this house would be. When in the seventeenth century King Charles I went down to the Commons House of the parliament of that day to direct their activities the Speaker made the famous statement that he had no eyes to see nor ears to hear, and all of us know the rest of the story. I think it is just as objectionable for us to put in a statute which requires the assent, and therefore the dissent if they wish to disagree, of the hon. gentlemen for whom I have great regard but who are not us. They are not part of this house and I do not think it is any of their business to tell us what our rules should be. I believe it would be a terrible mistake to admit, even in a good cause, that they had any right whatever to tell us how we should conduct our affairs.
I think the hon. gentleman said he wanted to keep these things under the scrutiny of the elected representatives of the people. That is right, and we are the elected representatives of the people. Those other hon. ladies and gentlemen at the other end of this building are not the elected representatives of the people, nor is the representative of the Crown. It just seems to me that, in principle, it would be an abdication of our historic rights to attempt to import into legislation which required the assent of the other place an amendment to the

January 12, 1967
Transportation
rules of this house. If we decided later, or if another house decided later, it was desirable to change that, then it could not be changed without the consent of these other bodies.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The leader of the house has on the order paper a motion, either in his name or is it in the name of the Prime Minister, to set up a committee to look into the rules. I have every sympathy for, and I would give my undertaking to support in principle, the setting up of a committee. I do not see why the present committee on transport and communications could not be given this function if it were given the extra assistance which I would be happy to see it given. We do have some very complicated matters coming before us. This is one of the most complicated measures we have ever had during my time here. I think we should provide for having someone with expertise to assist during any review which from time to time we might make.
I do not want the hon. gentleman to think 1 am not sympathetic to his objectives. I think they are sound and good. However, I believe the manner in which he would like to accomplish them, by a statutory provision which deals with the rules of this elected body, would be an abdication to others of that one small corner at least of that independence which is the foundation of self-government. For that reason, sir, I thought I should not waste any time in indicating why I could not vote for this amendment. I agree also with the point made by the hon. member for York South about taking secret testimony. I do not think it would work and I doubt that it would be desirable even if it would.


Mr. Hamilton:: I do not intend to deal with the secrecy issue. I think the hon. member for Peace River will be dealing with that. I wish the minister had not spoken before I had an opportunity to make a few remarks on this matter because I was going to deal with the reasons for his objection to this amendment. I was hoping to advance my arguments before he had committed himself. I am going to put my arguments before this committee as sincerely and as frankly as I can.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River, which concerns the freedom of the people to run their own business, probably ranks in man's fight for freedom with all the other great steps that have been taken in the past. I include Magna Carta and all the rest. I will give my reasons for that statement, Mr. Chairman. If anyone tries to study seriously how a modern government can reconcile
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
itself to the modern type of economic system we have in the western world, he will find that the question boils down to how much control we can give to the people through their elected representatives. The answer given by the minister just now repudiates all the good work that he has done in the last two and a half years. In the last 48 hours I have made the statement to my colleagues and to people in the press gallery that in my judgment, with only ten years' experience in the house and a quarter of a century in the public life of this country, I have never seen a minister learn a complicated bill so quickly, express his ideas on it so clearly and be so flexible to the wishes of the committee, as the present minister.
We have had a demonstration here of virtuosity in mastering a complicated bill affecting the economic and social future of our country, while giving to the elected representatives in the committee and in the house a chance to work together in drafting a bill that is moving into a field about which very few of us know very much. This bill moves into the dark areas of the future. No one in this house could have surpassed the minister's penetrating mind in mastering this bill. I speak with personal knowledge because I worked on this matter for two years when I was a minister. I have not followed it as closely since, but I have had a long-time interest in the economics of transportation, particularly as they relate to railways. The compliment I have paid the minister, therefore, is one I think is owing to him without any qualification or modification.
However, I wish he had not made that last statement. I hope that we can maintain the attitude that has prevailed a while longer. If one studies the problems facing the governments of West Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, one will find that the problem of trying to make a parliamentary system work which grew out of the social and economic systems of the last seven centuries is not very easy. We in Canada are going through this same type of adjustment. If we tie ourselves down to the precedent of Charles I, then there is no solution to our problem. This is what the minister has done. If the men of our generation cannot recognize that adjustments have to be made in the traditional forms of democratic government to deal with the modern type of corporate structure, then our efforts in this house and in every other democratic government are a failure. This is the issue which the
January 12, 1967

hon. member for Peace River put on the record today in a speech which ranks, in its logic, with the best I have read over the last several hundred years of western history. Hon. members should re-read that speech.
We have in this house over the last two and a half years agreed, I suspect amongst all parties, to turn over tremendous powers of this parliament to a small group who have not in the past had a good record of protecting the interests of the people. We have agreed to turn over these tremendous powers because we do not see any other way of making the whole transportation system work efficiently. As the committee could gather from some of the speeches I made on the rationalization aspect of the bill, we want to even increase the powers we are turning over to this board.
Let us examine all the other crown corporations, the other agencies and boards which this parliament in its wisdom over the years has set up to carry out parliament's business. Let us look at the whole question of the delegation of powers by parliament. We will find one salient weakness and that salient weakness is, how do we touch base with them. We do not want parliament to interfere with their daily functions of administration. As the hon. member for Peace River made quite clear, we do not want to act as a grandstand quarterback in connection with the judicial part of their functions. However, if we are going to continue with the modern capitalistic system of the western world and democratic institutions, then we in this house have to examine our institutional procedures frankly.
To put forward the argument that just because this bill has to be passed in this chamber, has to be passed in the other place and signed by the Governor General, this takes away our power over our rules, can only be described by one word-farcical. All we ask in this amendment is that we let the people know that we have delegated these tremendous powers to a super board but that we are also preserving the right periodically to keep pace with them and to know what they are doing.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
We have accepted the fact that individually as laymen we are not competent to handle this question and have to have expert advice. From the past record we know what to expect in this parliament. Sometimes committees do not swing into operation for weeks or months after the commencement of the parliamentary session. Here is a perfect opportunity to show whether a democratic group can meet the
Transportation
challenge of our day and in a responsible, restrained way make some adjustment in our system to keep it moving a little faster and to keep it a little closer to the realities of today.
I do not think any member of this house who believes in the parliamentary system wants to see its power reduced by one iota. The proposal that we are making will preserve something of the power of the people through its elected representatives. This petty, picayune argument that because the Senators have to pass on our bill we lose our right to control our rules does not make sense to me.
We are trying to do something in this amendment with which the minister said he agreed and with which I am sure the government house leader agrees. I have also read remarks by the Prime Minister in which in effect he said he agreed with institutional changes. I believe that men of experience and good will want to see this institution remain sovereign but at the same time they want to make sure that the economic system of the country operates properly. We have to face the fact that our economic system is so complicated that we in parliament cannot deal with it efficiently. We must therefore agree to turn over this power to a super board and even give it more power. However, we do want the chance to preserve the sovereign right of parliament to control on behalf of the people their own affairs.
The setting up of a small committee to provide expert help would provide, as the hon. member for Peace River suggested, a window. But surely it would not be frosted over, because the 12 members of that committee representative of all parties would have some responsibility to the house. For example, if they thought something was wrong they would be able to come back here and take proper steps to right it, or if they wanted to make a proposal they could take the proper action. This would mean that the 17 members of this super board would know they were being watched by a group of people with competent advisers to see that everything possible was being done to bring about harmony with the guidelines we are trying to set down in this bill. We have the machinery through this committee, which will be responsible under the statute, to watch the operations of this board.
I suggest, and I hope the minister will reconsider, that in making adjustments to modern conditions Canada must not fall behind. We have seen what the French have done with their council of state in controlling the

January 12, 1967
Transportation
great bureaucracy of that country. We have seen what the Swedes and New Zealanders have done through their ombudsmen. These are small efforts to try to bring about some connection between the right of the individual to justice and protection against the bureaucracy that runs his country.
We are putting one complete sector of the economy of this country into the hands of a super board. Therefore in this day and age we must begin to think about institutional changes and of ways of maintaining and preserving in this house some sort of control over the board without interfering with its efficiency.
Therefore I hold to my statement that the argument presented that the amendment will bring forth the ghost of Charles I to haunt us in 1967 is nothing more nor less than specious.
I realize that the minister came to the house from the civil service, that the civil servants who run the country are able, sincere, usually dedicated and know so much more about each facet of government than do we as laymen, and that we have to have these people. But surely this group accepts the principle that a little bit of power must be left in the hands of the representatives of the people, and this is all we are asking for.
I realize that the statement of the minister was a reflection of his background, his long years in the civil service, but the fight that is going on all over the world today concerns whether men shall control the people they appoint. This question is being asked not only in western Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, France and the United States but also in Canada.
If we look at the situation in that great country in the Far East, China, what essentially are its people fighting about today? It is the same thing that we are debating this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. In China, which has a monstrous, huge civil service guiding the daily course of every factory and every farm, naturally there are going to be protests. There must be some way for the people to express their dissatisfaction. They even had to resort to the device of giving high school children free railway passes, free food and money to spend so they would watch factories and government offices and ask bureaucrats to explain why they did certain things. But what a crude technique to let the people express themselves and control their civil servants.
The great Prime Minister of China, Chou En-lai, tries to protect his bureaucrats because he knows they are essential to his country. On

the other hand, he sees the desire of the ordinary Joe to express his criticism of those civil servants from whom he takes orders in the schools, the universities, the streets, the factories and the farms. We cannot laugh at the red guards because we have used the same technique in the past. The Puritan movement in Great Britain in the 17th century was essentially the same sort of thing, it tried to change the character of man's nature by a social pressure that was open and forceful. This is never successful, of course, but nevertheless one sees the basic issue. If at times we in Canada think our civil service is slow and cumbersome, tied up with red tape, then I say go to China and see how bad it can be.
As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, we are not just debating the question of transportation. We are putting forward an amendment to try to improve the quality of democratic government in a day of great efficiency. If we cannot improve this institution in a practical way it is no good for people to go up and down the country pounding their chests and declaring that we have to reform parliament. The hon. member in his amendment is suggesting a reform of parliament. He also said that this same technique might work with the C.B.C. and with other crown corporations. No government likes to be told by the head of a crown corporation: Get out of our way; we have complete power to act.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I do not hold it against anyone who sincerely believes that these crown corporations should not be criticized, because in many cases we have clearly delegated power to them under the act in question. As the hon. member for Peace River said, freedom is not usually lost in a revolution or war but through daily erosion. This erosion of power in connection with transportation will mean that a big chunk of our power will be delegated to a super board. We should maintain some sort of contact with the board. It would be a big help, not only to parliament but in improving the feeling across the country, if we could show that parliament is not myth-ridden, that it does not worship old fetishes. People think our attitude is that we do not let the Senate pass on anything that interferes with our rules.
Transportation by way of air, rail, pipe line, water, bus and truck affects the lifeblood of this nation. My request is made not as a Conservative member but as a member of this house who has consulted with his colleagues. I hope there is support from all sides of the house. We hope that the Liberals in the house
January 12, 1967

will agree with the principles we raise. We are trying to preserve the rights of parliament in some small measure. We accept the principle that efficiency must predominate, but the right of the individual to express himself in our system must be preserved.
This amendment may not be very good. We do not know whether it will work but it is the best we can do. Some of us have laboured over the transportation problem for a long time. We have other amendments to move but none of them is more important in principle than this one. I think the hon. member for Peace River, when he introduced this matter on December 20 and again today, has made his mark in the history of parliament. That mark will long endure. I pay my respects to him and I pay my respects to members in all parties who sat on the railway committee, who listened to a great deal of evidence and who showed such flexibility and willingness to produce a good bill. Many amendments were accepted in that comiittee.
I pay my regards to the staff. They must have worked extremely hard trying to find legal and statutory answers to the problems raised. There was an example where we all worked together. I hope the minister does not out of hand, as he sometimes does, produce an argument turning down the suggestion we are making. I think the hon. member for Peace River can meet the arguments of the hon. member for York North-


An hon. Member:: York South.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I beg your pardon, York South. I think the arguments can be met. Essentially we are trying to introduce into this house an institutional change, one that may set a precedent for other boards. The problem we have in this country is a problem faced all over the world. I do not want to quote authors and studies. Many articles and monographs by exceptionally able people who are worrying about this problem have been produced. In his last speech on this subject in this country, the high commissioner for Great Britain pleaded with the senior civil servants of this country to please give the elected representatives a little power. That plea came from a man who had held five portfolios in the United Kingdom and who had spent several years in Canada. I think he respected us. For him to make that type of plea to our civil servants shows that he feels our problems are the same as those of the United Kingdom.
The United States is worse off than we are and the French, of all, are the worst off. The problem must be met. I hope the minister will 23033-741
Transportation
not rush in too quickly to express his views. We have considered this matter with great humility. It does not affect our freedom in this house but I think it does show to the people of Canada that we are trying to preserve parliament's rights. In the interest of efficiency we are not trying to stop any board from having complete power. We are trying to be responsible and we are trying to be constructive.
I hope this amendment is given serious consideration by the minister. We want to express our views on it strongly. I will not deal with the matter I raised last night having to do with the minister's progress on the bill, because that matter is not as important as this amendment. I appeal to the minister to maintain the reputation he has established during the last two and a half years. He has a reputation for having mastered the principles of the bill. He explained it fully to us in committee. In his dealings with the bill he has been willing to adjust, and this adjustment has been met by all sides. As a result of the minister's attitude we have reduced to a minimum the heat that might be generated by many matters. Parochial and regional interests have been reduced to a minimum in trying to get a good bill. We know we are moving into a new field.
We hope that as the years go on this bill will prove to be a good one and that the board will obtain the necessary personnel, who must be hard to find. We hope that the board's decisions will set good precedents for future boards. To keep in touch with the people, to get viewpoints, we hope that a responsible pattern of communication will be organized. I hope that along the channels of communication positive ideas may flow. I will not press that matter at this time.
The essential point is: will parliament accept the challenge? Can we mend our ways and break even a little with tradition? Can we let the committee operate under a statute and give it permanent employees loyal not to the government but to the committee so that those employees can keep in touch with the workings of the commission? They ought to be competent to funnel ideas either way in language which makes sense to the layman. We hope that the 12 members on the committee will develop over a period of years the same sort of working spirit that we have developed in this committee so that it will be a matter of pride to be a member of that permanent committee of the house and so that men will fight to be the representatives of their party on the committee. If they develop

