1967-05-26

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister tell the house what reaction there was on the part of the President of the United States to a suggestion which appeared about a week ago in an informed source, the Globe and Mail, that the plan of the government of Canada in connection with Hanoi was for the president to announce the end of the bombing, and then go to Geneva and wait, like Constantine, for a sign from Hanoi. What was the reaction of the president to this rather unusual posturing?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: My right hon. friend is entitled to his designation of a proposal on a serious matter of this kind, which may or may not have been made, as political posturing. I think that is the expression he used, and I consider it very regrettable, especially in view of the serious situation we face.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Apparently he based his use of those words on an article that appeared in the Globe and Mail a week ago. That fact makes the words not only regrettable but surprising.
The president's reaction to this particular proposal is easy to declare, Mr. Speaker, because a proposal in those terms was not made by us.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister whether he has read today's Globe and Mail, which sets forth what took place yesterday, according to the informed source, from which the information came to the Globe and Mail. Is it a fact that the proposal was considered yesterday with the President, that he should announce his intention to go to Geneva on a certain date, ready for peace talks, and that regardless of the response from Hanoi he would show up at the
appointed time and wait for the representative of North Viet Nam? Is that report correct, having been given by-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman can ask a question directly, but cannot ask whether a report is correct.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to direct how a question can be asked regarding-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Don't lecture the Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when I see the Minister of Transport engaged in that sort of elevated jumping jack posture I know that the question is one that the government does not like to hear. Let me ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that he placed the proposition I have referred to before the President of the United States?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. I did not ask
the President of the United States to go either to Geneva or to Canossa.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he can give the house any information arising out of his discussions with the President of the United States in respect of whether any agreement has been reached between United States and Canada as to the position they will take vis-avis the situation in the Middle East, and particularly with reference to the right of access of the state of Israel and all other nations to the gulf of Aqaba?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad indeed to deal with that question as best I can, within the limitations of the fact that our conversations yesterday were of course confidential, as they were bound to be in the circumstances.
I do not think, however, I am betraying any confidence when I say there was complete agreement between the president and myself as to the special importance of two
602	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry things in connection with the Middle East crisis. The first was the importance of maintaining the right of access to and innocent passage through the gulf of Aqaba, and that everything possible should be done through the United Nations to see if this can be arranged so that this danger spot can be removed.
The other danger spot, if I may call it that, about which we talked and where we agreed on certain ideas as a means of helping to remove the danger, is in the confrontation of the two forces on the Israeli-U.A.R. border, and the grave and great importance of placing on that border a United Nations presence. This would not be the United Nations Emergency Force, which has been disbanded, but in some appropriate way there must be a United Nations presence there which Will operate on both sides of the border.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was there any discussion of the proposal of General de Gaulle, the President of the French republic, with reference to the possibility of a meeting of the four great powers to see whether within the framework of the United Nations these powers might agree on some course of action which would prevent the outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this matter was discussed at some length. It was felt that as the question is now before the Security Council nothing should be done to weaken its position in this connection, and that a meeting of the permanent members of that body-the four powers that have been mentioned -within the context of the Security Council might be a very useful procedure at this time.
My own view, as I expressed it, was that if this could not be done by a meeting of the permanent members of the Security Council, then the proposal that they should meet outside the UN should not be rejected; but it would be better if they could meet as permanent members of the Security Council. I understand that General de Gaulle's proposal was that they should meet simply as four great powers. If that procedure were adopted and would bring the U.S.S.R. into the discussions, it might be useful. But I understand there are some difficulties in bringing about that meeting.

DEBATES	May 26. 1967



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that several provincial health departments have long ago condemned bunk beds in lumber camps, is the minister in a position to say whether, during the centennial year, his department intends to make a humane gesture by eliminating, in the best interests of some railroad workers, the bunk beds in accommodation cars, in view of the fact that, during the summer, inside those cars without air conditioning, the heat sometimes reaches 110 degrees.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member could profitably put this question on the order paper.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Finance. Could he inform the house whether the question of international liquidity is being discussed at the meeting now being held at Mont Gabriel by the governors of the central banks of the Americas, and whether any agreement has been reached on a unified approach to this important topic?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will be interested to know that the Governor of the Bank of Canada is host during these next few days to the governors of the central banks of the Americas, including the chairman of the governors of the United States federal reserve system. I understand that the agenda is not being published, but I am quite confident that this question of international liquidity, which is so important to future world trade, will be high on the agenda.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of
May 26, 1967	COMMONS
National Defence. Is the minister now in a position to give the house any further information with regard to the withdrawal of the Canadian troops now in the Gaza strip?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything I could usefully add at this moment to what I have already said on this subject. We are, of course, monitoring continuously all developments in the Middle East in order that we are fully apprised of the situation, in case there are any new developments.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Registrar General and ask whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association that any affiliated club which appeals to the courts any decisions of the C.A.H.A. will be automatically suspended. If the minister knows about this, is he considering whether this policy contravenes the provisions of the anti-combines legislation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the first question might be placed on the order paper. In the second or supplementary question the hon. member is asking for an expression of legal opinion, which cannot be done.


David Orlikow: Could I rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker? May I ask the Registrar General-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would rephrase it on the order paper.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour who is responsible for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Can the minister inform the hon. members of this house if the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has finally agreed to pay its share, that is 50 per cent of the cost, of the
DEBATES	603
Inquiries of the Ministry renovation of the area known as "La Petite Bourgogne" in the beautiful riding of Sainte-Anne in Montreal?
[English}


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: It is not a case of finally accepting it. Our action was prompt. Action was taken recently by the executive committee of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the federal government has acted on the recommendations very promptly. An expenditure of some $36 million of federal funds is involved and a similar amount will be put up by the provincial government of Quebec and the city of Montreal. I think this program is coming at a very appropriate time, with the recent layoffs in employment on completion of the huge construction program at Expo. It is an urban renewal program of some $72 million in greater Montreal, a great step forward.



DOMINION DAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. A week ago yesterday I asked the Prime Minister whether the government would look at the situation created by the fact that this year July 1 falls on a Saturday. I asked in particular whether Monday, July 3, might be declared a legal holiday so that all Canadians would get at least one day off for the celebration of our one hundredth birthday. Has the government reached a decision on this matter?
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have been looking into the matter. It seems quite clear that in so far as the public service of Canada is concerned the subject is covered by the public service terms and conditions of employment regulations, which became effective in March of this year. In accordance with these regulations a great majority of public servants will get a holiday on July 3. So far as parliament is concerned, it will be of course the responsibility of the house to decide whether or not to sit on that day. There has been some discussion on that score among the house leaders. So far as declaring an additional public holiday in the country is concerned, that can only be done now by legislation I believe.
<304
May 26, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry MR. JUSTICE LANDREVILLE



INQUIRY AS TO ACTION PROPOSED BY GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister who has had 16 days of thought and contemplation about the matter, whether a decision has been made by the cabinet as to what course is going to be followed regarding Mr. Justice Landreville.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government will have some proposals to make to parliament on this matter. It was hoped that it could have been dealt with at the cabinet meeting last Thursday, but it was not possible to get to that item, for reasons which I think will be quite clear to everyone. However, there will certainly be a statement on the matter not later than next Wednesday.


John George Diefenbaker: After the by-election.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Has he received a copy of a resolution put forward by the John Howard Society of Canada condemning the design of the maximum security institutions, and in particular protesting against that of the Millhaven institution? If so, what consideration has been given to this?


Mr. Speaker:: The question should be placed on the order paper.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the Canadian government to invite President Johnson again this year for a formal visit?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the president indicated he hoped to return later in the year for a longer and more formal centennial visit. I am not quite sure when that will be, but we are keeping some day open at the end of August.
[Mr. Pearson.)
While I am on my feet I should like to state, if I may, in connection with the visit here of the British prime minister, that he has indicated this morning he will not be able to arrive in Ottawa on Monday as planned because the British parliament has been summoned and he will have to be there on Monday and Tuesday. However, he hopes to arrive here on Thursday for a shorter visit, and he also hopes to arrive here for a longer one later this year.



SHOES-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, but in his absence I shall put it to his parliamentary secretary.
Does his department intend to retain the services of those bureaucrats who thought up the quotas applied in the Canadian dairy industry? And does the department intend to apply a similar policy to shoe imports under section 19 of the 1958 Geneva agreements?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question seems a bit too complicated. It is out of order at this time.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which you will probably consider more appropriate for ten o'clock, but I will put it anyhow.
As a more efficient and less costly means than the Laurendeau-Dunton commission to promote bilingualism and spread the French culture throughout Canada, I ask the Secretary of State or her parliamentary secretary whether, as a centennial project, the government intends to build "repeater" relay stations in all the great centres of the country, in order to retransmit programs of the C.B.C. French network?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I readily accept the hon. member's suggestion but have to tell him that his question should be put on the order paper.
May 26, 1967	COMMONS



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him whether he is prepared to give consideration to the extension of the Canadian Pacific Airlines franchise so that it might provide for Ottawa a service to the public which Air Canada seems either unwilling or unable to provide?
Kon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport): I would think this would be a very suitable subject for a speech by the hon. member in a few minutes time.



CO-OPERATIVES INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Registrar General whether we may expect a federal co-operative act to be introduced at this session of parliament? I ask this because there is no word about this in the speech from the throne.


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: We are studying the possibility of a federal co-operative act at the same time as we are studying the constitutional aspects of the question. The provinces have certain responsibilities for co-operatives, and the relationship with the provinces in this field is very important. At the same time we are undertaking a general review of corporate and securities law-and these subjects hang together.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask whether those who are studying this matter and preparing the legislation intend to provide an opportunity for the various co-operative organizations across Canada to make representations prior to the legislation being introduced?


John Napier Turner: I would hope so. I am having lunch with the secretary and members of the co-operative associations next week.



HOCKEY-DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITIES TO AMATEUR PLAYERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberi Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: May I ask the Registrar General whether the 27053-39
DEBATES	605
Inquiries of the Ministry government is planning any early action on the suggestion of the hockey study committee of the National Advisory Council on Fitness and Amateur Sport that there should be legislation to protect the rights and freedom of amateur hockey players in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret this question is too close to another, which was ruled out of order, to enable it to be asked at this time.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I thought it was very close to the one asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. May I ask the Registrar General whether he is aware of reports that the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association at its annual meeting this week, acting under N.H.L. pressure, reduced all the age limits of amateur hockey players thus depriving thousands of young Canadians of a year of amateur hockey? This seems directly contrary to the recommendation of the hockey study committee.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the hon. gentleman able to inform us when the Security Council will be called into session and what the position of the Canadian delegation will be with respect to the Danish-Canadian resolution?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: No time has yet been set for the next meeting. This awaits the convenience of the Secretary General, who has just returned from Cairo. The latest information I have is that the meeting is not likely to take place today. It can take place tomorrow or, for that matter, it may take place even on Sunday.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the President of the Treasury Board. Has the government yet given consideration to the recommendation of the special joint committee on the Public Service of Canada that legislation should be brought down to provide collective bargaining for the employees of parliament,

May 26, 1967
Supply-Transport
the library of parliament, and so on, similar to that which we have provided for the public service generally?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: This, of course, is primarily a matter to be considered by the Commissioners of Internal Economy of the House of Commons. The question has been discussed in previous meetings and no doubt it will be discussed further in the future.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
As it is obvious since last night that the separatists are the allies ot the New Democratic Party, for the purpose of the by-elections in Quebec, could the minister tell us whether he intends to inquire as to whether the agreement is formal or casual?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is out of order mainly because it contains allegations.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, if I may follow up the question raised by the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question has been ruled out of order.


Auguste Choquette: Then, I am going to put a relevant question.
I should like to ask the Solicitor General of Canada whether the R.C.M.P. has made an inquiry to determine whether separatist revolutionary elements in Quebec have really infiltrated the New Democratic Party.



The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT 1. Departmental administration, $6,655,700.


The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply, Department of Transport, vote No. 1. This vote is listed on page 504 of the blue book and the details are to be found on page 510. Shall vote No. 1 carry?


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Chairman, I cannot imagine that there is anything the committee would like less at this time than a speech 
from me. I feel I have already taken up a great deal of the time of parliament talking about transport in the year 1967, and I would rather hear hon. members of the committee and listen to their suggestions before making any observations that it may be necessary for me to make.


Mr. Bell (Sainl John-Albert):: Mr. Chairman, I am in a bit of a dilemma at this time. Two years ago the minister did not make an opening statement on his departmental estimates and things turned out unsuccessfully. Last year I suggested that if he did make a statement it might be helpful, but I do not think things turned out much more successfully last year either. So that with or without a speech we still seem to get the same result.
I should like to make one or two brief comments. I think we should recognize that considerable attention has been given to transportation generally within the period of about one full year. We looked over the departmental estimates extensively in committee slightly less than a year ago. Then we dealt with the massive transportation bill at the end of the last calendar year and the beginning of this one, when hon. members will recall that nearly every facet of transportation in this country was covered. We also had the officials of Air Canada in the committee a few weeks ago, and the Canadian National officials are to appear within a very short time. Therefore it is probably appropriate that this department is being brought forward first of all and is not one of those whose estimates are going to be sent to committee for detailed examination.
Having said this, Mr. Chairman, and having referred to the transportation bill that was brought in this year, I feel I must at the outset remind the minister that there is still one major aspect of transportation that has not been dealt with. The new bill was brought before the house and we had a successful debate. The minister had certain ideas about getting it through before Christmas but he wisely did not try to force it. It is often said that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks, but I for one think that the turning point in the legislation was before Christmas when the minister agreed to accept extensive amendments, even if this meant our consideration of the bill running into the new year. Incidentally, this advice might have been taken by the Minister of National Defence a short while ago, but that is another matter.
May 26, 1967

The minister received considerable credit at the time for this new legislation, and while there has been some delay in making appointments to the board and in taking action with regard to the preliminary work-to which I will refer later-the bill was generally received in the country as a major step forward for transportation in Canada.
However, there is one problem that was not touched on by this legislation and it has to do with an unfulfilled promise made by the minister in connection with the maritime provinces. As everyone knows, the consultants' study of our maritime transportation problems has been completed, the report is now in its final stages and will be presented before long. Even though there may be some credit due to the minister and the government for finally developing a new transportation policy as they did this year, the maritime M.P.'s-I consider I speak for all of them in that we are united on this-will not forget the study has been made and that legislation will result therefrom.
We contend that before finally any credit can be taken the minister has the solemn duty to fulfil his promise and bring about the changes that are necessary for a healthy transportation industry in the maritimes. While the minister is gadding about the country picking up honourary degrees here and there-whether they are given to him as a politician or a historian, I do not know-I would remind him that the maritime members of parliament will not rest until the report of this study is finally brought in and action on it taken by the government.
This leads me briefly to one or two matters in connection with the maritime ports, and I refer of course to the ports of Saint John and Halifax. The business in these two traditional winter ports is slipping away. I for one am not making any charges against the minister in connection with ice breaking or failing to deal with other problems that we have. There has been a tendency on the part of the government to shrug off its responsibility to see that the St. Lawrence ports receive a fair share of the business coming in and out of the country, but it is at the same time ignoring a promise that was solemnly made at confederation.
* (11:40 a.ra.)
From time to time the minister may wonder, when he visits the maritimes, why the political fortunes of his party in that part of the world do not fare as well as in other parts of the country. I can tell him why that is.
27053-39i
Supply-Transport
Whether he likes to admit it or not, the Diefenbaker years were good to the maritimes, and the maritimers know and appreciate that. If the government hopes to be well received in the maritimes and if he hopes to be recognized in his adopted province, action must be taken to ensure we are not left by the wayside in transport matters. The government has a responsibility for seeing that the longshoremen and others connected with the economies of Halifax and Saint John receive better treatment than has been meted out to them in the last two or three years.
I will not mention figures, but in Saint John we become very annoyed when the National Harbours Board periodically announces that a certain number of ships arrived at the port in such and such a period, giving the impression that the picture is rosy and that we may look forward to a bright future. The fact is that longshoremen's hours of work have been reduced by up to 10 per cent in the last two years. In 1966 they worked 129,446 hours less than previously- that is a lot of employment-and this year, though I have not the official figures, I understand that their employment will have decreased by 98,000 hours.
I will talk now of the grain elevator in Quebec, that the government owned. When private industry threatened to build a new elevator to compete with it, what did the government do? In effect it sold its elevator because it was afraid of competition. This is a change in government policy. The previous minister said at least twice that the National Harbours Board could run grain elevators competently; he hoped they would stay in the business, and even increase that business.
One might ask, what is the matter with selling one grain elevator at Quebec? The minister implied the answer, though it was not readily understandable, that such action relieves the government of its responsibility to see that all ports of Canada share in the grain export business. Now we have a private business operating in Quebec. I am not against private enterprise; the effect, nevertheless, of what has happened will be that private enterprise will handle more grain, and the minister will say: "I have no control over them; they are in private enterprise." Saint John and Halifax could conceivably lose much of their grain trade, which has become increasingly important because of the changes in other types of traffic I shall mention.
All the talk now is of containerization at ports, and this has become big business. Our

May 26. 1987
Supply-Transport
ports will have to be modernized and this will cost much money. The department has conducted research; nevertheless I hope the minister will explain in detail what the official thinking is about this matter. The government has a definite responsibility to enter the container business and to make the related investments. Many studies are going on, and we do not want unnecessary ones; yet I feel that the department ought to study this business of containerization in all its aspects. The government ought to decide what it will do in those ports under the jurisdiction of the National Harbours Board.
If the government does not act, big business will take its trade to ports such as New York, which have all the facilities for handling large containers. Montreal, another wealthy port, may rank second only to New York, and the maritimes will be left in the cold because facilities to handle bulk containers have not been developed there. Though Halifax competes with Saint John for business, I readily admit that Halifax has the capacity to handle large deep sea cargoes, and that Saint John has not that capacity at the moment. Container handling facilities at Halifax might be developed; nevertheless Saint John, with plenty of room behind the sheds, a favourable geographic position and four days less sailing time to Montreal, has many advantages. I say to the minister that he cannot continue to shrug off his responsibilities and hope that private enterprise or some magic wand will fulfil them. Halifax and Saint John are handling less and less modern general cargo shipments.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
While on the subject, I hope there will be action on the Digby-Saint John ferry. A survey was conducted, representations were heard from communities of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and the need for the ferry established. In replying to a question in the house the minister implied that he was thinking in terms of a new ferry and I was glad to hear that. I hope the new ferry will provide the service that is necessary, the service the government owes to the ports of western Nova Scotia. That is another unfulfilled promise to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, so far as transportation is concerned, that the government must meet. I hope a decision will not be too long delayed because it takes a long time to start the construction of one of these ships.
In closing the first part of my remarks on transportation in the maritimes, I express the