January 12, 1967
Transportation
that pride we shall not be juggling hon. members around to fill in slots.
I think this committee deserves to have members from all parties in the house and from all over Canada. I confess that the ideas in this resolution are borrowed partially from Australia, from where we get the statutory concept, and partially from the United States where there is a full-time staff. Even if the ideas are borrowed, these problems still exist in Canada. They exist not only in Canada but all over the world and it is our responsibility to do what we can toward solving them. This amendment is only a small step in meeting these problems, especially the problem of control of people exercising delegated authority. I think this amendment is a worth-while first step.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a brief word. It would be most ungracious of me not to express appreciation for what I think is probably the greatest compliment paid to me since I have been in public life. It comes from the other side of the house but that does not make me less appreciative of it. The fact that it was paid by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle who, like me, is not ashamed to be partisan, makes it all the more touching.
Notwithstanding what the hon. member said and notwithstanding my genuine appreciation of his remarks, he has not altered the view I have expressed. I should not like the hon. gentleman to have the wrong impression. That is why I rose at once. I would not want him to think that I had made a hasty or snap judgment. After all, the hon. member for Peace River very considerately gave us a preview before Christmas of what he proposed to do. I have had, therefore, as we all have had, a good deal of time to reflect on the matter.
I thoroughly agree with the objective. I think that we should have a committee. We on this side of the house, since coming to office, have given evidence of our disposition. The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence instituted the kind of defence committee of this house that we have never had before. Under the new temporary rules we have had a considerable overhauling of the standing committees of the house.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I think there has been more good work done by committees of this house in the last year or two than at any time in the nearly 30 years during which I have been observing parliament or sitting in it. The time is long

past when we should get expert and independent assistance in committee work when committees are dealing with complicated matters and the members themselves cannot be expected to have at their fingertips the necessary expertise. With all this I completely agree. What I cannot agree with is the view that we are so undisciplined in this house, which is elected by the people, that it is necessary to have people appointed in another place participating in making rules for us and that those rules should be embodied in a statute. Incidentally, if we really mean what we say when we declare that this house is an independent house and master of its own affairs, such a statute could not be enforced anyway. Who is the policeman who will come in here and enforce the statute on this independent assembly? This is why, when I talk about Charles I and the independence of parliament, I am not talking about some old fusty thing in the seventeenth century.
It is this aspect of the matter which I believe the mover of the amendment and the hon. gentleman have got wrong. I cannot see how these provisions would have any more sanctity if they were established by statute than if they were established by a standing order of this house alone. We discipline ourselves, though sometimes not as effectively as we should. But if our discipline in this house is not effective I do not think it would become more effective if we called in outsiders to discipline us, or purport to discipline us, or make rules for us as though we were children.
It may be that the composition of the present committee is too large. It may be that the composition of all the standing committees is too large for effective work to be done. If all committees were composed of a dozen members instead of 24 members we should not have to wait so long for quorums and it would be possible to concentrate more on getting the work done and on getting it done more expeditiously. With all this I agree. But I say, do not let us abandon the most fundamental of all the rights of the elected representatives of the people, that is, our own corporate independence in this house.
The hon. gentleman said I had been flexible and tried to meet suggestions from whatever quarter of the house they had come. I have done that just as much in this case and I intend to continue doing so. This does not mean that if I am unable to see eye to eye with hon. gentlemen opposite on all of their suggestions I have suddenly changed my character. It simply means that I too have to exercise my own judgment on these matters.
January 12, 1967

It seems to me we have two principles here, both fundamental principles, but that in this amendment they are in conflict with each other. One is the principle that this house should scrutinize the administration. That is what we are primarily elected to do. With that part of the amendment I completely agree. I do not think we are doing it as effectively as we should and I agree with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle that we should do a better job in controlling, checking and auditing the administration of this country-and I do not use the word "auditing" in a narrow sense. After all, though I went there as a stranger I represent one province in this country which just before it became a province had no elected representatives at all for 13 years-the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo nods-during one of the saddest interludes in the history of free institutions in the British Commonwealth.
They had an efficient government. They had devoted public servants who carried out their jobs according to their lights. But there was no audit, no check on the part of the public. It was a bad system, a wrong system, and we are here to see that it never happens again in this country. But this is our job as the elected representatives of the people and we should do it ourselves by our own activities. We can amend our own rules and if they do not work we can change them again without praying some appointed people elsewhere to change them. Here we have a conflict with the good principle that it is our duty to audit, check and control the administration. But it is our duty to do this ourselves independently, and we do not need to have anyone outside this chamber to do this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: I intend to reply on the merits after other hon. members have spoken, but some questions have been asked by the hon. member for York South and by the minister and I think I should reply to them briefly. The hon. member for York South asked whether I would have any objection, as mover of the amendment, to allowing it to stand in certain circumstances. I have no objection to such a course provided it meets the wishes of the committee.
Second, the hon. member asked me to explain why I thought evidence before the committee should be taken in secret from time to time. If hon. members will examine the subclause they will see that this provision would apply only in cases when in the opinion of the committee the evidence was of a secret and confidential nature. As to the reason for this, 23033-7411
Transportation
all hon. members know that time and time again requests are made in committees that certain types of information should not be required because, if divulged, there would be a detrimental effect upon the ability of a witness' business to compete effectively. Such requests have been acceded to time and time again. If a committee says in its wisdom that no matter should be regarded as confidential, I am perfectly prepared to agree. It seems to me the suggestion I have put forward makes possible a compromise which would allow the committee access to the best possible information upon which to base its judgments and recommendations to the house. The C.N.R. has on many occasions requested permission to withhold information.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
That request has been acceded to time after time. In connection with the operation of this or any committee under this bill I can visualize carriers, individuals and corporations whose goods are being carried coming to the committee with a complaint but hesitant to make public certain facts and information. There is nothing in the world to stop the parliamentary committee from having that information, considering it and reporting to the house, not on the details but a report based upon the information they have derived. That is why I included this provision in drafting the amendment. If this committee sees fit to eliminate it, I have no objection at all.
With regard to the reason for this provision being in the form of a statute, I would say this. Some mention has been made of Charles
I.	Today the spirit of Charles I hangs over the collective cabinet of any democratic country. The crown sits over yonder in this chamber. Charles I has been supplanted today by the Privy Council and the cabinet. Your Honour may recall that during the deliberations of the committee on procedure it was pointed out that a committee appointed under our standing orders during a session expires at the end of the session; in other words, we are back in the same place we were before if this is not done by way of statute. A committee is only appointed at the whim of the government when the government wants to introduce a motion to appoint it. Not only this government but any government is in that position. I say this is not good enough.
Mr. Pickers gill: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes.

January 12, 1967
Transportation


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does he not think that since we have complete power over our own rules we could change that provision, if we wished to do so, to the life of a whole parliament?


Gerald William Baldwin: I should tell the minister that 1 am speaking on the basis of the information I derived during the considerations of the procedure committee. I was a member of that committee. It was pointed out to the committee-this is one of the things we considered doing-that constitutionally as a body the House of Commons could not do this. There were grave doubts whether it had the right to set up a committee which would sit from the beginning of one parliament to the end of that parliament, with the committee expiring at the end of each parliament.


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. member another question?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Would it not flow from what he has said that we should have all our rules incorporated by statute which would have to be approved by the Senate?


Gerald William Baldwin: No, of course not, with regard to committees on estimates. However, a committee as important as this and others which I can envisage should not be in a position where they come into existence only at the whim of the government. This committee should sit when it wants to sit. It should not have to wait two or three months after the beginning of a session. It should sit because by statute it has the right to sit and has definite, peremptory terms of reference. I submit this is something that cannot be done in any way other than by statute.
If the minister is able to convince the committee that it is possible constitutionally for this house by itself to pass a standing order, and will indicate that it is intended to do so, to establish a committee which can sit from the beginning to the end of a parliament, I would be perfectly happy. But because I have some apprehension that this is not possible and believe that the terms of reference must be provided by statute and the committee established by statute, I have raised this point. We are the most backward of all the older countries of the Commonwealth, and I include also the United States, in our dealing with matters of this kind and giving to the members of this house the right to do things which they not only have the right but the duty to perform.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I think, as the minister has said, that there is no question that all members of this house agree with the principle that the operations of the transportation commission should be under the continuing surveillance of the elected representatives of the people.


Mr. Lambert:: Of parliament.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The House of Commons.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I say parliament.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The hon. member says parliament. I have more confidence in the people's elected representatives than my hon. friend seems to have, since I do not think it is necessary for appointed individuals, not accountable to the public, to have something to say about what this house does or, for that matter, about what a particular commission as important as this one has to do.
If an effective surveillance of the work of this commission is required, I submit that the way to do it is not by appointing another special committee but by strengthening the over-all system of standing committees of this house so that we develop a proper system of specialist committees composed of members who have developed an expertise over the years in the subject matter of the committee, backed up by an appropriate professional and permanent staff.
The example of other countries has been brought forward-France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States. Their trend is not to set up, piling one on top of the other, further special and joint committees. Instead, what they have done is to create a permanent system of standing specialist committees. The appropriate committee is given the job of looking after all matters coming under the jurisdiction of the legislature pertaining to the subject matter in question, including the operation of their equivalents of this transportation commission.
There is no question that what this House of Commons needs to have at this time is a greater degree of what political scientists call legislative oversight. This is the great lack, the great gap in our present system. The elected representatives of the people clearly must have a greater degree of control and a greater ability to look into and supervise the operations of the bureaucracy which has so much to do with the way the government of this country is carried out. Again I submit that this cannot be done by having a series of
January 12, 1967

special committees and joint committees dealing with limited subject matters, the members of which have to divide their attention between them and standing committees.
We have already had some experience in the past year and a half under the provisional rule changes of how a surveillance of this type could be effectively carried out by permanent standing committees. The broadcasting committee has already had before it the Board of Broadcast Governors; it has already had before it the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Yet it also covers a broad subject matter in the field of broadcasting and the arts. Surely it could continue to do this. Surely the transport committee of this house could do the same thing as it has already begun to do with respect to Canadian National Railways.
To give a further example, the finance committee has looked into the workings of the Expo Corporation. This again, I submit, is the appropriate way to carry out this objective, this aim with which I think we are all in agreement. The thing to do is change the rules of this house, not just to permit a special committee to look into the workings of this commission but to make sure that permanent committees are set up and in operation within a certain period after the opening of a new parliament, that they are given the right to have a permanent staff, not only by special resolution of this house with respect to a particular subject matter referred to it, that they are given the right to set up subcommittees so that a more careful examination may be made of special subjects. In fact, I see no reason why the transport committee of this house could not, under the rule changes I am suggesting, have a subcommittee to pay special attention to the workings of this transportation commission.
It seems to me to be contradictory to talk about giving greater authority to the elected representatives of the people to look after and oversee the workings of the federal bureaucracy, and at the same time make the coming into effect and the changing of the method of carrying out an examination by a special committee subject to the approval or disapproval of a group of people who are appointed to age 75 and are not accountable in any way to the people of this country. I say this is a definite contradiction in terms.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, to show that my opposition to the amendment in the particular form in which it is put forward is not merely what
Transportation
might be called by some a partisan approach, I also should like to say to the minister that when do get to the study of the provisional rule changes, with a view to bringing about permanent changes, I hope he will not stress, as he did today, the concept that committee membership is too large. It seems to me that the problem arises not as a result of the size of the membership of the committees but rather as a result of an unrealistic rule requiring quorums when we are merely taking evidence and not making decisions. The present size of the membership of the committees is admirably suited to carrying out the type of function which the hon. member for Peace River wishes to have, because it will make it easier to set up within permanent standing committees, covering a broad area such as transportation, subcommittees on particular subject matters such as the transport commission or other particular aspects such as trucking, railways, air transportation, and so on.
I think the proper approach to this matter would be to have the members of this house agree that we will turn as soon as possible to a further review of our rules in the light of our experience under the provisional rule changes and that there will be no question at that time but that we will conclude this study of the rule changes with a proper system of permanent special standing committees with the proper staff and members who over the years will have developed a certain expertise. In this way we would be able, on behalf of the people of this country, to establish the legislative oversight required to watch over not only the workings of this particular commission but also over federal bureaucracy in general.
We have been talking about centennial presents for the people of Canada. I think one of the finest centennial presents we could give the Canadian people is a modern effective parliamentary system which is truly relevant to the needs of governing a modern technological state such as Canada is today. This should be our aim. This aim will not be reached by going off on a sidetrack such as we would be doing were we to attempt, with every good motive in the world, to set up the type of committee suggested by the hon. member for Peace River in his amendment. This is a sidetrack. This is not what we should be looking for. We should be looking for an approach to a parliamentary system which permits the elected representatives of the people to carry out their duties in a way which is truly relevant to the needs of our society.

January 12, 1967
Transportation


Mr. Lamberl:: Mr. Chairman, I came into the house when the Minister of Transport was speaking. I must confess I found a great deal of his argument to be most specious. I for one find it exceedingly strange to hear from the lips of the minister a suggestion that the matter of the statutory requirement for a committee composed of members of this house should not be referred to the other house. To me that is rather strange, because in essence the whole bill will be passed by the other house. It is not the House of Commons alone which is supreme; it is parliament. Until the Minister of Transport is able to change the constitution of this country, the other house has its official place as a part of parliament. The sooner the minister recognizes that, the better off we will be.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course it has as a legislature, but not as a body to make rules for our house.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is not making rules for our house. The amendment proposed would set up by statute a body which would be away from the domination of people like the Minister of Transport who as a member of cabinet can block nominations to and the functioning of any committee. We know, notwithstanding all the pious words of my good friend the hon. member for Essex West, that as the rules now stand it is strictly up to the initiative of the government. I come to the suggestion of the hon. member for Essex West. I certainly support much of what he has said concerning the ideal to be achieved but we must also be practical. He will not stand up in this house and say this, but I can tell him that members of the cabinet in this government, which includes persons such as the Minister of Transport, turned down the proposals of members of the procedure committee who wanted to strengthen the committee system of this house along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Essex West.
The hon. member for Essex West and I work closely together on one of the principal committees of this house. I think we have common objectives in this regard. I find his reasoning, however, in supporting the opposition to this amendment somewhat difficult to follow. As a matter of fact, I think what he is doing is rallying to the party flag on behalf of his party this afternoon. I think he must recognize that in so far as this clause is concerned, which has to do with the examination of the report of this omnibus transport board,

it could be delayed indefinitely by the government because any special or standing committee must have referred to it by way of resolution advanced under the sole initiative of the government any matter which is to be considered. Therefore, under the present rules it is simple for the government merely to postpone indefinitely the consideration of any particular item. As a matter of fact, on the question of integration and unification of the armed forces a good number in this house and outside it want to get at that particular subject but the government refuses to do it and therefore effectively blocks consideration of the matter. I know that time and time again in the past there have been occasions when months have elapsed before any committees were set up.
I would have suggested to my colleague from Peace River that the membership of the committee should be from both houses, because this involves a report to parliament.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It involves a report to parliament. If the Liberals want a unicameral parliament, that is one thing. Let them stand up in their place and advocate the abolition of the Senate when the time comes. Under our constitution our parliament today is composed of both the House of Commons and the Senate. I recognize and accept that. Therefore I say that if parliament is to function properly representatives of parliament shall sit on such a committee. After all, our friends opposite today certainly are following the practice of having a good many joint committees this year. Regardless of the views of the hon. member for Hamilton West and perhaps some of his colleagues in respect of the other place, I say that the amendment calls for members from this house and therefore he cannot raise his objection. I would have gone further and said "representatives from parliament".
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I do know that it is the Australian practice in this regard and so it is not repugnant to a federal system. There the authority comes from a statute passed by parliament which provides that a committee can sit to examine certain matters and is not restricted by the whims of a minister or the whims of a cabinet. If hon. members feel they should reassert their rights as private members in this house they should support this type of amendment. Some government backbenchers have already objected to the ever-increasing power of the
January 12, 1967

cabinet. It has taken a great deal of time for the film to fall from their eyes in order that they could see that the sole initiative at the present time lies within the cabinet which dominates this house. The cabinet asks backbenchers to rubberstamp its wants at any and all times. This amendment strikes at that situation because it would establish a statutory committee which would independently deal with certain specified matters as well as other matters referred to it by the house.
This amendment incorporates many of the features the hon. member for Essex West would like to see in respect of our standing committees in relation to staffing and a mandatory commencement date for the functioning of committees. The hon. member for Essex West must convince me and my colleagues on this side that he is able to influence the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Public Works and others who do not share his views before we can accept his suggestion.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Norman Platt Lambert: Yes.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Does the hon. member not agree that if he and his colleagues along with members of the other opposition parties would agree with me and others on this side there would be no question that rule changes could be introduced without difficulty to make sure that committees met forthwith following the opening of a parliament and throughout the year? Would he not agree also that any subject matter we wanted could be referred to the committee without the approval of the government?