hope that the minister will have an opportunity to bring us up to date on the consultants' report on transportation, to which I have referred. I know there are difficulties. The minister has taken time to get the best men he can on this board. I hope we will get far-sighted, experienced transportation experts, as well as people who have a feeling for this country and for the diverse transportation difficulties that exist. Unfortunately, I hear that some of those who have been mentioned for appointment to the board are not showing the excitement they should to accept appointment. I do not know whether this is due to salaries or duties, but I wish the minister luck. I hope he gets good men, representative of each area.
I also hope, as I said in connection with the transportation review, that the minister will take time to tell us about this massive document, which has been compared with the Carter commission report, containing 12 sections and covering everything in the transportation life of the maritimes. I can see a general round of lobbying and more briefs as a result of it, but I hope the report is so clear cut and that the minister takes such a strong stand on its conclusions that everybody will be happy. If he does, his name will go down in maritime transportation history, and once again we in the maritimes will be sitting in the sun.
I wish to make a brief reference to the air picture. It was alluded to in a question today, and it was stated earlier that Air Canada is having trouble with some of its services. I know Air Canada is under a great strain this year because it is being called upon for extra duty in connection with Expo, and delivery of planes is not as satisfactory as one would have wished.
At the committee hearings on Air Canada Mr. Gordon McGregor came forward in his usual straightforward manner and gave us the answers to our questions. He held nothing back, but in the final minutes of the hearing it appeared to me and most other members of the committee, when we were examining the company's budget and questioning the accountants, that Air Canada at present needs a full review and overhaul of its financial structure. I think one of the accountants said they were having trouble with their cost equity basis, or their loss equity basis. Everyone knows Air Canada goes to the C.N.R. when it wants to borrow money. It is not an independent company in the strict sense of the word.
May 26, 1967

Arrangements are made to amortize its expenditures tor the new planes which it needs for its fleet. But difficulties are now imminent in two respects. One is the giant sums of money which will be needed to finance the new SST's. In fact the company is talking in terms of $300 million. We should know exactly where the company stands as a separate entity. There is no net funded debt, and no debentures or the like to establish this. I am not an accountant, but the minister knows that now when Air Canada is in big business something has to be done. Mr. McGregor and the accountants suggested that it might be worth while to have a full study made of this question. At present the accountants are conducting a study of a minor nature, but that will not be enough.
A second reason for a full study is that Air Canada, whether it likes it or not, is now in open competition with Canadian Pacific Air Lines. I am not against C.P.A. being allowed to compete, because I think availability of choice has to be given to Canadians. The Conservative party, of which I am a member, made the breakthrough in this field and brought C.P.A. into the transcontinental picture. Although I am not against this, I think that we owe it to Air Canada, as a creature of the government, of the Canadian people, to bring it up to date and establish where it fits into the picture.
The other night many of us on the transportation committee were invited to a dinner commemorating the 25th anniversary of C.P.A. At the dinner a satellite was displayed, and I thought C.P.A. was really thinking modern. It was indicated to me that it was getting into the air business on an increasingly large scale. Although the minister was not there he may have heard that C.P.A. had three mini-skirted hostesses moving among the guests, to give us an idea of future travel and of the services of stewardesses in the future, and the thought struck me at the time that, by gosh, I should ask the Minister of Transport what he is doing about getting mini-skirts for Air Canada stewardesses. I think the minister should place high priority on this, and do something about it, himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Miller Bell: The only other major topic that in my opinion deserves attention is what is called the domestic satellite communications system. I am not aware of all its implications but I know it is very important. I read the brief presented to the
Supply-Transport
committee on what might be called the Soble proposals. This brief was presented by the Department of Transport to the B.B.G. It shows that the officials in the department are on their toes and are thinking about this matter. I know that an advisory board has been set up within the department to study telecommunications. Progress in this field is being made very quickly. It is an important field to a country which has the geography that Canada has, and if we do not move in fast we could be left by the wayside.
The brief to which I have made reference called attention to the high degree of co-operation with the United States that is necessary, and to the difficulties in that respect. I think the minister should report on what is being done. The brief also referred to the studies the Department of Transport itself is conducting, and I assume this refers to matters in Canada. It forecast the availability of these studies in the late spring of this year. I hope the minister will bring us up to date on them.
Does the minister plan to have this matter referred to the transport committee? It is all tied in with the Bell Telephone representations, which will be coming before the committee this year. I shall not dwell on it now. It is a complicated subject, but it is very important for a country like Canada and we cannot afford to relax on such an important matter.
[DOT] (12 noon)
There is a lot of good in the estimates of the department this year, and in the work it is doing. It is hard to check the department thoroughly because it is very complex. It is a big department, and the minister is one who does not make speeches every day about his department or about policy. As I said at the opening of my remarks, I do not know whether this is good or bad. Every day there seems to be a speech about something from some minister of the government, which appears on our desks. The minister is getting around. I appreciate the fact that this is what he should do as Minister of Transport, with or without honorary degrees. He does not make speeches, or at least we do not receive copies of them. First we think this is good, but then we begin to realize that we do not know too much about what the department is doing. Many releases of a formal nature concerning the activities of the department are sent out. They keep us informed in this way. The department is on its toes in this regard. We had the release concerning the coastguard school. This is something in respect of which, as the
May 26. 1967
m

Supply-Transport
minister knows, I am interested. This is a good thing, particularly now that the government has wiped out the navy. We have the coastguard and can bring up our young men to follow the sea. I notice that there will be proper training on the Bluenose II. This is an indication that the department is doing some things with which I agree.
Another matter with which we in the mari-times have been concerned is the dumping of oil in our harbours. This is a problem not only from the standpoint of the harbours themselves, but also from that of pollution, which has an adverse effect on our fisheries. I notice that the department evidently has shown some leadership in bringing the captains of these vessels to court and successfully obtaining fines against them. I commend these things. In reviewing the estimates I notice that the amount of the appropriation for the marine service is increased. This is what we want; we want to do things in respect of the sea in every one of its aspects. Without knowing the details of these expenditures, I approve of any increases which are there.
I do not know what the plans of the minister are in respect of the Atlantic Development Board. He is responsible for this. This matter, one of importance to the maritimes, had a thorough going over last year during the committee hearings. I hope some questions will be asked about this. I also hope, when this item is called, that the minister will take the opportunity to say something about the matter. I hope there will be more money for the maritimes, without the usual political strings attached.
The Atlantic Development Board certainly is different from the original board which was established by the Conservative government. I am not against the allocations of funds which have been made, but I do suggest that some thought should be given to this. Perhaps the minister has in mind new legislation. We should know where we are going in so far as the Atlantic Development Board, and the principles which were originally established in respect of it, are concerned.
As the minister knows, another matter which is a favourite of mine is the St. Lawrence seaway. I have on the order paper a motion which asks that we look into the matter of the seaway in all its aspects. This is something we owe to the taxpayers of Canada. We want to know about the debt structure, the tolls, pollution, navigation,
IMr. Bell (Saint John-Albert).]
height of water, levels of water and the situation in Montreal harbour. This is something which affects every part of the economic life of this country. A full scale review of the St. Lawrence seaway is necessary. We were not against the idea of the seaway when it was presented to parliament, nor were we against the seaway when it was finally constructed. We thought it was something which would be good for the country. We should like to know however where the maritimes fit in vis-a-vis the seaway.
The whole matter of the St. Lawrence seaway is becoming increasingly important every day. In these same releases I mentioned, every week we see items about icebreaking-a new icebreaker, new icebreaking methods, and the like. I am sure the department must be concerned about something other than icebreaking. Surely the time has arrived when the minister could say exactly what the policy is in respect of icebreaking. He owes this to us. If he hopes to be recognized in the maritimes and in Newfoundland as more than an orphan, then I think he should tell us where we are going, who is paying for what we are doing, and the whole business. I shall resist the temptation to speak any longer at this time about icebreaking.
Previously we have asked questions about two reports. The minister says that the only thing he knows about them is that those reports are not lying around on his desk. The reports to which I refer are in respect of coastal shipping, and an interdepartmental committee on a possible future merchant navy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When the hon. member refers to coastal shipping does he mean the report on pilotage?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes, which was requested by this government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You mean the previous government.


Thomas Miller Bell: The previous government, of which I was an insignificant supporter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was so concerned about establishing whether it was the pilotage report to which the hon. member referred that I missed the name of the interdepartmental committee. Would he repeat that?


Thomas Miller Bell: As I understand it, an interdepartmental committee was
May 26, 1967

set up to look into the possibility of a merchant navy for Canada. Through the action of the Minister of National Defence we have lost our navy and are anxious to know exactly where we fit in. I think this report should be brought forward, so that we will know that it is not lying around somewhere in the department.
The other matter which I forgot to mention is that concerning shipments of flour.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the hon. member could be given an extra minute or two in order to talk about flour.