Norman Platt Lambert: I agree that might be the ideal situation, but the hon. member has not convinced me that he is able to persuade the cabinet to accept that principle. I would be the most surprised man in the world if he could do that. I could almost go through the list of cabinet members and indicate those who favour this principle and those who do not. I might make the odd mistake but I would not be far wrong.
This amendment is a thoroughly justified attempt by the hon. member for Peace River, with the support of almost all opposition members, to authorize private members of parliament to oversee the workings of a very powerful board. I am sure this principle has the tacit or implied support of many members of the government backbench. Alternatively,
Transportation
perhaps the hon. member for Essex West would go along with me in persuading the cabinet members to agree to the creation of a standing committee on delegated powers. If he can guarantee to me that such a committee will be established, I am prepared to go along with him, but unless he can do so I think we should accept this amendment in order that parliament may have some control over at least one body with delegated authority.
As a result of the adoption of this bill all sorts of powers will be given to this commission to make regulations, but what chance have the members of this house to review those regulations? The only opportunity we as members of this house could have to make such a review would be through the establishment of a statutory committee or through a standing committee with independent powers. By adopting this amendment we would reassert control by members of parliament over many things in this country. For that reason I fully subscribe to the amendment. I cannot accept any of the arguments advanced by the Minister of Transport against the amendment.


Edward Richard Schreyer: One could easily infer from the remarks of the Minister of Transport and his colleague, the hon. member for Essex West, that the liberal party is giving subtle notice it is coming around to the view that the Senate should be abolished. With that bit of banter aside, I wish to say that the minister in my opinion was most persuasive and sincere in the point of view he put forward.
Earlier in the debate I indicated I was very much in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River. I was in favour of it because of my experience as a member of the standing committee on transportation during its consideration of submissions relating to this bill.
The minister will recall an occasion during the committee hearings in respect of this bill when I objected very strenuously to the suggestion that the committee did not have the authority to ask the railway companies for certain statistical information which the railway companies contended fell within the realm of proprietary rights. The officials felt they need not and ought not give this information to that committee. Upon reconsideration I have come to the conclusion that it really would not have mattered in that particular case whether the committee was a standing or statutory committee because it was within the powers of the committee at that time to ask for the particular cost accounting
11722	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion information, but the committee decided by vote not to require the railway companies to surrender that information. Presumably if a committee were established by statute to oversee the actions and regulatory functions of this new transportation commission it would in its own judgment decide whether or not to ask any transportation company to give certain information which may or may not be proprietary.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Because of the practices of committees of this house in this regard I have come to the conclusion it would be sufficient to have a committee of this house act as the overseer of the actions of the new transport commission. I know that there are a number of good reasons why we simply must have an efficiently functioning committee of this house to look into the actions, regulations, decisions and orders that will emanate from the transportation commission, and it is my fervent hope that this is precisely what will be done in the future.


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty pursuant to standing order 39A to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain), Labour Gazette -delay in delivery of French edition; the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise), gold mining assistance-northwestern Quebec mining problem; the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), Post Office Department -alleged tampering with mail by Hudson's Bay Company.


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe I can report to you that there have been some discussions, that it is agreeable that we should continue now in committee of the whole on the item that has been under discussion, and that between seven and eight o'clock the committee should rise for a supper break.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree that the private members' hour be dispensed

DEBATES	January 12, 1967
with today and that the sitting of the house be suspended from 7 to 8 p.m.?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-231 to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions-Mr. Pickersgill- Mr. Batten in the chair.
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I was about to say that while until just a few minutes ago I was in support of the subject matter of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River, I must now say to him with some regret that I find it really does not make that much difference whether the transportation committee which he envisages is set up on a statutory basis or on the basis of the ordinary rules of this house. What does make a difference-this is a conclusion I have reached on the basis of my limited experience in the last few months-is the membership of the committee and the degree to which the members of the committee wish to exercise the authority vested in the committee by this house.
I believe that during the course of the committee's meetings it was suggested, recommended and submitted on several occasions and from several sources, one of which was the leader of the opposition in Manitoba, the party colleague of the Minister of Transport, that since there was not to be an advisory body to the transportation commission the reason was that much stronger why there should be an effective parliamentary committee to look into all major aspects of the work of the transportation commission and transportation matters generally. If the leader of the opposition in Manitoba had realized the fact that the committee before which he was appearing at the time was the very committee which had voted nine to eight to refuse to require the railway companies to provide certain crucial cost accounting data and information, I am sure he would have been very much disappointed. In any case I stress the fact that in my estimation it is not too important whether the committee is based on a statute or whether it derives its authority from the ordinary rules of the house. What is important is the body of precedent and practice built up over the years by committees
January 12, 1967

which show a willingness and a determination to exercise the authority given them by parliament to the fullest extent possible.
The purpose of the exercise of this authority is to evaluate properly bills having to do with transportation and to evaluate properly whether or not the transportation commission is fulfilling its functions in an adequate and proper manner. Of course to do that the committee will have to have outside experts. One would hope that with a little bit of encouragement and prodding from this side the government of the day will see fit to provide sufficient funds so that a permanent staff could be provided to carry out the necessary research and economic analysis for this committee.
I believe that the remarks I have just made indicate what my position is with respect to this amendment. I have come around to the point of view that it is not really necessary to follow the particular course of action proposed in the amendment, but it is important that this house and governments which will follow give the transportation committee sufficient encouragement to exercise its authority to the full.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, before the amendment is dealt with I want to make a few remarks. I think it should be observed that the establishment of a statutory committee would, first of all, establish a new class of committees in the House of Commons. While I am most fully in accord with the objectives of the hon. member for Peace River in his desire to achieve the best possible oversight of the work of the new transportation commission by parliament, I am not satisfied that the way to achieve this is through the establishment of a new statutory committee and a whole new class of committees in the House of Commons because if we establish one statutory committee then this will simply be an invitation to establish other such committees. Certainly a committee would immediately be demanded for oversight of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and other agencies of the federal government.
[DOT] (6:10 pjn.)
What would happen to us in this house if we established this committee? The moment it was established all the standing committees, including the present standing committee on transport and communications, would become, in respect of their powers and their terms of office, junior committees and secondary to this new statutory committee. This would be the 23033-742
Transportation
prestige committee, the top committee of them all. No other committee would have its peculiar powers or term of office. Indeed, even the public accounts committee, which by custom is always chaired by a member of the opposition and which is charged with examining the accounts of the government of Canada as submitted to it by the Auditor General, would not have the powers of office or be surrounded by the statutory protection which would be given to a transport committee such as the hon. member for Peace River envisages. The public accounts committee, which historically investigates the whole of the accounts of the Canadian government and from which we hope nothing could be concealed because all is open to the eyes of the Auditor General, the servant of that committee, is the senior committee of oversight in the House of Commons. However, suddenly, by the establishment of a statutory committee, the position of that committee would certainly be displaced. It would be a junior committee in so far as function is concerned to the committee which the hon. member envisages.
What would happen to the standing committee on transport and communications which we now have once this committee was established? The existing standing committee would be a junior committee, a less desirable committee than the one which the hon. member for Peace River would establish. What would become, sir, of our good friend the hon. member for Hamilton West, who worked so hard for the passage of this bill?


Thomas Miller Bell: Send him to
the Senate.


Grant Deachman: We would send him to the Senate. I do not see him in the house at the moment, but I will convey your thoughts to him. Who would be members of the new committee? Would the members of the present transport committee also be members of this new committee? If that were so, would this committee consisting of 12 members be named by 12 members of the transport committee and would the standing committee on transport really become a subcommittee of the new statutory committee? All these questions would have to be resolved if we were to establish in the House of Commons a new class of committee, a statutory committee, such as the hon. member asks the house to establish.
If this course were followed we would have statutory committees, we would have the standing committees which we established last

January 12, 1967
Transportation
session, we would have special committees of the house which are formed from time to time and we would have joint committees of the house and Senate which are formed from time to time.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Grant Deachman: Yes, I would be glad to permit a question.


Edward Richard Schreyer: The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra has stated that this committee would have a peculiar term of office, a peculiar manner of establishment, and I think everyone agrees. However, I believe he said it would have a peculiar set of powers. Would the hon. member elaborate on that particular point because it seems to me there is nothing special or peculiar about the powers which this committee would have? The powers, in effect, would be no different from the powers other committees have at the present time.


Grant Deachman: If I understood hon. members who spoke from the opposition side in favour of the bill, particularly the hon. member for Edmonton West, mention was made of giving this committee a special staff and even setting up a permanent secretariat. In this way the committee would be different from other committees of the house. I concur in the remarks of the hon. member for Springfield who says he sees no reason why existing standing committees of the house cannot be brought up to the point where they can do precisely what the hon. member for Peace River wants to do. I concur in that suggestion. I believe, as do a number of people who have spoken on the subject today, that the standing committees should be the senior committees of this house. So far as we are able we should not depart from the procedure of referring matters to standing committees. We should not have so many special committees or joint committees, which we seem to be forever forming. We should send the business of the house to the standing committees.
I believe these committees should have a secretariat. I believe they should have experts to assist them. I do not believe these experts necessarily should be permanent staff members. From time to time chartered accountants, lawyers, engineers and economists should be retained by these committees to assist them with the special matters that are referred to them. In this way the committees would have a capability which they do not have now or have only on rare occasions, to examine the business of government. I believe

that the problem of oversight of a government as big as the Canadian government, which is now spending between $6 billion and $7 billion a year, is enormous. I believe the only way by which members of parliament can determine whether or not the proliferation of government services, the increase in government expenditures, is valid and in the public interest is through the committee system.
I do not share the belief of the hon. member for Peace River that it is necessary to establish a new and peculiar class of committee to accomplish this purpose. I believe the committee system that we began to establish last year when we set up committees roughly parallel to each department of government was a proper and valid direction in which to proceed. If we begin now to establish a new class of committee with greater seniority than any of the established committees, we will destroy the very good work we started last year. I believe we must make some amendment to our committee procedures. We must experiment with such matters as quorums, the size of committees, committee staffing, timetables and schedules. However, let us not destroy the useful committee system which we have in this house and which serves us all. I ask opposition members and backbenchers on the government side to put their faith in the establishment and perfection of a system of standing committees. Herein lies the opportunity for members of parliament to move into the future with new powers of oversight over the greater powers of government.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My remarks will be quite brief, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to repeat the arguments of previous speakers. As a matter of fact, I support the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Springfield. I have listened with a great deal of interest to this debate. I must say I have a great deal of respect for the member for Peace River, the member for Qu'Appelle, the member for Edmonton West and the point of view they have advanced. I am sure they have excellent intentions and it is obvious to anyone who has read the proposed amendment that they spent a great deal of time in drafting it in order to meet all the situations they feel should be met in this manner. However, after listening to the debate I must say that the Minister of Transport is on sounder ground.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
This is the first time in my experience in this house, which now extends over 22 years, that I have not noticed the heart of a member
January 12, 19G7

of the Conservative party being warmed by reference to precedents established in the reign of Charles I. It is amazing on this occasion to find that it is the old, radical socialists at this end of the house who are responding to this argument while the Progressive Conservative members seem quite cold to it. It has been an interesting experience in listening to debates over a period of 22 years to hear them respond to that argument repeatedly. Times have changed. One hardly knows what will happen in the future.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could interrupt the hon. gentleman to ask for an interpretation of his remarks. Did he think that I had taken over from the Leader of the Opposition as the bearer of King Charles' head?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, I did not think that. I would answer by saying that the atmosphere of debate is so constructive and amiable that I will do nothing to destroy it. However, I think the minister was on sound ground when he referred to the precedents established in the mother of parliaments where, whatever our opinions may be with respect to other matters, we must realize that freedom was established and that throughout the centuries we have enjoyed the benefits of it, even though some people refer to the mother of parliaments as the haughty mother of parliaments.
This amendment is an attempt to change the constitution by the side door by providing for the establishment of committees on a statutory basis. I think this is very unsound indeed, and this is why I want to express my point of view. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, what we need to do is to change the rules. The rules were changed two years ago and there has been a rearrangement of our committees. We know we have to reconsider the provisional rules. Some of the rules are not functioning very well and require amendment and possibly there will be amendments with respect to the committee system. But I am confident that if we review our experience over the past year or so with the rules of this house and the committees as they are established, we can devise rules which will meet satisfactorily the changing circumstances of our times and the future. I am sure of that.
I suggest that this is where we must make provision for committees that function to the satisfaction of parliament as a whole, to the satisfaction of members on the government side as well as members of the opposition. Committees should be appointed on the basis 23033-742J
Transportation
of drawing on the best of our experience in the past two years and the provision of competent staff to deal with the particular circumstances that any committee is appointed to study. This is what we should do, and in conversation with the hon. member for Edmonton West I think he agreed that one of the essentials was to change the rules so that they suit the times in which we are operating. But let us do nothing on this occasion to destroy the independence of this house by, shall I say, a very well-intentioned attempt to appoint committees on a statutory basis.


Mr. Brand:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks on the amendment now before the committee because I believe it is of the utmost importance. The principle suggested in the amendment has implications which have already been indicated and extend far beyond the most important bill now before us.
In my short tenure in this house I have been made increasingly aware of the frustrations and restrictions which are placed on the members of this house. More and more we see a complex bureaucratic machine running the affairs of this country. More and more we as members experience difficulty in obtaining information from certain government corporations, commissions and boards. This is why I think the proposal to establish a statutory committee which will be more effective than the present committee system is of the utmost importance.
I believe that the hon. member for Essex West made reference, for example, to the C.B.C. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra went so far as to suggest that if this statutory committee were created requests would be made for such a committee to deal with the C.B.C. and its difficulties. I think that this is exactly the problem. I sat through 31 or 32 meetings of the broadcasting committee which dealt with that circus that became known as the "Seven Days" affair, and where are we so far as that corporation is concerned? We are back where we started. We have looked at the estimates of the C.B.C. and the B.B.G. has been discussed, but we have still been unable to do anything at all about the problems of the C.B.C.
Is this what is going to happen to the new transportation commission, Mr. Chairman? I sincerely hope not. Certainly I have never heard in this house so much agreement on a proposal before the house and such disagreement as to the method of implementing the proposal.