Thomas Miller Bell: Again I shall resist the temptation to resume the debate we had on flour during our study of the transport bill. Everybody co-operated. This was one occasion when I went home from the House of Commons feeling good about something, even though the minister had filibustered his own bill. We made some progress in respect of the matter concerning flour. At that time it appeared that Canada would not be in a position to ship to communist countries the quantities of flour it had been shipping previously. We corrected this situation. The minister put his officials to work on it and eventually the situation was cleared up. This was good. Now to a greater degree the shipments seem to be going through the port of Montreal.
I know the milling companies are located in Montreal and that sometimes it is convenient for them to ship through that port. I am not suggesting that the government is responsible for this. I do not even believe the railway companies are fooling around with the rates. I do say, however, that it is the responsibility of the government to see that the maritime ports receive their fair share. At least what has been established as our fair percentage of the flour shipments should go through the ports of Halifax and Saint John. The government may not be involved in this. It may simply be a situation where the milling companies say that it costs them more money to ship through these ports.
This brings up the matter of transportation rates and takes me back to the point where I began my remarks. I should simply like to reiterate that the minister has not yet fulfilled his promise to do something about the situation in the maritimes, which is slowly getting worse. The situation which existed during the past winter is testimony to that fact.
Supply-Transport
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I believe I speak on behalf of all members present in the house when I thank the hon. member who has just taken his seat for giving us the opportunity to chuckle. He did so several minutes ago at the conclusion of a 45 to 47 minute presentation when he said he was not going to hold the house up by making a lengthy speech, but would reserve his comments for a later date. I lost track of his points after the seventeenth, but let me say that the hon. member has without doubt presented the major problems involving everything, from flowers to ports, which face the maritime provinces on the Atlantic. I know the minister will answer all the hon. member's point in detail before this consideration of his salary vote is concluded, but I should like to ask him to transfer his ministerial thinking from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast.
It is not my intention in any way to make my remarks in the nature of political criticism or comment regarding the past actions of the minister, but I should like to ask him whether it is possible under this vote to remove some of the confusion that exists so far as the Pacific coast is concerned, and give us a clear indication of what is taking place or will take place in this regard. It is about time the government recognized the potentialities of the province of British Columbia in relation to transportation and port facilities. This is very important in my opinion, and I regret having to reiterate it, as I did try to bring it to the attention of the house when I spoke during the concluding day of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Surely it cannot be challenged that the port of Vancouver, and what will be ancillary ports in the lower mainland of British Columbia, if not now, will in the near future provide not only the greatest port facilities in North America, but perhaps the greatest in the world. I make that suggestion, with the knowledge that Canadian trade will expand to a great extent in the future, particularly with eastern countries.
We are very proud of our natural resources, but I regret that far too often we export them for manufacture into articles by other countries, which in turn we import. We all hope this situation will change very soon. In this regard I hope the minister can assure us that it is government policy in respect of the export of our natural resources that they move

May 26, 1967
Supply-Transport
over Canadian transportation lines and through Canadian ports.
Although I read the newspaper reports this morning I am still not clear as to the movement of coal from the Crowsnest in British Columbia and Alberta under major contracts signed with Japanese importers. It would be a regrettable situation if the millions of tons of coal produced annually in British Columbia and Alberta were exported to Japan by way of transportation systems and ports in the United States. I sincerely hope the minister can resolve this present confusion by stating that arrangements have been made between the governments, contractors and railways for the movement of this coal production over Canadian transportation systems to Canadian harbours for export. This is a very important matter and I trust my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West, does not mind my mentioning it. I am sure he will go into it in greater detail if a satisfactory assurance cannot be given by the minister.
My second point is of particular concern to me as a member from Vancouver. At the present time about one third of the south side of the port of Vancouver falls within my constituency. After redistribution about 80 per cent will fall within the constituency of Vancouver East. Be that as it may, irrespective of the party we support, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, myself and others are concerned about the port of Vancouver. We are all anxious, because of other than political reasons to know what are the plans for the development of the port of Vancouver. This is of tremendous importance to the city of Vancouver as well as to the province.
Let me repeat what I said the other day when unfortunately the minister was not here. As a result of confusion in respect of provincial and federal jurisdictions a most serious problem is arising, and unless these jurisdictional jealousies are resolved the people of Vancouver and British Columbia are going to suffer. There has been a great deal of development in the port of Vancouver by private enterprise and there will be a great deal more in the future, particularly from the Lion's Gate bridge to Port Moody. This year as a result of plans of the harbour commissioners of the federal government the capital expenditures have been quadrupled.
Our port facilities must be enlarged because of the development of new ships of greater size for carrying cargoes of different types. Although we live under capitalism, speaking as a socialist let me say that private

enterprise is prepared to invest in this development, but there is some anxiety because of the lack of knowledge regarding future plans and the confusion in relation to jurisdiction. The provincial government under a Social Credit premier, not being satisfied with already having the largest port facilities in Canada, either existing or planned, is now considering the development of harbour facilities at Robert's bay under provincial jurisdiction and financing.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Minister of Transport to get in touch with the provincial authorities, the harbour commissioners and free enterprise developers regarding the future of Vancouver harbour and ancillary facilities, because unless some understanding is reached between these parties I feel we have reason to worry about the future status and financial stability, of these facilities in the province of British Columbia.
In my opinion and that of the people to whom I spoke just a few weeks ago, this situation is absolutely stupid. Unless there is a co-ordinated plan of development there will be a loss to investors, a loss to the city of Vancouver, a loss to the province of British Columbia and a loss to Canada. Empire building and jurisdictional disputes may cause millions of dollars to be spent unnecessarily in certain areas. A specific plan should first be completed in one area. To my mind this is of the utmost importance, o (12:20 p.m.)
I would ask the Minister of Transport to tell us what discussions are being carried on at the moment and, if discussions are not in progress now, what is planned for the future in order that there will be co-ordination in planning as between enterprise investment, federal government expenditure and the province with regard to the necessity of wharves, railway facilities and warehouses, so that the great port of Vancouver and the lower mainland area of British Columbia will have a development that is efficient, reasonable and satisfactory, looking ahead not only to the next few years but, I would say, for almost the next quarter of a century.
I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that I make this appeal not as a member of this party, not as a member of the opposition but as one who has lived in Vancouver since 1910, knows its potentialities, has faith in its future but also has real fears that our Pacific coast may lose its great potential because of challenges of jurisdiction, political expediencies and personalities between governments. I am certain
May 26. 1967

that all members of the House of Commons who come from the lower mainland of British Columbia will join me in asking the minister to inform us what he is doing in this respect and what the government has in mind to resolve the present difficulties and confusion.
I have just one other point, Mr. Chairman. I raise it because it is also a major importance. The Minister of Transport was finally able to get started on the new international airport in Vancouver. We thank him for this. That work is now proceeding. We hope that in the planning of this new airport provision is being made for the runways to handle the new types of aircraft which will be landing there in the future. I repeat what I said in the debate on the speech from the throne, because the minister was not here at that time. We from Vancouver think it is impractical and unreasonable-I do not know what the eventual cost will be, but I imagine it will be around $20 million at least-that in respect of this airport no decision has yet been made on the new access. I sincerely hope that the minister will not accept any longer a delay as to who is responsible for this access, the city of Vancouver, the province or the federal government.
I reiterate that I know the problems, I know the difficulties, I know the jurisdictional disputes and I know the personalities. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I tell the minister that the people of Vancouver, the citizens of British Columbia and indeed of the whole of Canada are fed up with personalities, difficulties and disputes over jurisdiction. For heaven's sake, why should the people have to suffer because governments cannot reach a decision? I sincerely hope that the minister, who comes from Newfoundland, will recognize the beauties and great potentialities of Vancouver and British Columbia, can tell us that these matters will be resolved and that we will have action pretty soon, instead of promises.


Roland Godin: May 26, 1967
Supply-Transport
And the letter continues:
You know what happened at Dorion, not long ago.
I say to the minister that adequate signals should be installed there. But instead, pretexting economic reasons, operators are being removed, positions cancelled and lives are endangered.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I shall point out to the minister that he should require an investigation and not rely upon the recommendations of the Board of Transport Commissioners, since at the present time 75 per cent of its management are former employees of the C.P.R. or the C.N.R.
Automatically, the Board of Transport Commissioners has become the Senate of the railways. It is not surprising that numerous accidents occur in some places because, as always, under the pretext of economy, essential things are forgotten.
Now, I will say a few words about Air Canada. I must congratulate Air Canada for the beautiful trips we owe to it. However, times of departure, namely, should be better controlled. Here, I have in hand a card which was given to me to go aboard-I will not give the date so as not to offend the employees who were there-but, at any rate, on three occasions in the same month, I had to get off the plane leaving Montreal for Quebec. On three occasions, I had been given a boarding card.
The first night three people who had been given boarding cards had to get off because there was not a single empty seat inside the airplane.
A similar situation arose ten days later when another passenger and myself had to get off. At that time, and I point it out to the minister, it was at the end of the winter, because I was still wearing a hat and I could travel incognito. I did not use my influence as a member of parliament; I just let myself be pushed around like an ordinary citizen.
Since the same thing happened a third time, I wonder if it would not be possible to control more efficiently the list of people boarding the airplane.
Had some people boarded the plane without tickets? Are people allowed to travel standing up? If seats had been vacant, then my boarding card would have been valid. But the day when the airplane is full and three people have to get off, it is not the same thing. Supposing that the plane had been only three quarters full and that the last three people

had been allowed to board it, were there unregistered passengers inside? If so, and in case of accident, what would happen to the unregistered passengers?
Therefore, I ask the minister to investigate that matter and to take steps so that the personnel doing that work will enjoy less patronage and be stronger in arithmetic.
Fortunately, Air Canada always realizes profits which may compensate for the services provided by the C.N.R. However, I think Air Canada could take a look also at the flight schedules.
When I go to Montreal, for example, I always reserve a seat on a plane leaving rather late, around 8:30 or 9 p.m. However, if I want to leave for Montreal earlier, my name is put on the waiting list.
Three weeks ago my name was put on the waiting list for the plane leaving for Quebec at 7:30. I was made to wait at a gate and then told that there were no seats left and asked to go to gate number 7, where the other plane was leaving for Quebec. But the two planes were scheduled to leave at the same time. While I walked 50 feet inside the airport, the other plane left.
Would it not be possible to delay the departure of the second plane or move ahead that of the first? Anyway, I do not know what we could do about that, for the problem belongs to Air Canada. One plane goes directly to Quebec while the other makes a stopover at Trois-Rivieres. I think the one stopping at Trois-Rivieres could leave four or five minutes earlier or later without it making anj difference.
At any rate, that would have permitted me to leave earlier. If I insist upon this point, it is not that I had to wait in Montreal, for we are graciously welcomed, very well fed, the stewardesses are charming, in brief, it could not be better in this regard.
When I was allowed to get aboard the plane for Quebec, other passengers were refused aboard. As for me, they could not prevent me from going aboard, since I had a reservation. Nevertheless, those who were waiting could have gone aboard, if I had been given the opportunity to leave when I was ready.
That is another suggestion I am making to the minister. I presume he will get many more from other members and I can even see that the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) will certainly have a few to make also.
May 26, 1967

I hope the minister will consider all those suggestions in the best interest of the Canadian people and especially of the pocket book of the Canadian government.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, I notice in looking around the chamber now, in the lunch hour, that for the most part the hon. members who are here are members from the Atlantic and Pacific coast constituencies, and from the mountains and the prairies, because we are the ones who, when the estimates of the Minister of Transport are before the house, are most interested in this subject. To those who are present in the chamber at the moment, let me say that this is perhaps one of the most vital debates in the course of the year and an opportunity to place before the Minister of Transport some of our own ideas in respect of transport and communication to the remoter areas and the periphery of Canada; because in this thinly populated nation, holding such a vast territory, it is only by the improvement of our systems of transportation and communication that we can do our best to make possible the kind of living Canadians enjoy.
I join hon. members opposite, in particular the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, in congratulating the minister for having put in a very good year as Minister of Transport, particularly in the carriage of his massive transportation commission bill during the last session and, of special interest to us in British Columbia, the acquisition of the C.P.R. lands in the harbour of Vancouver, which broke a deadlock of decades and now permits the National Harbours Board to expand and improve the port of Vancouver in a way it could not before. This has been immediately reflected in the increased priorities given to planning in the harbour of Vancouver, and in increases in the capital expenditures of that port. This is certainly worth while to see, for those of us who have long been advocating that government initiative should break the deadlock which had long rested in the hands of the legal experts, and has now enabled the port to go ahead at a renewed and increased pace.
People in British Columbia worry about the port of Vancouver. In this statement I include my hon. friend from Vancouver East, who is disturbed by the action of the province of British Columbia in bringing down a bill in the recent session of the legislature to establish a B.C. harbours board. Certainly this is a startling piece of legislation and, one would
Supply-Transport
expect, far outside the control and jurisdiction of the province. But we know why this measure was brought down. Basically it has to do with the prospect of moving vast quantities of coal from the Kootenays, loading it on to bulk carriers at Vancouver and moving it to the smelters of Japan. The passage of this bill reflects the anxiety of the British Columbia government, lest the port of Vancouver and the facilities available through the National Harbours Board will not be adequate for this task. I think it would be a great tragedy if harbour development were to begin to take place at the instigation of two levels of government in the absence of the cohesive planning which the National Harbours Board is able to give in connection with port development.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
I certainly wish to urge at this time that the minister place his full support behind the port of Vancouver development committee. It was in 1953, or thereabouts, when the people on the north shore were wondering whether that side of the harbour would be adequately developed by the National Harbours Board, and struggling with the question of settling the long dispute over the C.P.R. lands so that the port could expand, that the port of Vancouver development committee was established.
It was the present Minister of Transport who met with representatives of the city of Vancouver and listened to their proposals for the establishment of a port development committee, which has worked very well ever since. It has produced some useful reports and background help to the National Harbours Board in planning transportation on the Pacific coast. I wish to emphasize the value of this committee which was established by the present minister, and ask him to consider carefully whether he is providing that committee with sufficient expertise to enable it to carry out the job it wants to do-for example, in determining whether or not we should be building bulk loaders on the mainland or whether they could be contained inside the harbour.
I want the minister to consider whether or not the committee is receiving all the help it needs to carry out this expert, high level planning and to get its ideas before the government and before the people of the west coast who are constantly worried about what is in store in the long run for the port city. We hear on the one hand from the British Columbia government that we need extra

May 26, 1967
Supply-Transport
loading facilities outside the port of Vancouver. On the other hand, strangely enough, we find that a vessel called the Sigsilver was able to dock and load in the port without difficulty, despite its heavy tonnage.
Mr. Chairman, the Sigsilver sailed under the first narrows bridge on its first maiden voyage. Its size was such that it virtually blocked the view of Grouse mountain and the north shore. Yet this vessel, a vessel of 103,021 tons which draws a maximum of 49 feet of water, and is 820 feet 2 inches long and 133 feet 10 inches wide, tied up in the port, loaded 73,000 tons of grain and sailed out again. This was a spectacle which set the city of Vancouver on its tin ear. We witnessed it, while Mr. Bennett was telling us that what we need today is to go outside the port of Vancouver and dig a big new harbour. I am not convinced in the least that Mr. Bennett is right. I am frightened that if he goes ahead with this project-though I do not see how he can, within the powers given him under the British North America Act-we in British Columbia will face an increase in taxation the like of which we have never seen, in return for a project which would prove a white elephant the like of which we have never seen.
This is why I believe the port of Vancouver development committee should be beefed up with all the technical assistance it needs, and afforded every opportunity to express its views to the government and to the people so that they may understand where we are going and not foolishly undertake the construction of a white elephant at a time when we need to develop our port intelligently, with dollars spent to the best purpose and in the best interests of the people of the west coast, the prairies and the country generally.
I wish to mention now a subject which has been drawn to my attention by people in Vancouver who are very much concerned about the dumping of garbage by pleasure boats and small craft using the strait of Georgia, which is a small inland sea about 20 miles across from Vancouver island. It is likely that more pleasure boats sail in this area than in any other area around our shores, coastal or inland. As our wealth grows and our leisure increases, the number of small craft sailing in this area is increasing at a tremendous rate. All kinds of new facilities are needed, and the use of these craft needs to be brought under a certain measure of control because the point is being reached at which they are begining to pollute the strait of Georgia.
[Mr. Deachman.l
Garbage is washing up on beaches where people have built permanent homes and cottages. Before these practices become entrenched I want to draw the situation in the strait to the attention of the minister. I know he has taken one step for which we in British Columbia will be grateful. He has appointed a highly respected member of his staff to make a survey of the needs of small boat harbours. It may be that the terms of reference governing that survey need to be widened to cover the whole question of how best to deal with the massive increase in the numbers of small vessels which plow up and down this inland waterway.
I wish to turn for a moment now to the subject of the Vancouver airport. I hope the minister will be able to tell us how the construction of this airport is progressing. Each time we visit Vancouver we see the framework of the new airport building progressing. We are anxious to know when the building and the runways will be available for use. We are just as anxious to know what solution will be found to the knotty question of providing an access tunnel or bridge to the new airport.
I have letters in front of me from the Vancouver Real Estate Board, the Marpole Chamber of Commerce, the chamber of commerce of the lower mainland and from the B.C. Towboat Owners Association, all expressing concern about the crossing of the north arm of the Fraser river, the arm of the Fraser river which leads to the sea. It is used intensively by large traffic, and each year, as bigger barges are built, the clearance required in both width and depth continues to increase. Industry is naturally concerned therefore about the kind of bridge which would be built. This is a question which has to be settled without delay, because intending passengers will want to get to the airport quickly. We want to see the airport completed speedily, and we want this connection to be made as soon as the airport can be opened. I realize this raises once again a jurisdictional problem as between the two levels of government; but there are good reasons why these jurisdictional disputes should be settled to enable us to get on with the work.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
I want to refer to one item I had a little bit to do with at the time the transportation commission bill was passed. It involves the movement of feed grains into British Columbia and the rail rates which apply to their movement. A clause was introduced into the
May 26, 1967

bill at the time which indicated that this subject would come up for review within six months of the establishment of the commission. The farmers who were feeding stock in British Columbia raised this issue with members from British Columbia and asked that it be brought up at the time the bill was before the house, and they are anxious to know when this matter is likely to be attended to in the future. They will want to make representations at that time, and therefore they would like to know how to make those representations and when to make them.
I should like to compliment the minister as well as Air Canada upon the establishment of a new DC-9 service from Ottawa through Winnipeg and Calgary to Vancouver. This is a considerable improvement over the former service where we had to go through Toronto. We always had to wait at Toronto airport for at least an hour and a half and often longer in order to make a connection to the coast. Certainly the new service speeds up communication with the coast and adds an additional line which is very useful indeed to members and government officials who are travelling to and from the prairies and the coast.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few remarks about the question of a communications satellite which I think was a matter raised earlier in the debate today. I hope the minister will say something about this. There are just three points that I want to make about a communications satellite, a subject that I find pretty fascinating.
We in Canada with not too much expense to the individual could put our dial telephones on a flat rate basis with the use of a satellite, and this would mean that any Canadian could pick up his telephone and dial the user of any other dial telephone in Canada. This could be done on a flat rate basis, as I say, at not too great a charge on a subscriber's present bill.
Satellite communication would not only assist in the increase and broadening of such a service, but it would also-and perhaps this is the most fascinating part about it-enable telephone service to be provided to virtually every corner of Canada, even to the north pole if somebody was up there with a telephone in his hand. I think this would be a magnificent addition to the capability of Canadians to communicate with each other.
Communication, Mr. Chairman, is not really costly compared with many other things we do. It is not as costly, say, as building railroads, roads, canals, or even icebreaking,
Supply-Transport
as pointed out by my hon. friend for Saint John-Albert. It is an area in which we can afford to go far beyond what is done by other countries, even the United States. It is essential to a great country like this, which covers such tremendous area, that we communicate with each other and do everything we possibly can in this connection.
I might also point out that a satellite is capable of providing us with television on a virtually universal basis. I do not see why Canadians have to be slaves either to United States programs or to C.B.C. and local programs. I do not see why we cannot become the first country in the world to make available to its people virtually universal television coverage by bringing to Canadian viewers via a satellite network programs from Moscow, Paris, London, and even Peking, if they want to talk to us or harangue us.
I see nothing wrong with letting the Canadian people see what goes on in world through universal T.V., and this can be provided with a satellite. We have the facilities to do it and, again, it is not something that will be too expensive. It is a great dream, the kind of vision that Canadians, of all people, can afford to dream about.
This concludes, Mr. Chairman, the points I want to make in this address today. It has certainly been a pleasure to me to have been a member of the transportation committee over the last two years and to have had the opportunity to confront the minister and members of crown corporations and find out something about their various operations.