January 12, 1967
Transportation
On reading the minutes of the proceedings of the committee on transport and communications at the time it was studying the bill now before this committee I found some comments which are very apropos. They were made by Mr. Charles W. Gibbings, president of the Canadian Co-operative Wheat Producers. I do not think there is any argument that this particular group uses more transportation, particularly in rail form, than any other group in Canada in view of the number of bushels of wheat that are sent to the seaboard from the prairies. This group felt very strongly about a particular question posed, which is to be found at page 1886 of the proceedings of that committee. Mr. Gibbings was asked whether there was any concern about the will of the people not being effectively heard by the transport commission, and I should like to quote his reply:
This is our concern, that if the commission is almost totally isolated from the views of the general public it is possible for them to become overgrown with the tangle of technical preconceptions to the point where they do not see the broader picture.
Mr. Gibbings was there expressing concern such as I have heard expressed on both sides of this house tonight. When he was asked whether he would like to put some other board or committee between the communications source and the people and the transportation commission, he made this reply. In his answer he is also referring to a method used in the legislature of Saskatchewan which has proven to be effective:
Once each year, as you have indicated, the operations of the crown corporations are examined in considerable detail and reported to the press, and, therefore, to the public and to the members of the legislature; and as a consequence I believe the management of the corporations are more sensitive to the views and requirements of the public than would otherwise be the case.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
It seems that there are many instances and that many people are concerned. I am sure that the minister who was present at that meeting of the committee is aware of this organization's concern about this matter. It is afraid that the public, through their members of parliament, may not have the degree of say in the running of the transportation industry that they would like to have and by right ought to have.
This matter, as has been suggested, goes beyond the bill. It involves the sovereign rights of parliament, the right of members of parliament to get information and express

views to numerous boards, crown corporations and the like. Under the present committee system when members attempt to get information they just do not get it. There is always a reason. The matter is an internal one that should not be discussed or there is the question of competition. Organizations say, "We do not like to give this information out because of competition." It is for this reason that the hon. member for Peace River in his amendment refers to secrecy and the taking of evidence in private. He has a valid point. If a person is asked for information which can be used to the disadvantage of his concern, that information should be given in private.
We have run into the problem in committees of the house of getting information from crown corporations. The classic example is where one asks for artists' fees. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation says that as a matter of policy this information is not to be given out. Surely we, representing the people of Canada, should know how the money supplied from the taxes of the people is spent. I believe that the concept of a statutory committee is entirely new. It is also a worth-while concept. Whether new or not, such a committee appointed by act of parliament would, I hope, probe into matters affecting crown corporations, boards, and what have you.
It has been suggested that the committee would be a prestige committee. I do not think members of the house worry about that aspect and in my view such criticism is not valid. I should not, for example, wish to sit on the committee as I do not pretend to know much about transportation problems. But there are others who are experts. We already have a selection committee which chooses committee members. There could be agreement, among the members of the selection committee, and the members of the committee in question could be appointed in the manner that members of the standing committees are now appointed.
I do not feel competent to comment on the minister's statement that by having a committee established by statute we should be giving up some of our rights to the other place. I have not done any research on this point but I hazard a guess that I could probably find one or two instances where the other place has passed upon matters of real concern to the House of Commons.
In closing I wish to quote the eloquent words of the hon. member for Peace River on
January 12, 1967

December 20, as reported on page 11392 of Hansard. He said:
The scope of the act is enormous, and equally vast will be the overriding supervisory authority of the transport commission. Let there be no doubt that if this bill is passed without any material change we shall have surrendered to those men who will compose the commission almost complete authority over a variety of subject matters in the field of transportation which so deeply affects every Canadian and every part of Canada.
Those words eloquently sum up the problem before the committee at the moment. At page 11394 the hon. member went on to say:
I feel a small committee of this kind, established under statute and its powers given under statute, will be able to exercise the type of watchdog function which is going to be essential if this parliament, composed of the representatives of the people, is going to retain some measure, not of control, not, I suggest, as an appellate tribunal, but simply the power to see what is happening; the power to see the impact and the effect of the regulations and functions which this transport commission is going to exercise.
He went on to say:
I suggest, therefore, the establishment of this committee is the most effective means presented to the House of Commons whereby we can continue in a proper way our right to evaluate, to examine, to criticize, and to suggest.
I suggest, from my experience on standing committees of the house during my brief tenure here, that if the new commission appears before the kind of committees operating now the value of that appearance will be open to serious doubt. Citing the example I used a few moments ago of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I suggest that in many ways we may be abrogating our responsibility to the people of Canada by giving it up to the multiplicity of boards and corporations being set up. I urge the minister to reconsider the matter and to look carefully into this sensible and timely amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Several members not present wish to speak on this amendment. To give them an opportunity to speak and to make a little progress, I wonder whether we could not agree to let this amendment stand. Could we also let the commodity pipe line part stand and go to clause 29.


Mr. Thomas:: Mr. Chairman, there is a matter that X wish to bring up under this clause.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am aware of the hon. gentleman's desire, but if the clause was stood he would not forgo his right. He would have the same privilege of speaking on it when it comes up as he has now. In any event he cannot put his matter before the committee now as we have another amendment.
Transportation


Jean-Thomas Richard: Is it
agreeable that the amendment stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment stands.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Clauses 22 to 29 are to stand?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Clauses 22 to 28. Could we
go on with clause 29.
Clauses 22 to 28 inclusive stand.
Clauses 29 to 32 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 33-Tolls and tariffs.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether this is the right clause-


Jean-Thomas Richard: Is this on clause 33?


Thomas Miller Bell: No. Without
getting into a constitutional problem I wish to raise something the minister mentioned the other day. Does any obligation rest on a person who applies for a federal licence or permit to produce a provincial licence first?
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not altogether familiar with the actual operations of the provincial boards under the Motor Vehicles Transport Act-I have found the name of it and remember it this time. What this parliament did was to clothe these provincial bodies with federal powers. As I understand it they can issue licences for carrying on a transportation business within a province and beyond a province-within a province under provincial jurisdiction and beyond it under the jurisdiction given by this parliament. But I confess I am not familiar with the details of the mechanics of the process because I am in no way responsible for it. It is not intended to disturb these arrangements unless decisions of the courts or other situations which arise make it necessary to do so.
If this clause should come into operation it is my understanding that a motor vehicle undertaking which was solely engaged in interprovincial transport would go to the federal commission to get its licence but not the licences to run its vehicles; those would still have to come from the provincial authority. But the licence or the charter for interprovincial business would have to come from the federal authority. This would give no authority to do business solely within a province. The

January 12, 1967
Transportation
situation would be exactly that of the railways at the present time. This parliament has no jurisdiction at all over railways running solely within a province and chartered by a province.


Thomas Miller Bell: In other
words, the federal authority has no right to require any applicant for a federal licence to produce a provincial permit? The federal authority has no right to inquire whether a particular applicant has a provincial permit of another nature?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, but I would think they would find out whether it was a provincially incorporated company. The company would probably do federal business, though I do not know about that, and they would find out before they gave it a licence to do business for them, I hope, that it had some capital, that it had some machines to carry out the business and that those machines were properly licenced to travel on the roads, and so on. But in no way whatever could this infringe upon anything which was under the jurisdiction of any provincial legislature.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Could the minister elaborate further and advise us whether there is anything under clause 32 or clause 33 which involves the collection of money for such licences?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sorry. I did not hear the hon. member.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I was wondering whether anything in clause 32 or clause 33 would authorize the collection of moneys from such licensing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It certainly is not expressly included. I do not think that is envisaged.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
On clause 35-Regulations.
Thomas Miller Bell: Perhaps I should have asked this question on clause 31, but it has to do with regulations. Why did the hon. member for Port Arthur not move his amendment to a clause in this part of the bill rather than to a clause in the previous part? Does the minister know?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is because the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur applies not just to trucking and one other mode but to any of the modes of transport. If a railway wishes to buy a pipe line,

or if a steamship company wants to buy an air line, it would apply equally. It applies to all modes of transport under the jurisdiction of parliament and therefore it seemed appropriate to make it to the clause dealing with the commission. Though we all know it was brought about mainly because of the trucking situation and that it is mainly desired by those in the trucking business, it was thought preferable to make it of general application.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Before we leave part III I should like to ask the minister whether the provisions of this part of the bill are intended simply as a standby or whether there is any part which is to be proclaimed soon as having the force of law?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister has given an assurance to all the provincial premiers that we have no intention of putting this into effect at the present time or at any early date. We wish to have a conference with the provinces on the meshing of the provincial and the federal functions in this field.
These undertakings will be carried on over roads belonging to the provinces and I do not think the proposals will work at all without a reasonable measure of administrative co-operation. We do not want to disturb the present arrangements without cause but there have been one or two decisions in the courts which suggest it may be impossible for these provincial agencies to exercise the jurisdiction of this parliament effectively in certain contingencies. Because these decisions have been reached, because these cases have arisen and because the present legislation is before us, it was thought wise to ensure that we should not find ourselves suddenly in a state of legal anarchy such as we found ourselves in after the Privy Council decision of 1954.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I realize there is little that can be gained from asking hypothetical questions, but I assume the minister is involved in some long-range planning and prognostication where transportation is concerned. Can he tell us whether it is the long-range intention to repeal the present legislation with respect to interprovincial motor vehicle transport or to implement part III, or would the minister not care to answer?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not mind answering though I am afraid the answer will have to be negative. It has not been possible for me to address my mind to a problem so far ahead; it is the short term I have been trying to deal with. But I do feel we ought to take precautions where we can in this situation. It may
January 12, 1967

well be that the time will come when this will seem a reasonable thing to do, but there is no plan for taking action of this kind at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 36 agreed to.
On clause 37-Changes or alterations.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I realize that this refers to companies. We know that companies are formed to own and operate bridges. Could the minister explain how this clause would be implemented? Some bridges are owned by provincial governments, some by companies formed for that purpose and then there are some companies that own a bridge and lease the operating rights to another company. Can the minister tell us how this clause will operate when the bill comes into effect?


John Whitney Pickersgill: To tell you the honest truth, Mr. Chairman, I cannot. One of the reasons this part is in the bill is that the Minister of Transport is charged with the administration of these functions, and this Minister of Transport does not even know when they arise or how. This is a straight buck-passing proposition. All the bill is doing is transferring this responsibility to the Minister of Public Works so the Minister of Transport in future will not have to do it. This provision is not making any new law; it is just transferring the present law from one minister to another.
Most bridges, of course, it will not affect at all. There are only certain bridges that will be affected. I presume they must be interprovincial or international bridges, because I would not think a bridge wholly within a province, even if it was owned by the government of Canada, would be affected unless it was declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. I am looking at the hon. member for Carleton. It looks to me as though he is just dying to put us straight on this matter. If he is, I would be very glad to be rescued.
It seems to me that a bridge which goes from one province to another is clearly an undertaking beyond the jurisdiction of a provincial legislature, because they have no extraterritorial jurisdiction. The same would be true of an international bridge. There is a provision in the British North America Act that a work can be declared a work for the general advantage of Canada. If it is, it is under the jurisdiction of this parliament. I cannot envisage any other bridges that would
T ransportation
be. Even if they happened to be owned by us, I would imagine they would in the normal course comply with the ordinary laws.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I would not undertake such a difficult task as to put the minister straight on all things, as he suggested, but I would ask him whether the government has any plans for general international bridge legislation. I raised this matter earlier in connection with a private bill advanced during this session. Some years ago a considerable amount of work had been done on general international bridge legislation of a standard character. It seemed to me that we should come to such a bill. I do not mean this particular bill, but I believe we should have a standardization of the conditions under which international bridges are built and operated. The present assistant deputy minister of energy, mines and resources, who was then assistant secretary to the treasury board, Mr. John MacDonald, was I thought the greatest expert on bridges I had ever known. I hoped he would be given the opportunity to advance this idea and present legislation which I believe is long overdue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think there is such a bill, as the hon. gentleman says. I think it is in the works somewhere.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: It has been in the works for at least four years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, this matter goes away back to the time of the Rainbow bridge or the Honeymoon bridge, whatever it was called, over the Niagara river which collapsed in 1937 or the beginning of 1938. It was just about the time I first came to Ottawa. In those days there was supposed to be a Liberal government in Toronto as well as in Ottawa. The relations between them were sometimes not diplomatic, and some question arose about whether they needed any permission to build the bridge. There was a real shemozzle over it. I think it was at the time that Max Wershof and I were in external affairs, or I was in the prime minister's office and he was in external affairs. We took a great interest in this question. That is how it really got started. It has been making progress ever since.
The hon. member for Carleton was in government, as was the hon. member for Ontario, though for a little longer than the hon. member for Carleton. I think they both know there are a certain number of legislative projects that are raised every year, and then you sit in