Mr. Souiham:: Mr. Chairman, on looking at the clock I would ask the permission of the committee to adjourn this debate until after lunch.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee wish to call it one o'clock at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity of speaking on the transport estimates. Before going further I wish to compliment the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, the official spokesman for our group on the transport and communications committee, for his comprehensive briefing of the

May 26, 1967
Supp ly-Transport
minister before lunch on the problems now facing Canadian transportation. The hon. member complimented the minister for successfully piloting through the house the massive transportation bill. As a member of the committee I second what the hon. member said. The legislation was most important and we appreciated the minister's co-operation. It took a big, forward step in bringing our transportation legislation up to date. Nevertheless the benefits of the legislation will not be realized unless in the near future the new transport board is set up. That is the most important initial step which ought to be taken. To solve our transportation difficulties the new board ought to be set up at once and fully manned.
We realize that the minister is having a difficult time, as the hon. member for Saint John-Albert suggested, in obtaining appropriate personnel for the board. Nevertheless the board must be set up and fully constituted if it is to decide on transportation matters. Setting up the board is the first step which ought to be taken, and it ought to be taken immediately.
I have in my hand a copy of a letter written by Mr. G. P. Miller, solicitor for the Canadian Pacific, to approximately 125 reeves, councillors, town clerks, etc. of various places in the Regina subdivision in that part of Saskatchewan. The letter refers to a large segment of the communications system of that part of our province and to an application for the removal of station agents -carrying through, in other words, the Canadian Pacific proposal for the establishment of a master agency plan.
I need not tell members of the committee or the minister that consternation will develop in the near future among the people of this part of Saskatchewan should the application for the removal of so many agents from so wide an area be granted. I shall mention a few of the many municipalities involved and try not to bore the committee. At the head of the list is Grenfell, followed by places such as Indian Head, Stoughton, Carlyle, Rouleau, Torquay, Wolseley, Qu'Appelle, Fillmore, Redvers, Areola, Milestone, Imperial and Midale. These are all important centres of railroad communication in this part of Saskatchewan, and removing the station agents in one fell swoop from such a large area would create many difficulties. This application ought not to be considered for a minute until the new board has been fully constituted, and I urge the minister to allow these

municipalities a hearing before the board, after it is set up, before the requests in the application are granted.
That is only one part of the difficulty. As members of the committee know, the railways accepted the suggestion of the MacPherson Royal Commission that they apply to the Board of Transport Commissioners to abandon certain rail lines. These applications to abandon were reviewed in depth. Here, again, I think the minister did right, prior to the full implementation of the transportation bill, in applying a moratorium on applications seeking to abandon some 2,200 miles of line. This action has in a way poured oil on the troubled waters for the time being and established in the minds of the people of western Canada that there is not going to be wholesale abandonment of lines. But it still left about 1,800 miles of line to be considered, and immediately the bill was passed there was a rush by the railroads with applications to abandon these 1,800 miles of lines. Approximately 900 miles of these lines lie within the boundaries of Saskatchewan, and once more I urge the minister to have the greatest concern regarding the final outcome of these abandonment applications.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I believe we should have retention committees established again and complete hearings before any of these applications are granted. As hon. members know, as one vitally interested in the problem of rail line abandonment I have had a private members' bill on the order paper for the last several years to provide that if a particular segment of line is to be abandoned following application the abandonment shall not take place until the expiration of at least a five-year moratorium. I introduced that bill for the simple reason that railroads are a vital part of the community life of the rural areas of Saskatchewan. This is true of other provinces as well but it is particularly applicable to the west where the transportation of our grain is one of the basic responsibilities of railroads.
In many of the small towns and villages through which railway lines run the general store caters to the needs of the surrounding area. In many cases it houses the post office. These small villages may contain a garage repair shop which repairs the machinery of the local farmers, and the owners of these places should have a reasonable time within which to pull up stakes, dispose of their property and make arrangements to establish themselves in some other form of livelihood.
May 26, 1967

There is also the question of the elevator companies which provide services to farmers along the railway lines. Their owners should have time to dismantle the elevators, move them elsewhere and make arrangements for their former patrons.
When railway lines are abandoned the municipalities affected are faced with the responsibility of providing transportation facilities involving the construction of better roads. If there were a five year moratorium on abandonments this would allow provincial and municipal governments three or four years in which to plan ahead in order to find the tax money for the building of roads. Again I suggest to the minister that he give serious consideration to these matters before further action is taken on rail line abandonment.
Under the new transport legislation we tried to establish the concept that rates would be set by competition in the market place. I believe in this principle of free enterprise, but with reasonable controls and with people being realistic about the establishment of rates. It has recently come to my attention that already, before the new board has been able to start functioning, rates have been hiked in several areas of western Canada in what are known as captive zones. Rates have been raised by both the C.N. and C.P.R., and the increases in both cases have been uniform.
We do not know whether this is due to collusion between the railroads or whether it has happened by accident, but when one finds exactly the same increase being made by two railroads, both in areas where they have no competition and where they have competition, one begins to wonder what is taking place. This indicates to me that the sooner the new transportation commission starts functioning, and the sooner it receives competent, expert advice, the better it will be for all of us. Precedents should not be established now that will be hard to overcome if a problem develops along the lines I am suggesting.
During the past several months questions have been raised in Saskatchewan about air transportation services in the province. Because of Expo and because of the fact that this is Canada's one hundredth birthday, there is a great demand for air services and all other modes of transport. Because Saskatchewan is so far away from the site of Expo, in order to save time many people want to use air transport to reach it. People are now finding difficulty making reservations for plane transportation to and from eastern Canada, and I wonder whether the minister,
Supply-Transport
in co-operation with Air Canada, Canadian Pacific Air Lines, and the private companies, have given enough consideration to this problem in Saskatchewan.
Just before the last session prorogued I had a question on the order paper dealing with the landing of jet aircraft at Regina, and I believe the minister's parliamentary secretary suggested that the facilities at Regina were capable of handling jet transport. But up to the present time I am not aware of any jet aircraft coming into Regina, unless I have not been briefed on the situation within the last week or two. It may be possible that jet aircraft can land there, and I suggest that Regina and Saskatoon should be serviced by DC-9 jet planes to give the people of central Canada comparable facilities with those provided to people elsewhere.
I could go on at some length to deal with other matters pertaining to transportation. However, this morning the hon. member for Saint John-Albert covered 17 or 18 pertinent points relating to the various facets of transportation problems. We all realize that transportation is the sinew of this great nation, and the more we can do to improve transportation facilities the better service we do our country. With these few remarks I would again urge the minister to do everything within his power to see that the new transport board is constituted and becomes active as soon as possible so that it can deal with some of the problems that are creeping up on us and which, if not dealt with, could create dangers and give rise to precedents that would cause a lot of concern later.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I want to begin my remarks by trying to say a few words in English. All hon. members know that most of the time I speak French, my mother tongue, because I am somewhat more fluent in it, but I purposely begin in English today because I want to demonstrate that in my constituency, in my province, there is none of that narrow-minded jingoism that we have observed here during the last few weeks, demonstrated by the hon. member for York-Humber. If we have a few exceptions to the general rule, our people at least do not send them to the House of Commons; they keep them at home. We have an example of course, in the person of the hon. member for Lapointe, but he is serving here under false colours. He was elected by Le Ralliement Creditiste and his colleagues had the intelligence to throw him out of the party when he changed his colours.
Supply-Transport

May 26, 1987
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
(Translation)
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I shall continue in my mother tongue, in which I will certainly be a little more fluent.
I must admit that the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) has a lot of very important problems to solve-problems of the ten provinces-so that is why we are obliged, in many cases, to bring up again those which seem important in our ridings. I shall make a brief digression to say that:

I will repeat it in English. I resented the remarks of the hon. member for Vancou-ver-Quadra this morning when he said that members from the maritimes and British Columbia were more interested in the problems of the Minister of Transport than other members. I should like to tell my hon. friend that those of us who live along the St. Lawrence river are also keenly interested. We are even very interested in what is going on in the maritimes and in British Columbia, because we believe in solidarity between the provinces.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, I should like to apologize to the hon. member. I was using the word "maritime" in the broad sense. His constituency like mine is a maritime constituency.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I thank my hon. colleague. I believe he realizes mine is a friendly resentment.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. Minister of Transport for his attentive co-operation every time I rose in this house to ask for an emergency night service of the Canadian Pacific between Montreal and Quebec during Expo. I had the impression that the minister was one of the strong men in the cabinet but, to my great regret, he just found people stronger that he, in the person of the president and vice-president of the Canadian Pacific who seem to have an extraordinary power of resistance, since they resisted even to the pressure of the Minister of Transport.
Mr. Chairman, I should tell the minister that not later than today at noon I had another telephone conversation with the staff of the Canadian Transport Commission who advised me that they were maintaining the pressure and were hoping to bring around the authorities of the C.P.R. Consequently, for a few

days we will need the support of the Minister of Transport. I hope we can count on his support and this afternoon, I urge him to give us as strong a support as possbile so that, this time, we may win our point.
To some extent the interest of the Montreal Expo is at stake since there are between Montreal and Quebec approximately one million interested people who cannot easily visit Expo because our roads, our bus service and our air transport facilities are totally inadequate.
Only the railroad can bring in our people in the morning and bring them back at night. I have a full file that I shall not read to the house because the C.P.R. could try to fight my request-which is supported by the legislature of my province and by a large number of municipalities

by producing statistics on the number of train passengers during the month of March.
For instance, train No. 152 carried 1,960 passengers from March 1 to 21 compared with 1,261 between March 22 and March 31. This is between Montreal and Quebec. Previously, train No. 149 had carried 1,638 passengers from March 1 to March 21 and 1,057 passengers from March 22 to March 31.
Those are figures gathered before the opening of Expo, and I contend that if we had the service we are requesting, those figures would increase considerably during the next six months. By the way, I know that the municipal councils of my region are ready to publicize this and the newspapers of my region are also ready to give free publicity to that penurious company called the C.P.R.
I also know that all the radio commentators in my area would be most happy to broadcast the idea that the C.P.R. has finally realized they should render some service to the people after the enormous amounts they have collected from the population at the time the company was founded.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I refuse to have the C.P.R. tell us that no cars are available, because I actually know that there are some unused cars in Montreal that could leave at night and return the next morning without disturbing anyone.
I deny the allegation of the C.P.R. that the service would be uneconomic, and I would like to be able to prove it. If there are no passengers-and I admit they are maybe too few-it is because of the poor service provided by the C.P.R.
May 26. 1967

If the C.P.R. treated its passengers as well
as ordinary private enterprises that are subject to competition, the number of passengers would increase and the service would be economic.
I insist on this point, and ask the minister to give priority to this urgent problem, because Expo is already opened and hundreds of people tell me that they would like to leave for Montreal in the morning with their families and come back at night after having seen all the wonderful exhibits. The train is the only available means of transportation, because automobiles are impractical; besides, most people do not own an automobile.
I now come to a matter which may be of greater interest to the Minister of Transport, because I want to deal with the harbour of Trois-Rivieres which the Maritimers consider as a competitor.
However, we are witnessing a strange phenomenon, Mr. Chairman. In recent years, we have been happy to see the St. Lawrence river open to winter navigation right up to Trois-Rivieres. This was excellent for our economy. But this year we are sorry to see that the minister went beyond the call of duty in his efforts to open up the St. Lawrence, for winter navigation is now possible right up to Montreal and no longer stops at Trois-Rivieres. The people in the maritimes now see the price that must be paid for progress; they have suffered from it just as we are suffering now. However, we believe that things will straighten out and that we will also in the end benefit reasonably from this winter traffic on the St. Lawrence river without, of course, taking away the livelihood of the maritime provinces.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I think that, on the contrary, it is appropriate to consider the advantages which that whole field offers and to try all together to promote shipping as well as foreign trade, so that the volume of traffic will increase to the benefit of all.
I would like to ask the minister if he could elaborate a master plan, that is to say a plan under which the development of the Trois-Rivieres harbour and town planning would go hand in hand.
Mr. Chairman, we have a wonderful view on one of the most beautiful rivers in the world, the St. Lawrence river, but unfortunately the warehouses on the wharves are slowly becoming a China wall between the river and the city. It is certainly the most beautiful area of the city of Trois-Rivieres and I am wondering if there is not some way
Supply-Transport
to reconcile the two, for instance to elaborate a plan which would provide for the construction over the buildings, in co-operation with the municipality or the province, of walks so that the people of the Trois-Rivieres area will be able to keep that beautiful view on the St. Lawrence.
I cannot see why this beautiful scenery should be destroyed by the inexorable development of trade in the country. There is certainly a way to elaborate a town planning program and the Board of Transport Com-missionners could work with the responsible people in order to find a way to reconcile the two and to preserve all the picturesque value of that view.
I feel the whole population of the St. Maurice region and all the tourists would benefit from it. Some thought might also be given to the development of the harbour which has been slightly hampered by the construction of the bridge at Trois-Rivieres. We shall not bring up again the differences of opinion with regard to its location.
I feel that would compel the government to plan, although it may already do so without being aware of it, the development around Trois-Rivieres West and Cap-de-la-Madeleine in the next 25 years, because the regional economy due to the building of that bridge and several other developments back home, will certainly boom in the years ahead. Harbour facilities should not follow the boom; they should precede it to a certain extent, in order to increase it if possible.
I also remind the minister that during the war of 1914-18, Trois-Rivieres had a dry dock. It was closed after the end of the war. To my mind, it might be a good idea to open it again; it could be done at little cost.
Some dredging might be necessary in the northeastern St. Maurice, near Cap-de-la-Madeleine where it used to be. I think that minor repairs to pleasure boats could keep quite a number of workers busy in that area during the winter.
Besides, I think that all we have in shipyards at present cannot meet the ever-increasing demand for ship repairs, and I submit to the minister that a study should be made by experts in his department with a view to promoting the industrial and economic development of the region I represent.
Perhaps it is not necessary to wait for that to start dredging that branch of the river -there is only one river back home, not three, but because there are two cities, there are three mouths-where the drydock was

May 26, 1967
Supply-Transport
formerly and which is now used as a refuge by yachts and vessels working on the St. Lawrence. Unfortunately, that is filled in each year and those people need dredging to get into that mouth of the river.
Mr. Chairman, I almost got carried away when I talked about the C.P.R. There is one other question which makes my blood pressure go up every time I think of it, because people in my riding write to me ten times a month about it. I refer to the matter of Baie-Jolie, which the minister heard about. A channel was dredged in lake St. Peter, which was necessary of course and all the earth that was taken out of the channel was dumped in front of a beautiful beach called Baie-Jolie. More than 40 or 50 years ago, the people of Trois-Rivieres built summer cottages there, magnificent summer homes. Not only temporary cottages.
Some of those residences cost more than $60,000 and $70,000. A kind of Sahara desert was built in front of their beach and if even one could see golden sand there, it would be bearable, but it is more or less dried up mud.
The hon. minister was kind enough to answer several of my letters. I sent many to him and he answered me, for instance, as follows on October 17:
-I can well understand the disappointment of the land owners in seeing that the final result does not come up to their expectation-
I am quoting word for word.
-but it seems there are no steps the Department of Transport can take in the circumstances and at the present time in order to cope with the situation.
Well, Mr. Chairman, it is the Department of Transport that is to blame. I am sorry to say so but that is the case. And the Department of Transport is trespassing; it took it for granted that the beach was its property. But under the old French law, riparian owners own not only the beach but as far under the river as the breast of a white horse. That is written in the old French law.
Therefore, these riparian owners have been greatly wronged. I have here a list, Mr. Chairman, of the owners with their signature. I have the appraisal of their property which they have had prepared, and a professional appraiser certified that their property has been depreciated as much as 40 per cent.
I think that the minister has been misinformed by some senior officials who have thus made a serious blunder, and have done a great deal of damage to these wonderful properties. I see no other solution for the

department than to make good that mistake, and so much the worse for those who committed it.
Suggestions have been made such as, for instance, to dig a channel between the old beach and this sort of mud desert created in front of their properties. But I say that this is not reasonable. To begin with, the channel will fill every year; the department will have to maintain it in good condition.
Suggestion was also made to fill up that sort of channel which is there at high tide; but here again, that will create more or less a swamp.
To my mind, there is only one solution, and that is to spread this earth on all the neighbouring beaches, try to bring in some sand so that it will not look like mud and repair the damage to these owners who did not ask for this. They were not consulted before this refuse was dumped opposite the properties which they have kept beautiful for the past 20, 25, 30 and 40 years and in which they themselves invested a lot of money.
I find the situation most regrettable. If the hon. minister could, one morning, for example, manage to fly over this area with me-it would take half an hour to get there by government plane, half an hour to examine the site and another half hour to come back -I am convinced he would come back to Ottawa shocked at what he had seen, how intelligent engineers can spoil a site so badly.
I insist on this point, Mr. Chairman, because in my region this has become a notorious scandal which manifests itself in many ways; I shall give the minister one last example.
I have just sent a questionnaire to the people in my region, asking them whether they would rather see me affiliate with the Liberal party than remain an independent. I will show the minister the results.
However, in spite of the results of the past few years, I maintain that my home town is Liberal minded. But it is a Liberal town where the Liberals are disappointed about many things. Even if it were just to correct some blunders made in the past, I think that we should give some consideration to the needs of those people, try to make them feel that at least the Liberals, 1967 model are an improvement over some former types who did not seem to care much about the needs of our people.
I, for one, would put the hon. minister in that improved category of members of the Liberal party.
May 26, 1967