January 12/ 1967
Transportation
the cabinet-I am revealing cabinet secrets but they are not very secret secrets-and you say: This has to go through now and that has to go through, now. This good old bridge deal will be saved for some Friday afternoon when there is nothing else to do. And the Friday afternoon never comes. A great deal of good, useful legislation that in the long run would save a great deal of the time of both houses of parliament and the government is not passed for this reason. I agree heartily with the hon. member for Carleton.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might suggest that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Pursuant to agreement made earlier this day I do now leave the chair. The committee will resume its proceedings at eight o'clock.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order.
On clause 38-Tolls on international bridges.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will
resume consideration of Bill C-231. We are on part V, clause 38. Shall the clause carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 39-Directors may make traffic agreements.
William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I may be a little ahead of myself-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think perhaps the hon. gentleman is. If we might carry clause 39, he could then move his amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment I should like to suggest. I believe it would be numbered as new clause 39A, copy of which has been handed in at the table. Originally we intended to move it as an amendment to clause 20 and number it 20A. It was considered wiser, however, to bring it in at this stage of our consideration of the bill. The

amendment seeks to provide the commission with power to lay down the conditions under which abandonment can take place.
During previous sessions private members bills have been introduced to this effect. Invariably time did not permit a decision to be reached in respect of any of these attempts to establish this principle in our railway legislation. It is a principle which should be established, because where abandonment is carried out in an unplanned and unregulated manner some very unfortunate experiences occur in various parts of the country. I might state again the experience we had in my part of Ontario when the New York Central Railway abandoned their Courtright line which extended across the counties of Lambton, Middlesex and part of Essex. The business on the line had diminished until there was very little operation of the railway. The company was granted permission by the Board of Transport Commissioners to abandon this line.
For a number of years before abandonment took place the company had neglected to keep the fences and other equipment along the line in repair. When they were granted permission to abandon the line they tore out the rails, the ties, and any usable culverts. The fences were wrecked by the power machinery used to demolish the structures along the line. The line when abandoned was left in terrible shape. It became an eyesore and a nuisance to the whole area it crossed. Whether or not they have had farming experience, I am sure hon. members will realize that when a railway line crosses a rural area it separates the farms into two parts part being on one side of the railway line and part on the other side. So long as the railway line is in operation the Railway Act provides that the railway company at its own expense shall maintain the fences along the right of way and shall provide drainage from one part of the farm to the other; that is, the railway line is not permitted to impede drainage of any kind. Each farm must be provided with a properly maintained crossing across the railway line.
The Board of Transport Commissioners has ruled that once a line is abandoned they have no further jurisdiction over the right of way. In this case it reverts to the status of any other property held in the province or in the municipality. Any rights, privileges, and protection which persons along the railway previously had enjoyed under the Railway Act disappear. The farmers cannot cross these rights of way, fenced or unfenced, without
January 12, 1967

trespassing. The fences fall down; they are allowed to deteriorate; livestock can wander at will, and the right of way grows up in brush and weeds. No one can do anything about this, and that is the point I wish to stress here.
Questions have been raised concerning the competence of the parliament of Canada to deal with this matter, on the ground that once a right of way ceases to be used as a railway it then reverts to the status of private property, and comes under provincial jurisdiction. I submit there still remains a question concerning jurisdiction over these abandoned lines. I am not learned in the law and therefore I am not in a position to argue the case. However, from a common sense point of view, and speaking as one who has seen and experienced what happened in southwestern Ontario when this Courtright line of the New York Central Railway was abandoned, I say there is a gap in our railway legislation, if this parliament does not have the jurisdiction to legislate in this regard.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
If the parliament of Canada does not have jurisdiction in this regard, who does? Can we say that provincial governments can enter the field of legislation concerning railways? I do not think that would be admitted. This parliament should go as far as it can to see that this gap is properly filled. We have authorities in this country to tell us when we get out of line and when we in this parliament exceed our authority, and I refer particularly to the Supreme Court of Canada. We should not stop short of the Supreme Court of Canada in our attempt to make sure that this parliament carries out its full responsibilities to fill this gap which is apparent in our railway legislation.
For that reason I should like to move this amendment:
That Bill C-231 be amended by inserting immediately after clause 39 on page 23 of the bill the following as clause 39A:
That section 168 of the Railway Act be repealed and the following substituted therefor:-
Section 168. The company may abandon the operation of any line of railway with the approval of the commission and upon such terms and conditions subsequent as the commission from time to time may by order provide, and no company shall abandon the operation of any line of railway without such approval or do, cause or permit to be done any matter, act or thing contrary to, or omit to do any matter, or act or thing required by, the terms and conditions so provided.
Transportation
Section 168 of the Railway Act is a very short and simple section which reads as follows:
The company may abandon the operation of any line of railway with the approval of the board, and no company shall abandon the operation of any line of railway without such approval.
Let me point out that when this act was passed many years ago there was no problem as to the abandonment of railway lines. The present program of abandonment, including several abandonments which have taken place, is a clear indication that we are entering into a new era of railway regulation. The very fact that we are setting up a new transport commission and overhauling pertinent acts is an indication that a new era of transportation has arrived. The time to give consideration to the filling of the gap in our legislation is now, while we are setting up this new act, which leaves open the matter of abandonment. I submit that the new commission should have the power to lay down the conditions under which abandonment may take place.
In this connection I suggest to the minister that one of the conditions for abandonment should be the appointment of an abandonment planning board for each line to be abandoned. This board should be representative of the various interests which will be affected. Such a board should have on it representatives of the railway company, the municipalities and others concerned. This abandonment board for each abandoned line should have the responsibility of recommending to the transport board, or in this case the new commission, the conditions under which abandonment could be permitted. The recommendations should concern the best disposition of the right of way in the public interest and in the other matters of vital public concern.
Where the right of way separates farm lands, that right of way should be restored wherever practicable to the farm lot from which the land was originally taken. This would eliminate the nuisance of having parts of farms separated from each other, and would permit the farmer in each case to reincorporate the right of way to the best possible advantage of his farm, and to control drainage and weed menace.
Larger areas of property such as those in townsites should be disposed of in the best public interest, after consultation with the municipalities concerned. It is proposed that whenever an application for abandonment is granted by the transport board, or the new commission, a waiting period should be allowed during which such a representative

January 12. 1967
Transportation
abandonment planning board as suggested could prepare a plan for abandonment. The services of municipal and provincial planning boards should be used where available. Conservation authorities at various levels of government should also be consulted. There is no sound reason why we should now abandon these railway lines in such a way as to leave ghost towns and unsightly scars across the face of our country.
Let me read one paragraph of a letter from the vice-president of the Canadian National Railways dated July 9, 1963. I wrote to the Canadian National in respect of a bill which I had on the order paper at that time, asking for comments. The paragraph reads as follows:
I thought I should tell you that it is the policy of the company that where a line has been abandoned, endeavours are made to dispose of the excess right of way by either transferring it to some public authority which may desire it, such as a provincial highway department or a municipality, or else offer it to the adjoining landowners at a reasonable price. There may, of course, be other occasions where the land is retained in the company's name because of possible future industrial development. While it remains in the railway's possession we endeavour, of course, to comply with the applicable provincial laws and also cooperate with the farmers in the area to prevent cattle wandering, by extending fences, and so on.
That letter is signed by Mr. R. T. Vaughan, vice-president of the Canadian National at that time.
This would indicate that the railways are cognizant of a deficiency in our abandonment procedure.
I urge the minister, the government and members of this committee once again to give this matter serious consideration because this means a great deal to those areas where these abandoned lines may create great nuisance to the many people concerned.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member has said, on several occasions he desired to have this house and this parliament enact, as a separate amendment to the Railway Act, this particular proposed amendment to the bill. I have the greatest sympathy with the objective which he has in mind. It is bad enough to have a railway line crossing a farm and cutting it in two, but when it ceases to be a railway line and is just a nuisance I can understand how the farmers feel about it.
I would be very sympathetic indeed with the objective of the amendment, but the best advice I have been able to get is that the

probability of the courts deciding that once the railway line is abandoned and is no longer used for railway purposes, although it was owned by a railway company, that it would be under the jurisdiction of parliament, seems very doubtful indeed. It would seem to be almost certain that any legislative provisions with respect to the disposition of such property would be matters of property and civil rights and therefore come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures.
We would be very loath to purport to enact legislation which perhaps would arouse hopes when we ourselves did not really have much confidence that it would be the law, and knew that it would merely be an expression of a pious feeling. For that reason I would hope that the hon. gentleman would not feel inclined to press the amendment, to press it unduly, but I would like this principle to be given the fullest possible consideration and possibly be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling. Hon. Mr. Justice Rand, on page 290 of the Canada Supreme Court Reports for 1958, in speaking of section 198 of the Railway Act, wrote the following:


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I do not want
An extraordinary power itself created by parliament which, being its creator, can modify it to whatever extent or in whatever manner may be considered advisable.
It is difficult to convince these farmers that when the House of Commons can pass legislation permitting a railway company to come to their farm and forcibly take a strip across it, and lay down the conditions under which this railway company must protect the rights of the individual land owner as long as that railway is in operation, it cannot compel abandonment in an orderly manner.
I would like to see this matter referred to the Supreme Court of Canada in order to confirm once and for all that the parliament of Canada has the responsibility to lay down railway legislation covering interprovincial railway lines. Before that railway line is abandoned, certainly it is under the jurisdiction of parliament, and while that jurisdiction remains with parliament why can not parliament, through the commission which it sets up, lay down the conditions under which abandonment may take place? If the railway company cannot see their way clear to abide by these conditions for abandonment as laid down, they do not get permission for abandonment. Therefore it seems to me that the
January 12, 1967

responsibility to lay down the conditions under which abandonment should take place lies with the parliament of Canada, and it can be done after full consultation with the provinces and municipalities. I would assume that the provinces and municipalities would be only too glad to confer to this end with the parliament of Canada to see that these abandonments are properly planned and carried out, so as not to create a nuisance to the property owners along these rights of way.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say a word or two in support of this amendment. I agree completely with the last few remarks made by the hon. member for Middlesex West. We must realize that the granting of the right of way was given by the parliament of Canada, and I see no real reason why it could not be written into this bill that this be one of the conditions of abandonment. I see no reason why the commission should not lay down regulations regarding the use of the right of way, because when one looks at this problem he sees that the adjoining farmlands-and I wish to deal with the question of farmlands first-have a caveat against the railway's right of way, because the railway has no right to disturb the drainage of the adjoining farmlands. Therefore the railway has a moral obligation to recognize this unwritten caveat, and as long as it uses that right of way it has to observe the conditions under which it can use it, namely that the drainage of the land must not be disturbed and that access across the right of way is given. If railroad is abandoned, then that piece of land is either abandoned, remains the property of the railroad or else is sold to a real estate company or sold back to the farmer.
However, if, for example, it is sold to a real estate company in an industrial area or a suburban area of a city, then immediately the problem of drainage of adjoining land will arise, or else the access or right of way to the farmland will be disturbed. This is what happens in areas adjacent to cities.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
This amendment suggests that the commission shall set up returns on which an abandonment can take place. I wholeheartedly support it because land should not be granted by parliament and then, after the use for which parliament granted it has expired, turned over to somebody else without some recognition of the conditions upon which the grant was given. Surely this is what the hon. member is requesting in this amendment. I
Transportation
do not believe it is too great a demand. The commission should study this problem and, in cases where it is important, lay down some conditions for the abandonment which would have regard to the adjacent lands through which the right of way runs. I do not believe this point has to be ruled upon by the Supreme Court. I believe parliament could enact a provision asking the commission to shoulder the responsibility of making sure that all parties operating land adjacent to a railway right of way which is abandoned are treated fairly and that some recognition is given, in a sense, to the caveat which was placed against the right of way in the beginning.


Mr. Korchinski:: This clause in the bill is going to be one of the most difficult for those affected by abandonments to understand. Up until the time the railway


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might raise a point of order, sir? We have not reached, as yet, the clauses in the bill dealing with rail line abandonment. I hope we will wait until we get to those clauses before embarking on any general discussion of rail line abandonment.


Stanley James Korchinski: I am sure that I will be allowed to comment on the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Middlesex West. People who have had a railway line going through their property will find it difficult to understand how a government which, in the first instance, allowed the railway to trespass upon the land, if you want to use that term, would pass legislation allowing abandonment of the right of way without making some determination as to the ownership of that property. The railway does not really own it, in the sense that if anybody trespasses upon it they can say: You will be subject to a $25 fine.
How long is this situation going to exist? Is it going to exist forever? Is this situation going to exist for five years or 20 years? This bill does not provide any solution to the problem. Obviously, we will allow the railways to pull out their tracks, but we will not allow them to go there to cut the grass or get rid of the weeds. However, we will allow the railways to say they have the right, whenever somebody trespasses, to stop that person and this situation could continue for 20 or 25 years. This is not a situation we should allow to exist. Somewhere along the line the commission must be permitted to make a judgment within a limited time or we must inser*

January 12, 1967'
Transportation
in the bill the amendment suggested by the hon. member tor Middlesex West. Then, the railway right of way could revert to the adjacent property owners or to a municipality. Some provision must be made to allocate this property to someone. We must not allow this property to be left in the hands of the railways, who no longer really want it. This is the point I want to raise at this particular time. The railways must either make use of the land or wash their hands of it. We must make provision in the legislation for the disposition of the land, and this is all we are asking of the minister at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think there is a great deal of merit in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Middlesex West. The minister has raised the question of whether or not this parliament has jurisdiction to deal with the land which constitutes the right of way after it has ceased to be a railway. As I understand the intent of the amendment, what the hon. member is suggesting is that while this is still a railway, as a prior condition to the railway being allowed to abandon the right of way, conditions shall be laid down as to the disposition of that land in order that it might not be an eyesore, in order that it might not cause bad feeling, and particularly that it might not cause inconvenience to the persons who have land adjacent to that right of way.
It seems to me this is a logical position to take. I believe that this parliament would have no jurisdiction over this right of way after it has been abandoned, but surely this parliament has the authority to give to the commission the power to set down terms and conditions under which an abandonment will be granted. I am not a lawyer and neither is the minister. It may be that he has sought legal advice on this point. I should like to urge him that he might want to let this matter stand until we have gone into the whole question of railway abandonment.
I agree with the minister that we should not get into a debate on railway abandonment at the moment. I am sure the minister must appreciate the fact, because he has given a great deal of thought to this question, that where there is railway abandonment there will have to be some machinery set up for disposing of the land. Almost endless controversies could begin. The railway might say, for instance, that they will give the land to persons adjacent to it at a certain price. Who is going to adjudicate that price? If someone else not adjacent offers a higher price, will the railway grant it to him? If that is done, there

will be a wedge of land separating a farmer's property which is owned by someone else. There will be endless litigation, as well as problems about municipal roads and provincial highways.
Surely some authorized body will have to have power to make these decisions. It seems to me a sensible thing to say that the commission which is going to grant approval for abandonment should lay down these conditions. It may be that the minister has some other machinery in mind. I hope now, or when we deal with railway abandonment, the minister will tell the house how he proposes to deal with this problem. I recognize it is complicated but I can assure the minister it is one of the things about which the areas affected are now, and will be even more concerned when railway abandonment begins.
I think the suggestion contained here has real merit, although there may be some change necesssary in the wording. If, for example, we were to take out the words "from time to time", the conditions may have to be laid down once and for all at the time approval for abandonment is granted. Or, as was suggested by the hon. member for Mackenzie, some body may be set up which would lay down these conditions and then supervise the process of abandonment in order to see that those conditions are complied with. But there has to be some machinery for dealing with this question.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I have had a little experience of this matter^ because in the constituency I formerly reqre-sented in a provincial legislature there has already been some abandonment, and E can i tell the minister that the situation is a sorry [DOT] mess.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question solely for information. In any of the abandonments which took place while the hon. member was in the government of ' the province, did the province ever seek to assert jurisdiction over that property and to legislate with respect to it, or make any disposition of it?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We were not faced with that immediate problem because all that happened at that time was that the railway services had been discontinued and application had been made for abandonment; so the actual problem was not before us. But certainly a good deal of study had been given to the question by the
January 12, 1967

Department of Municipal Affairs, the Department of Highways, and the Association of Rural and Urban Municipalities.
Since that time I know there has been no clear-cut, well defined policy for dealing with some of the lines which have been abandoned. I hope that either now or when dealing with railway abandonment the minister will tell us what he has in mind, because it cannot just be left up in the air.
Before the minister rejects the amendment moved by the hon. member for Middlesex West I hope he will agree to let the matter stand until we have some satisfactory alternative to put in its place.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about this matter. It appears to me that without the amendment at all it would be quite competent for the commission to get the voluntary agreement of the railway to dispose of the land in a certain fashion. Such legal advice as I have been able to get has not been conclusive, of course. As the hon. gentleman knows, the courts sometimes differ with law officers of both federal and provincial governments, and sometimes legislation is enacted which turns out to be ultra vires.
However, Mr. Chairman, when one has the gravest doubts in his mind, as is the case at the present time, I think that any legislation we would enact which would purport to lay down conditions for the disposition of this property after it had ceased to be a railway would very probably have to be decided by the courts. If someone tried to enforce these conditions on somebody who did not want to carry them out, then it might very well turn out that they were beyond the competence of this parliament to enact. If we did this, then all we would have done might have been to mislead a lot of people and involve them in useless litigation.
For example, if the Canadian Pacific Railway applied to abandon a certain line, and the commission said "Before we are prepared to do this we would like to know what you are going to do with this property afterwards", and the company quite voluntarily agreed to a certain disposition, and then the commission delayed the hearing because it felt it was not in the public interest to act until it knew what was going to happen, then I have no doubt in my mind that it would be perfectly feasible to reach an arrangement, and this would not require any legislation at all. But whether we could enact legislation which would be compellable upon the railways after they ceased
Transportation
to operate a railway on the property is a matter which does seem to be in doubt.
I cannot argue for one moment that this amendment is out of order or beyond the scope of the bill because the bill deals with rail line abandonment. If the amendment is intra vires it is not beyond the scope of the subject matter of the bill. However, this is a matter which we did not recommend or feel should be included in the bill. It was not brought to the attention of the standing committee, and I know that the hon. member for Middlesex West will not feel that I am reflecting on him when I say that. I do not blame him in any way, but this is the fact and we are now at a rather late stage.
What I would be very happy to undertake to do is this. I find it a little difficult to try to decide between now and the time I hope to see the bill disposed of, whether we ought to enact this provision. However, I would be prepared to ask the commission as soon as it has been set up to consider this problem, to discuss it, and if it can find some method by which this parliament can deal with it, to make a recommendation so that we could legislate. If this cannot be done, the provincial governments should then be consulted to see whether they could legislate in this regard, so that when a rail line had been abandoned there would be some orderly means of disposing of the property, particularly in rural areas where it can quite obviously be a serious nuisance. That might be the most appropriate way to deal with the problem, and I would be happy to give an undertaking right now that as soon as the commission is set up this is one of the matters I would refer to the research side of the commission as an urgent matter to be dealt with.


Mr. Kindt:: May I just ask a question, Mr. Chairman. The explanation the minister has given connotes, at least to me, that he would take this move, but that it would be something like closing the barn door after the horse is stolen. I wonder whether be could not be more specific, and come at this in another way which would be more acceptable.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not know about the hon. gentleman's figure of speech, but an abandoned right of way is a pretty difficult thing to steal whether the bam door is open or closed. One would not mind so much if it were stolen and made good use of; the real problem seems to be that it lies there and is just a nuisance. Weeds grow and the farmer cannot protect himself properly. This

January 12, 1967
Transportation
is a very real problem, exactly the kind of problem to which it would be useful to give some proper consideration.
I am very regretful that we did not consider this question at an earlier stage. In view of the fact that the hon. gentleman has brought it to our attention two or three times, perhaps we should have. But facts are facts. We are going to have a commission that ought to be considering proplems of the kind, and I believe we would be more apt to get something done which we are sure would work by following the suggestion I have made than by enacting legislation which I have reason to feel would turn out to be unenforceable. In so far as making voluntary arrangements that will be voluntarily carried out, there will be no need for the legislation in any case.


Stanley James Korchinski: I hope I did not leave the impression with the committee that everyone is rushing to obtain this property. I happen to have some land through which a railway runs. As far as I am concerned, I wish it did not run through there, but the point is that it does. If the railway ever abandoned the property I do not know what I should do with my property. First of all, the topsoil has been scraped off. They have left nothing but clay or weedy soil. They have left a hump in the middle, and the place is a mess.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
There must be some form of responsibility for a property such as this. I do not think the railway should be allowed just to abandon. I am sure the municipalities involved do not want to see the railways just moving away. Perhaps some people are interested in the property to which I have referred, or perhaps they may be interested in the future. Perhaps some enterprising businessman will need this property. In any event it might be good for the country if the commission could deal with the problem.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the commission could, I agree. But if the commission could not legally deal with it, then the provincial legislature could. It is obvious that this is a matter that somebody could legislate about-either the legislature or parliament. If parliament cannot effectively legislate about the disposition of the property, particularly if this is worthless property-


Stanley James Korchinski: That is why I raised it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What the hon. member wants is a law that says that these properties cannot be left there to produce weeds and

make a nuisance of themselves, and that the railway, if it abandons that property, must see to it that this nuisance does not exist. If it turns out that we really have the power in parliament, to legislate about this, then we shall take steps to legislate. If it turns out we have no power, we shall bring the matter to the attention of the provincial legislatures so that they can deal with it. There must be jurisdiction somewhere to do this.
The happiest situation is usually where an abandoned railway line is turned into a provincial highway. In one case we unfroze part of a line between Winnipeg and Portage la Prairie so that the provincial department of highways could have the property. But a lot of these lines are in places where there is no use for a highway, where, as the hon. member for Mackenzie has said, such a mess has been made of the land it is not rehabilitable-if that is a word-for farm purposes, and it is just a nuisance.
I am conscious of die problem. I am anxious to do anything that can constructively be done to deal with it. But I would rather not ask the committee to do something in a bill that I do not believe will be really effective. If I believed that it would be effective I should have no objection to doing something.


Thomas Miller Bell: In an example a few moments ago the minister talked of Portage la Prairie. Does he have the details of how the province got authority to deal with the abandoned line?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In that case a deal was made between the Canadian National and the provincial department of highways.


Mr. Pascoe:: Could I ask a question. The minister talked about a line which was unfrozen. Could he tell the committee whether the railway paid anything toward the cost of the highway, or did the government pay anything toward the cost of constructing the highway?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that the
Manitoba government very much wanted the land. It represented an economy to them. The Manitoba minister of highways wrote to me about it, to see if the general freeze on this line could be lifted. There are two lines on the Canadian National on the south side of the Assiniboine river between Winnipeg and Portage la Prairie. It was not too many years ago when you could see trains on both lines only 100 yards apart. I gather that does not happen often now. The provincial department
January 12, 1967

of highways wanted nothing but the land. They were anxious to get it because it would represent an economy for the province.


Edward Richard Schreyer: The minister's reasoning in rejecting the amendment is difficult to follow. Ostensibly he doubts whether the federal government has jurisdictional competence to regulate what should happen on a right of way after a railway has abandoned it. Hon. members who have taken part in the debate on the amendment have made it abundantly clear that a condition prior to allowing railways to abandon lines ought to be that the railways shall comply with regulations and conditions to be laid down. That course would seem to satisfy constitutional requirements.
Yesterday the minister lectured this committee about the sanctity of contracts. What is suggested here has an element of contractural obligation, because when the commission grants or approves an application to abandon, obviously it shall do so in return for an undertaking on the part of the railway company to meet certain conditions. This matter is within the competence of the federal authority. The minister doubts whether this amendment would be intra vires. We should not proceed in this house on the basis of prejudging what a high court is likely to find. So long as there is a reasonable likelihood that legislation we enact is constitutional, we ought to enact it. The minister is aware I am sure that provincial legislation controlling property constituting railway rights of way is very limited.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This would be an abandoned right of way. That is the precise problem.


Edward Richard Schreyer: The provincial noxious weeds control acts would exercise some element of control, would give some measure of protection to adjacent property owners. That is the only provincial legislation I can think of that would have any application. Other than that, it seems that the public would have no protection from either level of government, unless legislation such as embodied in this amendment is enacted.
Judging by the minister's remarks, he refuses to consider the proposition I put to him, I think for the third time, that when a railway company applies to abandon a line the commission should hold hearings, and if willing to grant the application it should set down conditions which the railway company would have to observe in maintaining abandoned property. Unless the railway companies
Transportation
are prepared to accept these conditions their applications should not be approved.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
This kind of quid pro quo arrangement is logical and reasonable and I submit that it would leave the matter within the control of parliament and of the federal authorities. If the minister insists on opposing this amendment I wish he would deal with this specific argument which has been put to him two or three times in the last hour.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I appreciate the minister's interest in this matter. I know he has had his advisers do some work on this question, and I recognize that his contentions must be treated with great respect because I believe they are well founded. Even though I cannot agree with them, I would have to say that I am no more of an authority on the law than he is, that there may be some question about the matter, and that there may be something in what he says. The minister has agreed to use his influence with the new commission to ensure a thorough study of these problems. The commission will be asked to recommend to the government any remedies which it feels may be practical and within the government's power. I feel we should accept this proposition, let this matter stand, and trust that the hon. gentleman may be able to get good results along the lines he has proposed.
With this in mind I would be prepared to withdraw the amendment, if I have the consent of the committee to do so.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before the committee gives consent to the withdrawal of the amendment, may I express the hope that we can get some undertaking from the minister with respect to this whole matter when we discuss the general question of abandonment. The minister has suggested that it might be possible to reach voluntary arrangements. I think this would be most unsatisfactory. There would be cases in which this would work and others where I am sure it would not. It seems to me there must be something much more uniform than dependence on a variety of individual arrangements on a voluntary basis.
The minister says he is prepared to ask the commission to consider this problem. What I should like the minister to consider is this: What power would the commission have to deal with this matter, if it did decide to interest itself in it? That is what worries me. The commission may look into this matter; it may decide that this is an aspect about which

January 12, 1967
Transportation
something should be done. But it might respond to the minister by saying it had no statutory authority to lay down terms and conditions with which the railways must comply.
It may be that between now and the time when the general discussion takes place on the subject the minister can find some general phrase to cover the situation-for example "the commission shall have power to lay down terms and conditions under which approval would be granted for the abandonment of railway lines". This could be left in general terms so that the commission by regulation could determine the conditions which would apply. It might even be necessary to say that when a line has been abandoned the land would no longer be under federal jurisdiction, since the railway had ceased to exist.
Somehow there must be specific power given to the commission to deal with this question. I have some confidence in the minister's ingenuity and perhaps he will be able to find a way of dealing with it between now and the time we are considering rail abandonment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the hon. gentleman could have understood completely what I said in reply to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Middlesex West. I did not simply say that I would ask the commission to see whether they could do something about this question. I intend to ask the commission to look into the problem of jurisdiction, to consider the appropriate way of dealing with this matter and to recommend to us some way of dealing with it, if it does fall within the legislative competence of parliament or, if it does not, to tell us so and to make some suggestion to pass on to the provincial governments, which would give them a lead as to how they might best deal with it if provincial legislation is required. This is much more than asking the commission whether they can do something on their own. We shall be asking them to do something which, I expect, we shall be asking this commission to do with regard to a large number of problems concerning transportation-to tell us the answers about what can be done by the Department of Transport, or by parliament, or by someone else.
This will be a research project. It should not take very long, though there are a number of aspects to be considered. One of these never occurred to me until the hon. member for Mackenzie spoke, about no one wanting the right of way because it had been made worthless. Wherever the right of way has value, it

is probable that not much of a problem will arise, because somebody will be willing to take it over. It is a question of who will have the power to end a nuisance. If we could find some general phraseology, supposing there is nothing already in this bill-if it is within the jurisdiction of parliament to lay down that the commission may attach some conditions to these abandonments-it might be helpful.
I am sure we shall not finish this bill this evening, and if the committee is willing to allow the hon. gentleman to withdraw his amendment we may be able to find some general phraseology before we come to the abandonment clause-and I hope my legal advisers are listening-which would go in the direction the hon. member has indicated.


Stanley James Korchinski: I wish the minister could get all this down in more definitive terms. I appreciate what he says about referring this question to the commission. The commission might decide to study it or not; it would depend upon the attitude taken by its members. We are trying to get along with this legislation as best we can. The minister is trying to co-operate and we are anxious to accept his suggestions as far as possible. But the fact that the minister has said something as recorded at a particular page in Hansard is hardly conclusive as a basis for positive action. I think the committee is entitled to expect something more definite.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I should like to add a footnote to that proposition. I realize the minister is up against a problem. Pinning this down is like trying to pin down an eel with a blunt fork. I believe it would be better for the minister to get his legal answers and try to nail this down a little better before we allow this clause to go through. I appreciate the minister saying he intends to bring this to the attention of the commission and ask them to do something about it. But there may be a new minister before very long. The present minister may be in the Senate before anything can be done.
We are supposed to be debating legislation which is to become the law of the land, and although I am willing to co-operate with the minister I think we should nail this aspect down more firmly before we pass on to other considerations. Perhaps this clause could be left over until tomorrow or another day. At that time it might pass and nothing further need be said about this matter; but at the present time it is rather up in the air. I suggest that the minister take this suggestion into consideration.
January 12, 1967

[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I want to be reasonable in this connection and I have tried to be helpful. However, I must appeal to the hon. gentleman to allow the hon. member for Middlesex West, who moved the amendment and is satisfied that I will keep my word and do what I said I will do, to withdraw his amendment and not force the committee to divide on it. The hon. member for Middlesex West no longer wants to press his amendment. I think we would make more progress if we could agree to do this.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Does the committee grant leave to the hon. member to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Thomas, Middlesex West) withdrawn.
Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to.


Jean-Thomas Richard: The
committee will now proceed to clause 42.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your co-operation but I think there was an understanding that we would revert to Part II and would not go on with clause 42 and rail line abandonment until we had dealt with Part II of the bill. Perhaps hon. members opposite would confirm that I am right about this.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is true, Mr. Chairman, and the minister was co-operative when we discussed this matter. However, I have checked with one or two members of this party who are prepared to speak on the question of rail line abandonment, and in view of the fact that a great deal has already been said that borders on this matter, if the minister agrees I think it might be as well to continue with this clause and work toward the question of rail line abandonment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, if that is the wish of the committee, I am quite happy that we should continue in that way. We stood Part II because I knew that one or two hon. members who were interested in this question did not seem to be in the committee at that moment, and I did not think it would be fair to go ahead with this question without their being here. But if it is the wish of the committee to go ahead with clause 42 now and come back to Part II, that is perfectly acceptable to me.
Transportation
On clause 42.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words in respect of this clause. First of all I would issue the warning to the minister that before the clause passes I think we should have a statement from him with regard to clause 89 and its effects. In other words, with respect to the applications now before the Board of Transport Commissioners we would like to know whether the abandonments will be judged or ruled on under the section with which we are now dealing, section 314, or will they be judged to be matters pending and dealt with under clause 89?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be very glad to make a statement about that matter right away. I have been pondering this question, which I knew would be raised, since this matter came before the committee. I have found it quite difficult to arrive at what I thought was an equitable way of dealing with this matter. I have a suggestion to offer to the committee which I think would meet the situation. I think we all agree that there are in western Canada some of these unprotected lines. I am not saying all of them should be abandoned by any means, but everybody agrees that some of them should be abandoned and might well be abandoned as quickly as possible because all they are doing is costing the taxpayers of Canada money for a very, very inadequate return.
Therefore, I did not like to say categorically, and I refrained from saying it at an earlier stage, that all these abandonments would be dealt with under the new procedure. At the same time I recognize how difficult it would be to have them dealt with under the old procedure, once this bill is passed. Of course we have an undertaking that no hearings will be held until this bill has been disposed of by parliament one way or the other.
I suggest that if this bill is passed, under the legislation the governor in council will have the power to require all the hearings to be held in accordance with the new criteria and the new standards. But I think it would be rather unfair, since most of these applications have been in for years, to say that the railways must start all over again with the applications, in view of all the delays that this would entail. I do not think they should have to make these applications again.
The compromise which I am suggesting, and which I think would meet the wishes of everyone that I have heard express views in

January 12, 1967
Transportation
western Canada, is that I should give an undertaking that as soon as this legislation is passed an order in council will be passed directing the Board of Transport Commissioners to follow the new criteria and standards with respect to the abandonment, and not the standards in the present law. This would not require the railways to start again in respect of applications that have already been made and have been frozen for this long period. They would not have to apply again and go through all the procedural delays, from which nobody would gain anything. If this meets the wishes of the committee, I would give a categorical undertaking on behalf of the government that this is the way we would proceed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment briefly on the minister's remarks. On consideration of the minister's undertaking, I see at first glance no real objection to it, but I would like to know what is involved in this regard. In other words, something like 1,800 miles of track are up for abandonment on the prairies. With regard to this trackage, in respect of how much have hearings been held already? Before accepting the minister's suggestion we should like to know the answer to this question. Will further hearings be held in connection with applications previously made?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No abandonments whatever could be made without a hearing. All I am saying is that the railways may have made application already and hearings would still have to be held. They would have to be held under the procedures laid down in the new rules. But the railways would not have to withdraw their present application, put in another application, send out notices, and so on, since they have already sent notices out and people know about the proposed abandonment. We are just trying to avoid the statutory delays that will be involved. There would be no abandonment without a hearing-none whatever.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I think one would have to weigh the minister's remarks before passing judgment on this matter. For example, where hearings have already been held in respect of some lines, and in some cases abandonment has been granted and the line is still there, or a decision has not been made, after this bill passes will a new hearing be held, or would the old hearing and the evidence presented at it be accepted?
[Mr. Pickersgill.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: There would have to be a new hearing. I think there would have to be an advertisement of a hearing in any case, and if nobody turned up to oppose it, I suppose there would be no hearing. But none of the applications would be delayed under the undertaking I am giving. In other words, all we would be exempting the railways from would be withdrawing their present applications and applying again under the new procedure. A hearing would have to be held, or at least advertised. If anybody turned up, the hearing would be conducted before any abandonment could take place in those areas where applications have been made and have been frozen.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I think perhaps I have a little understanding of what the minister meant. Perhaps it will meet with general agreement from other members in the house. I would like to deal at some length, however, with the whole matter of abandonment and the rationalization program which the minister has in mind with regard to clause 42, and the whole group of sections under that clause dealing with line abandonment.
First of all I should like to say that during the committee proceedings I attempted to obtain from the minister some formula by which some lines would be declared to be protected until 1975, and some lines would be declared eligible for abandonment between now and whatever time the applications would be heard. Before we can really judge the atmosphere under which this legislation is being introduced, and before we can judge under what atmosphere a line from point A to point B will be protected and a line running from point C to point D will be eligible for abandonment, I think we need to know the entire formula under which one line is protected and another is up for abandonment.
During the committee sittings I had a hard time nailing down such a formula. In one case it was suggested it would depend upon the number of bushels hauled; but when I asked whether this was a formula, I think the minister said that perhaps it would be a guide but that it was not a definite formula which could be used. Some time during this debate I should like the minister to attempt to outline how he arrived at the 1,800 miles which could be eligible for abandonment, and the others that could be protected until 1975. Certainly the Manitoba Branch Line Association, or any municipality which will be presenting a brief to the public hearings which are to be called
January 12, 1967

by the new transport commission would like to know by what formula they must gauge their own position in order to know whether or not their line may be saved. Surely the minister is well aware of the fact that in recent years many of these branch lines have experienced a tremendous upswing in the movement of grain. Perhaps some of them would qualify now whereas a few years ago they may not have. The future looks bright in respect of huge grain shipments. In this regard it may be that some of these lines should be protected until 1975.
Another question which comes to mind with regard to rail line abandonments is the way in which the C.N.R. and C.P.R. do their cost analyses. They take the total cost of moving the grain from the end of the line which will be abandoned to the point at which the line reaches the main line. They call that the offline cost. Then they take the movement of grain from the point at which the branch line joins the main line, take it from there to the lakehead or to Vancouver, and call this the on-line cost. Then the total of the two is the total cost of moving the grain. They compute the figures in respect of revenue and come up with a loss figure. If one were to project the thinking of the railways in respect of costs alone, he could prove that every branch line in western Canada should be abandoned, if it could be shown that they were losing money on the Crowsnest pass rates.
When talking about branch lines one must consider the effect of the branch lines on the Crowsnest pass rates, because if all branch lines were abandoned the Crowsnest pass rates in effect would be destroyed. One thing I should like to make clear is that western Canada will not allow total abandonment of all branch lines. No matter how insignificant a branch line may be, the method which the railways use is a method by which they cannot prove that every branch line should be abandoned, unless somebody can get the exact figures from the railways or from the Board of Transport Commissioners in respect of the number of load-ton-miles the grain is hauled, and the exact cost of maintaining the track.
There are lines in my constituency which may be 60 miles in length and on which there may be only 24 trains a year. It is logical to assume that the cost to maintain that track is less than it would be to maintain track over which a train runs three times a day. But does the C.N.R. use an average figure in computing the cost of maintaining that track? No, they do not. These are things somebody should be
Transportation
made aware of, so that when interested parties appear before the new board they will be able to compute in an accurate way the revenue of a branch line and the cost of maintaining it and operating the number of trains which run over it.
Some time ago the former president of the C.N.R.'s Mr. Donald Gordon, made the "grain on the move" speech in Winnipeg. He said that 1,000 carloads of grain moved 60 or 70 miles on the railroad in one year could be moved more easily and at less cost by truck. This brings us into a very interesting situation. I did not accept that figure a few years ago and I still do not accept it. I am not computing the costs of the C.P.R. and the C.N.R., but if they maintain that a truck can move that amount of grain that distance for half what it costs the railroad to move it, then it looks as if they are operating their trains inefficiently. I have no objection to this, however, if they want to do it in this way. If the C.N.R. and C.P.R. want to abandon a line because they think they can haul the grain out at less cost by their own trucks, then let them do it. Then our Crowsnest pass rates will be maintained.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The point here is that if the railways say they can haul the grain at less cost by truck, then I have no objection if the line along which the farmers are farming is going to be abandoned, because this would maintain the Crowsnest pass rate for all farmers. If branch lines are abandoned, farmers will have to bear the cost of moving their grain an extra 60 or 70 miles at a cost of, to use the former president's figure, five cents to fifteen cents per bushel, depending on how large the farmer's truck is or how much he must pay to the commercial trucking firm he must hire.
Many roads in western Canada are capable of carrying trucks loaded with a thousand bushels of wheat, but these roads are few and far between in the outlying areas. Most of the good roads run adjacent to main lines of the railroad. The poor roads are located in those areas close to branch lines which are to be abandoned. As a result, the greatest burden created by a branch line abandonment would fall on those farmers producing grain in the outlying areas. In most cases the main lines of the railways in western Canada run through the best agricultural land. As a result the farmer producing the best and most grain is close to the main line, whereas the farmer who will bear the greatest cost is producing the lower grades in the outlying areas.

January 12, 1967
Transportation
A former president of the C.N.R. said that grain could be moved cheaper by trucks in many instances. In at least one case of which I am aware, the company has done just that. Let the trucking companies haul this grain, just as they are doing in one area in my constituency. The railway company has established a precedent in this regard. This is a very important aspect in respect of which the new commission must rule, when considering rail line abandonments.
In one area the Wheat Board instructed the railway company to move the grain from certain licensed elevators. The railway company had not kept the track in repair for many years and said they did not want to run a train on that line because of its state of disrepair. It indicated that the cost of repairing one bridge would be in the neigbourhood of over $60,000. I do not suppose the company has driven one spike along that line since it was originally put in. The company did not want to spend that kind of money on this line, which was up for abandonment. In this particular case the grain had to be hauled by truck for some 50 miles and the C.N.R. paid the cost of that haulage. The cost was not paid by the grain company which purchased the wheat for the Wheat Board, nor by the farmer who grew the grain.
Surely the company has established a precedent that we should recognize. Any grain elevator which is necessary, whether it is located near a line that is up for abandonment or adjacent to a main line, should remain licensed as an agent of the Wheat Board to receive grain from the farmers. The railway companies should move that grain from those elevators by truck if they can do so more cheaply.
Surely when a railway company makes application for a branch line abandonment it should be obliged to prove that it can move grain more cheaply by truck than by rail. That is the test which should be applied in these cases. I am not suggesting this should apply to those areas located within 10 or 15 miles of a main line, because the farmers I am sure would gladly haul the grain that distance. But in those areas where farmers will have to move their grain 50 miles or more from an abandoned line to a terminal point, if the railway companies suggest they can move the grain more cheaply by truck, a fleet of trucks should be brought in to move that grain. The railway companies have been allowed to move into the trucking business. Surely this is the only way the Crowsnest pass rates can be maintained in western Canada.

Let us consider the movement of grain. Mr. Gordon dealt with this subject in a speech he delivered in Winnipeg. He referred to the modernization of grain handling and movement, and talked about speeding up this process in order to save money. If Mr. Gordon feels that the railways can save money by moving grain by truck, then we should permit the railways to do so whenever branch lines are abandoned.
This parliament should never pass an act so rigid it cannot be adjusted with changing times. Let us allow rail line abandonment on the prairies, provided the railway companies haul the grain at Crowsnest pass rates. If the railway companies say they can haul the grain more cheaply by truck, let us allow them to do so.
The railway companies have suggested they can move up to 1000 box cars of grain per year by truck for approximately 4 cents to 5 cents per ton mile cheaper, which represents a saving of about one third. I suggest in any rail line abandonment application the railway companies should be obliged to indicate how much can be saved by moving the grain by truck, and compare that to the inconvenience caused by total abandonment of a railway service. If the abandonment of a branch line creates an excessive hardship or social upheaval in a production area the commission should rule that the elevators concerned remain licensed agents of the Wheat Board, and that the grain be moved by truck. We must adjust to the times. We must make our legislation sufficiently flexible to allow these changes to take place, in order to speed up grain movement, resulting in greater efficiency of grain handling.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The speech of the former president, to which I referred, was devoted almost entirely to the movement of grain. He suggested that in many instances grain could be moved more efficiently and economically by truck. We should keep this in mind when discussing clause 42. We should know precisely what the minister had in mind when he said that 1,800 miles of proposed line for abandonment would be protected until 1975. What I mean by that is that two tracks, two ribbons of steel running down that branch line, will remain there until 1975 and will not provide any service at all. Will the railroads continue to run along that branch line until 1975 or will they be able to discontinue service? They will be able to drive off the customers as a result of the poor service which they will provide until that
January 12. 1967

time, and in 1975 they will be able to prove effectively that that branch line is uneconomic and should be abandoned. This is the way in which many people see this question, particularly in western Canada. Whether or not this is true is hard to say but the opinion is that the railways will discontinue their services by turning aside business and in this way will be able to prove effectively that the service should be discontinued.
I think that under this particular section the minister should try to outline to the house what services if any will be protected. He stated that all but 1,800 miles will be protected until 1975. Surely when 1975 comes we would not want to see a sudden spurt of applications for abandonment filed. There are around 9,600 miles of track of the C.N.R. and C.P.R. in the prairie provinces. A few years ago a little over 4,000 miles of track were up for abandonment, nearly half of the total trackage in the three provinces. Now the minister has nailed down all but 1,800 miles of that track until 1975. What can we expect after 1975? Can we expect the filing of applications for abandonment for the remaining 2,200 miles in 1976, for example, or can we have some assurance that these ribbons of steel which we will have protected until 1975 will guarantee services to the areas through which they run? Surely if we are really going to protect these lines we must guarantee services which are now provided on these lines.
I should like to say a word or two with regard to the remarks made by the minister concerning clause 89. Can he tell me what would happen if we deleted clause 89 altogether? How many hearings would result from such a deletion-which I may wish to propose as an amendment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may, I should like to answer this question immediately. I think that if this clause were deleted-and I say this quickly, without giving it very careful consideration-it would not then be easy for the governor in council to direct that the matters which are pending should be considered under the new procedure. This clause relates not only to the Board of Transport Commissioners but to the Air Transport Board and the Maritime Commission. It would upset a lot of things that are under way. I think that for that reason it is required.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I thank the minister for that explanation. Perhaps I will withhold the amendment which I suggested I might move later on.
l ransportation
Now I would like to deal with the method of costing used by the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. At the meeting of the transport and communications committee held on October 13 Dr. Bandeen presented diagrams on the costing analysis of the two railway companies. He outlined the manner in which the cost analysis of the movement of a given amount of goods from point A to point B was prepared, but he gave general figures only. He stated that the cost of one car moving one mile was .024 cents. After the committee meeting I questioned him to try to ascertain whether 1 could compute the movement of that car loaded with grain over a number of miles. He told me that the figures which he presented were average figures which were given with the sole purpose of demonstrating the component parts which went into the final figure but that these were not even accurate figures with respect to any given commodity.
Such a vague presentation can only place at a disadvantage those people who live alongside these railway lines which may be up for abandonment, because they cannot even study the exact costing methods used by the C.N.R. or the C.P.R. in computing whether or not their costs are greater than their revenues. There is no question in my mind that if I were presenting figures to prove the necessity for the abandonment of a service, these figures would serve to prove my case. I do not expect the C.N.R, or the C.P.R. to use figures which would not prove their case. However, I think that in all fairness the people affected should be given a chance to examine the exact manner in which those two figures have been computed.
I hope that the new transport commission will be as objective as possible in examining these figures. I myself accept the component parts of the costing of the railway companies In looking at them I could see no fault with but I do not accept the exact accurary of these figures because, for example, we have seen many instances in which the cost of box cars being used was substantially different. How do we know whether the railway companies used average or exact figures? Some box
^nSnnoer 1186	$7'000 while others cos*
*30,000, I am told. The depreciation of the
initial cost has to be calculated, and so has the interest. A car can cost between $7,000 and $30,000.
I should like to receive a further explanation of those figures and I hope that the research staff which will be provided on the establishment of the commission will study the whole aspect of costing. Having in mind

January 12, 1967
Transportation
the way in which the cost analysis was arrived at, I would like to think that the municipalities, the reeves, the mayors and the interested branch line associations all across western Canada, will be able to take a look at far more accurate figures than we were able to see in the committee because, as Dr. Ban-deen said to me after the meeting, these figures were given just as an example and were not exact.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Surely, this is not good enough. When a branch line is up for abandonment and the major commodity hauled over that branch line is grain, then the figures presented should be the accurate figures and both sides should be given those accurate figures. It is all well and good to say the commission will have these accurate figures. However, the opponent should also be given these accurate figures so that they could be examined, and so arguments could be presented. This is the point. I should not like to see a continuation of the practice of allowing the railroads to bury their costs and keep them from the eyes of those who are opposed to the applications for abandonment.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I shall only take two or three minutes to deal with clause 42 of Bill No. C-231.
To my mind, the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) has brought up important points, on which additional comments could be made.
The title of the clause is as follows:
Abandonment and rationalization of lines or operations-uneconomic branch lines.
Mr. Chairman, the whole clause is ambiguous if it is intended to set the standards, the criteria for establishing whether or not a line is to be abandoned. In my opinion, it boils down simply to profit or loss. I believe the whole matter is unfair to the Canadian public and that the agreements reached with the railroad companies, at the time they were granted what we know, was trickery of sorts. Basically the standards or criteria should be: does the economy of the region concerned still need railroad services? Whether or not the services are profitable becomes secondary, because we must go back to the basic principle.

Mr. Chairman, the railroad companies entered into a contract with Canada, as we know. They were granted the equivalent of gold mines, rights to untold natural resources. Then, with their profits in those fields, they launched out in other fields of endeavour such as maritime transport, hotels, air transport, mines and other related businesses.
Today, now that all the frosting has been eaten off the cake, operating profitable lines,
I believe it would be unfair for them to abandon the unprofitable lines. I feel this would not be respecting the agreement entered into in earlier days, giving railways the advantages we know, at the price we had to pay. We need only remember, for instance, how many governments were defeated because of these concessions made to the railway companies.
I do not know whether this idea can be added as an amendment, but I say to the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), that the future commission should at least be given detailed instructions, to the effect that the criteria, the norms or the standards determining whether or not a particular line may be abandoned, must not necessarily stem from profitable or unprofitable operation. In my opinion, we should ask ourselves: does the economy of our country and the economy of this area depend upon railway service? Could another means of transportation serve that area as efficiently as the railway? If the answer is no, then railway service must be maintained-whether profitable or not-because it would be unreasonable for the country to have given the railways the advantages they have been granted-which have enabled them to pile up an extraordinary amount of money-and today, because certain lines are operating at a loss, to say to them: "Well, get out of there with your little gold mine and let the people living in that unprofitable area tighten their belts." Besides, some lines are profitable, and to be logical right to the end, if the unprofitable lines were abandoned, then the railway companies would have to disgorge and pay the government the profits made by operating the truly profitable lines.
I therefore submit to the hon. minister that a specific clause might be added, establishing that the economic interest of the country and the area concerned must receive first consideration or, at least, set out in one form or another, specific directives for the members of the commission, so that when they are called upon, their ruling will not be based solely upon cold statistics showing whether or not the line is profitable.
January 12, 1967


Stanley James Korchinski: I could not help thinking it would have been a wonderful thing if the minister had gone to the other place to serve as chairman of a joint committee on railways, and the hon. member for Acadia with all his knowledge had been appointed president of the Canadian National. Of course, it is a great asset to have them in this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Send them both to the other place.


Stanley James Korchinski: However, there is one point the minister made about which I agree with the hon. member for Acadia. He suggested that perhaps some of the old applications might be accepted holus-bolus and that no further inquiries should be held. Of course some of these old applications are based on old figures. I am sure the minister would not want to suggest that these rail lines be abandoned on the basis of old figures.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, it is clearly understood that although an application has been made, all the figures have to be brought up to date. There has to be a hearing as well, before there can be any abandonment.


Stanley James Korchinski: Since parliament is dealing with railway legislation, I am sure many people must be under the impression that everything is in a suspended state, and therefore their line is not to be abandoned. They have heard a lot about certain lines being frozen, but people have lost track of what is really happening. In the interests of all concerned, there should be proper notification to rural municipalities, the secretaries of towns and villages that may be affected, to the effect that no further applications will be heard. It should not be taken for granted that all the due processes of law have been complied with, and that we no longer have to follow the old procedures.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think perhaps the hon. member came into the chamber after I made my statement on this particular point. However, perhaps I might repeat it now, although I thought I made it abundantly clear. Although the railways would not be required to make new applications, there will be no hearings held on any of these applications until after this legislation is passed. There will be notice to all parties concerned, and there would have to be a hearing. As I just added now, of course all the figures would have to be brought up to date. Now, all these things
Transportation
would have to be done and when hearings are held they will be held under the new criteria in this bill, and not the old criteria under the present law.


Mr. Rapp:: Ten o'clock.


Stanley James Korchinski: I have one question. If these figures have to be brought up to date, who in the world is supposed to contest them?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The old hearings have no validity whatever.


Stanley James Korchinski: In other words, there has to be a new hearing?


John Whitney Pickersgill: They have to have a new hearing. The old applications do not have to be renewed, that is all. There has to be a new hearing, even if there was an old hearing.


Stanley James Korchinski: Do notices of abandonment have to be sent out?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, yes, notices of a desire to abandon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I should like to ask the minister whether there are any criteria as to where the commission will hold these meetings. Will it be in towns adjacent to areas to be abandoned, or in some city close by which will be convenient to the commission but less convenient to the public? There has to be some rhyme or reason for holding these hearings, and it is not enough for the minister to say they will just be held. They must be accessible for the public.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think we would have a very difficult time if we were to attempt to prescribe in legislation where hearings should be held. The simplest thing would be to prescribe that they be held at every railway station in western Canada. If you did not, any place that was left out would complain. I think we must assume that the public servants appointed to this commission will take their responsibilities seriously and will not inconvenience the public.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: A supplementary question.


Reynold Rapp: Ten o'clock.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Would it be possible for the minister to insert something like "at the most convenient place for the people concerned"?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will look into that.
11746	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr.   Kindi@: I wish you would. May I call it eight o'clock?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish you would. I should like to have another couple of hours and have some progress made.


Mr.   Kindi@: I mean ten o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being ten o'clock shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Reynold Rapp: What will be the business for tomorrow, a short day?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Tomorrow, I am told, is the day of great progress with this legislation. We will continue with the transport legislation in committee of the whole.
If that is finished and there is any time available for other legislation, we might consider item 117 on today's order paper, the provision with regard to the Judges Act; item 104 regarding the Elections Act going to committee; item 110, the bill to amend the Canada Corporations Act; item 79, house in committee on the C.N.R. financing bill; item 124, the creation of a committee to deal with the subject matter of the "O Canada" resolution; and item 125 dealing with the setting up of a committee to consider the rules.
I should add for the information of hon. members that after five o'clock the Minister of Transport will not be available in any circumstances.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I make the earnest plea to hon. members to finish my bill by five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I posed a question to the Minister of Labour, for the seventh or eighth time in the last 12 months, asking why the

DEBATES	January 12. 1967
French edition of the Labour Gazette is always three or four months late. Up until two or three months ago the minister answered that things were supposed to be improving, and on one occasion he even mentioned that by September or October both issues would be published simultaneously. Yesterday the minister answered my request, after I had suggested that a special committee should be appointed to take care of this matter, by saying that he was opposed to appointing such a special committee. He said that we had an effective committee of the house and that we do not need another. Then he added that this matter has made good progress up to now, and the French edition has been delayed because the chief of the translations section was taken ill.
I am not satisfied with that answer. I hold the Minister of Labour in high regard; he has great responsibilities and I have much respect for him. But I must say I am disappointed, even shocked, with the answer he gave yesterday. His answer looks to me to be some kind of wishy-washy soporific excuse. He was trying to evade something, to camouflage something. I cannot go for that, Mr. Speaker. I think the minister should have said to me, "Somebody has forgotten to do what he was ordered to do". There is no reason for having the French edition coming out two or three months late. Two or three years ago both editions came out together. I understand that the section needs translators. Having made some inquiries, I can find half a dozen translators in 48 hours.
Somewhere I think there has been negligence. I do not blame the minister personally; probably he is badly informed by somebody. He should try to find solutions to the difficulty right away. Let me put it this way: I do not see why, in the next two months, both editions cannot come out together. If this question offers such a great problem, then I offer to solve the problem for the minister, and I will not charge anything. I will do it for nothing. I shall find translators to do a good job.
Mind you, I am not begging for special favours; I hope the minister understands that. This is something to which we are rightfully entitled. Also, many complaints from my province have come from labour organizations which feel they ought to have the French edition simultaneously with the English. They do not understand why we do not get the French edition.
January 12, 1967	COMMONS
There is another reason why I bring this matter up. Not having the edition simultaneously with English gives ammunition to the separatists. It puts in an awkward spot those of us trying to tell our people that confederation is not so bad after all, that there is a future in confederation, I bring this to the attention of the minister and I urge him to give the necessary orders to those in charge of the translations bureau, to see to it that we may have the French edition as soon as possible. When I say as soon as possible I think of the next month, or perhaps of the next two months, at the latest.
If what I ask is not done I must tell the minister that every month I shall be standing up and posing the same questions, and that I might lose my patience. I have tried always to be courteous to the minister, but I might be mean at times because I feel somewhat annoyed. I know the minister is used to all kinds of threats, but this, I think, has lasted long enough and it is high time it were settled. I might go to the parliamentary committee mentioned by the minister, if the minister cannot solve the problem, and bring this matter to their attention.
I beseech the minister, for goodness sake, to find a solution, so that we shall not have to hear what we have listened to in my province month after month. This matter really gives wicked ammunition to the separatists.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: I listened to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres with a great deal of interest. Despite his indignation I cannot visualize any situation in which his patience would be strained to the point at which he would become discourteous. I do not think that is a characteristic which he will ever display in the house.
I share his feeling, as one closely attuned to the problems of confederation, that the greatest defence we have against the spread of separatism in the province of Quebec is the intelligence and integrity of the labour movement. There are a number of young men and women joining organized labour in the province who will be exposed to the sensible arguments of the leading labour figures who endorse the idea of a united Canada, and the fact that the Labour Gazette is not made available all the time in both official languages of this country, simultaneously, can become a very serious bone of contention and 23033-743
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion can, indeed, lead to a degree of justifiable resentment. I do not think we want this to happen.
I realize that the hon. member has brought up this question on several occasions. I think the time has come to cease making excuses. I think we must find a solution to the question of producing documents and periodicals as important as the Labour Gazette simultaneously in the two languages. I repeat that labour is of paramount importance at this moment, and I believe that all who belong to the organized labour movement in Quebec should have equal opportunity to read the Labour Gazette in the other of the official languages, just as it is available in the English language.
I assure the hon. member that I will take up this question with the minister and at the same time draw the minister's attention to the kind remarks which the hon. member made about him personally. The minister, too, has been very sensitive in this area. He has introduced many reforms within the department and done everything he could to make French speaking Canadians feel at home. I know that the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres has his full co-operation.



GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE-QUEBEC-POSSIBLE SOLUTION OF PROBLEMS

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, on January 11 that is, yesterday, I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) whether he had been informed of the brief submitted to certain government members including the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin), by the northwestern Quebec chambers of commerce with regard to the gold mining problem. The Val d'Or-Bourlamaque and Malartic city councils have endorsed that brief submitted in March 1966.
At the end of November last, the northwestern Quebec regional economic council and the muncipalities directly affected by the gold mining problem also submitted their own brief calling for increased assistance to gold mining.
Now I believe, Mr. Speaker that the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act expires in 1967. It must be not only renewed, but improved by increasing subsidies to the gold mines. We know that the price of gold has remained steady since 1935 at $35 an ounce, American funds, which is equivalent now to $37.75 an ounce. We also know that the cost of living index has increased from 1

January 12, 1967
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to 240 since 1935. We know that the wages paid the miners working in the gold mines are 25 percent less than wages paid in other mines and 15 per cent less than those paid in other industries. It is important to know at the earliest moment what the government's intentions are concerning its gold mining policy.
The public bodies which last year presented briefs to the government on gold mining represent more than 110,000 people dependent in one way or another upon the mining activity in northwestern Quebec and the whole economy of the area feels the rise and fall of mining operations.
The Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act should provide for the maintenance and development of active mines and the opening of new mines, which would boost the economy of this area.
The chambers of commerce, the municipal councils and the regional council of northwestern Quebec ask nothing else but a better standard of living for miners and their families. In that connection, the brief says:
After considering the present situation, we came to the conclusion that a revision of the act passed in 1948 and amended a few times until 1958, when a 25 per cent increase in subsidies was granted, is imperative, and our request is not for the purpose of enabling this industry to pay greater dividends. It wants first of all to take into consideration that we must now face a shortage of competent labour in gold mines because of salaries which are not competitive with other fields of industry.
We can say, as proved by figures, that the money received under the Gold Mining Assistance Act, far from being used to pay dividends to shareholders, has been used to give a better deal to workers; furthermore, only salary increases given to workers represent more than 2.2 times the sums received under gold mining assistance.
We must consider that this year, the workers, like their fellow-workers in Ontario, will demand the 40-hour week, and our mines will have to grant the same treatment as given elsewhere; this burden alone, especially for marginal mines, could force them to close their doors; that is the economic reality.
Considering this new need, new obligations which must be assumed in a changing society, which requires more for public services, especially education, we consider that the time is favourable for adjustment of subsidies to gold mines so as to enable them first of all, and this is the main motive of our pressure, to give their employees the salary increases which will enable them to compare their case with what is done in other areas of industry.
The government should therefore inform us, as soon as possible, of the policy it intends to follow concerning gold mines.


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that the government shares the concern of the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) concerning the communities in this country, and more particularly those in northwestern Quebec, which are dependant upon the gold mining industry. To this extent the government is considering the continuation beyond December 31, 1967, of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. The Department of Industry of course is concerned with the development of other industries in those areas, and the new manpower centres are operating in such a way as to retrain and redirect labour to new occupations as they develop in the gold mining regions.
The Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act was passed in 1948. As the name indicates, the problems then confronting the gold mining industry were thought to be transitional in nature; this was an emergency measure. It has continued over the intervening years and the amount of assistance has increased. For example, the amount of assistance increased from $580 per miner per annum in the mid-1950's to a figure in the order of $1,400 per miner per annum in 1966. The total extent of federal tax assistance to the gold mining industry this year will be in the order of $15 million. The industry is declining in output. Paced with a fixed price for its products and rising costs, particularly rising wage rates, it has been in a squeeze. It has done a remarkable job in respect of improving productivity. In general the number of mines in this country has dropped roughly in half since 1948. The problem in northwestern Quebec is not unique. It is a problem which is being encountered in Ontario, British Columbia and in other parts of the country. I know there are other mining opportunities in that general area. The other mining industries are able today to pay something in the order of $20 a week more, and they are drawing off mining labour from the gold mines. Pulp and paper and other industries are in that area.
Nevertheless, the government is prepared to continue the emergency gold mining assistance in some form. It is also energetically exploring the possibility of other opportunities for employment in adjoining areas to support these communities in the future.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Friday, January 13, 1987