Obviously, that is not the essential point of my argument. However, it still represents the frame of mind of our people at the present time because, once more, several mistakes have been made and that is one of them.
Mr. Chairman, I now conclude my remarks so as not to take advantage of the patience of the minister even if he is a model of patience. In fact, he proved it to us on several occasions, in particular during consideration of his bill on the Board of Transport Commission-ners. I would not want to go as far as awarding him a martyr's crown, but I ask him once again to take ultimate, vigorous and unprecedented steps to help us solve the problem of the night train between Montreal and Quebec City, as well as the deplorable situation known as the problem of Baie-Jolie.
As to the development plans for the harbour of Trois-Rivieres, which, incidentally, is the most paying harbour in Canada-whether my friends of all the other provinces like it or not, proportionately speaking, of course, it is the most paying harbour for the National Harbours Board-I need not say any more. The minister will realize that the entire economy of the very core of Quebec is at stake. I hope that, before long, comprehensive development plans will be drawn up for the next 25 years, while taking into account town planning which should not be overlooked in our area.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin by congratulating the minister on his honorary degrees. I am most impressed that he should receive three doctorates in such a short time. I do not want to allow any envy to show through my delight, but as another member who left the ivy halls for the rocky road of politics and thereby gave up the opportunity to earn degrees I must admit I did have a touch of envy. I have often thought that perhaps for one like myself a grand slam would be an appointment to the Senate and a little slam would be an honorary degree. The minister is likely to attain both of these and I, alas, may not attain either. Perhaps he will remember me as he becomes an alumnus of more and more universities.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
As others have said before, and this is indeed a truism, transportation is always an important part of the discussions in this house. Indeed transportation has always been important in Canada. I do not know whether
Supply-Transport
one could go as far as Sir Francis Hincks did and say that railways are politics. But there would have been no Canada and no confederation if at the very beginning governments had not become involved in the transportation business in a very big way. This applies to left wing parties, right wing parties and middle of the road parties, if there are any such around. It is not just to British Columbia that transportation has meant a great deal. Undertakings were given, as a part of the confederating process, to other members of what is now the dominion. Some of those undertakings have not been honoured, and in other cases services were provided at an inadequate and unsatisfactory level.
One thing that has always troubled me as a maritimer is why Canadian National Railways is not, in terms of passenger service, truly transcontinental, why a passenger cannot get on a train at Halifax, get a berth or bedroom or whatever he can or cannot afford and go across the country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, did the hon. gentleman say "Halifax"?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Yes, I said "Halifax".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Halifax is well into the middle of the country, as I am sure the hon. gentleman realizes.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I said that I was speaking as a maritimer, and the minister should know that the people of his adopted province do not like the expression "maritimes"; they prefer "Atlantic Canada". But the point is well taken, except that the gauge of the railway might destroy my case. I still contend that a Haligonian should be able to take a bedroom and get to Vancouver on the train. The C.N.R. service in effect starts in Montreal, and you carry on from there. The maritime folk are forced out of their train at Montreal. Montreal is a lovely, grand city, but it is not necessary, surely, to spend six or seven hours there, in the daytime at that, if you are going on to the Pacific coast.
That is one of the gripes I have always entertained and talked about to ministers of transport in our party and others, but as has happened so often with my good ideas, nothing has been done about it. Quite often too-heaven knows, anybody from the maritime provinces knows this-the service has been intolerably slow. People do not always introduce railway timetables as evidence into the debates of the House of Commons, but as I look at the comparison between the trip

May 26. 1967
S upp ly-Transp ort
from Ottawa to Montreal and the trip between Moncton and Charlottetown, the first thing I notice is that in the first place the distance is 115.7 miles and in the second it is 126.8 miles. You can get from Ottawa to Montreal in two hours and these are not crack trains in the modern system of rail travel. The other trip, when the going is good takes six hours for just 11 more miles.
There are other examples of neglect. The new railway station at Moncton is much, much too small. I would love to have the minister with me during peak periods of the season when about three times too many people are trying to cram into that small, new station. The same thing can be said about the airport terminal. Some time when the minister has a little time on his hands in Moncton he might count the available chairs for passengers in the airport waiting room.
There is another matter I should like to mention at this time. I am distressed at the lack of involvement on the federal side of the picture in the corridor road project. This has been talked about for a long, long time. While we in the maritimes are an old people and proud of our history, there is no reason why the corridor road project should pass into our folklore and go down from generation to generation until the dominion government begins to consider it an important project. Studies across the border by the American Congress and states in the region consider it an extremely important project which would greatly cut down the distance between places in the maritimes and central Canada.
To Prince Edward Island transportation is the first question, as it was the first question in 1873 and 1867. We must get our choice products of land and sea to the markets as quickly as possible. We must get the growing stream of tourists to our province just as comfortably and as quickly as possible. Our economy depends upon good transportation, perhaps more than any other province in the dominion.
I might make a few comments to the minister, Mr. Chairman. I do not think I will have 17 points, as did my distinguished colleague from Saint John-Albert. However, one point is in reference to the new ferry that is being built. We have already been advised that the ferry is behind schedule. I hope the minister will keep a watchful eye on that construction project and see that the delay is minimized as much as possible. We need that new ferry. Whether or not the causeway is being delayed, as many disturbing rumours suggest,

we still need that fine, new ferry just as fast as possible.
I also think that the C.N.R. and the Department of Transport should make greater use of the existing ferry service on the Borden-Tormentine run. We now feel that with the large number of people coming to our province, and with the well developed tourist facilities which have been established in recent years, a 24-hour service across the strait in the summer would be feasible and certainly advisable. I commend this to the minister.
Some things do happen which are deserving of commendation and even to the C.N.R. I should like to extend a word of congratulation. The improvement last year in setting up a bus service from Amherst to Prince Edward Island connecting with the "Scotian" and the "Ocean Limited" is one of the finest things they have done in many years, and I commend them for it. It is very awkward and time-wasting to go on the train, but now tourists can move across much more rapidly. I commend the railway for this facility.
The minister is constantly asked by members of the house what he is going to do about this and that report, and when is he going to make this and that announcement. The minister made an announcement that I would advise him to forget all about, that the rates be increased on the Prince Edward Island ferry. There is no point in sending the maritime commission down there. I do not think there is anyone in Prince Edward Island who would suggest it would be a good thing to increase these rates. Indeed, a good many people will suggest that it is incumbent upon the federal government to make sure they are not increased. If the chairman of the commission should go down there, let it be for a vacation on either the north shore or south shore of Queens county. This matter should be forgotten and can be taken off the minister's desk altogether.
The Department of Transport can assist in augmenting and extending the other ferry service in Prince Edward Island now operated by Northumberland Ferries Limited, a private organization which has good ships and good service. If the Department of Transport would move in the direction of improving navigational aids, lights and what have you, I think night service could be provided on that run. I also think that some of the suggestions that are coming forward for short-run, summer ferry services should be more carefully looked into-the one between Port Hood,
May 28, 1967

Cape Breton, and Souris, Prince Edward Island, and the one between West Point and Pointe du Chene, New Brunswick. I should like to see a feasibility study launched in respect of both these ferries because it is logical that we who live by the sea should use the sea wherever possible for transporting our people and our goods.
We are always hearing of late the expression "icebreaking".
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Here I am going to depart again from my friend, the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, with whom I agree on most things, even on mini-skirts, although not so vehemently because I am a little older, not nearly as much older as I look but just a little. I am wondering whether in the light of the new icebreaking techniques some investigation should perhaps not be made in the maritimes. Last night I saw an interesting film on what struck me as extremely interesting and revolutionary techniques of icebreaking. I am not an expert in this field but I know about the suffering of our people in icebound ports. Perhaps the department should apply some of these new techniques to maritime ports.
Finally in this connection, in the technical field, in which I tread very gingerly, it strikes me that the maritimes is an area where the use of hovercraft would be ideal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman knows that if I can get through my estimates, and perhaps even if I cannot, I am going to the hovercraft plant on June 2, next week, precisely to look into this whole question.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I would say this is worth another honorary degree. I am delighted to hear it, and we will be glad to hear the minister report on his return.
There is just one more matter to which I would like to make reference. Later I hope to be able to say a word about the Atlantic Development Board. This is one of the most important organizations in so far as the future of the Atlantic region is concerned. We are tremendously interested in it. It has an outstanding man at its head, namely, Dr. Weeks. He is a man of great ability. He is also a Prince Edward Islander, which does not hurt him. The board has done splendid work. I am disturbed to hear it suffers from some staff shortage. I do not think this is desirable because certainly it has no shortage of problems, no shortage of challenges and there is
Supply-Transport
no shortage of opportunities for service by the board and by the dominion government.
One that comes to my mind very easily is the need for a most careful look into the agricultural industry. In our area we often import some of the products which we are capable of producing to the very highest standard of excellence. For example, this year as in previous years our choice and most important cash crop, potatoes, is grown in abundance. Markets for this commodity are insufficient and we are faced with a dispersal or disposal program. In a country like Canada and at a time like this, especially when we speak at Expo about "man and his world," it is absolutely appalling that any good product of Canada's soil should ever be wasted. Indeed, to use an old Presbyterian expression, it is a sinful exercise and it should never happen in this advanced technological age.
I hope the Atlantic Development Board will give leadership in looking to the possibility of having more processing facilities in the region because if potatoes could be processed in greater quantity we at least could, if nothing else, make use of that commodity in some of our programs of aid to some of the hungry people of the world. This is just one suggestion which is very close to my heart at this time because I know the problems of the potato growers. Later I hope we will have a discussion on the Atlantic Development Board which is so important to us. I tender these suggestions to the minister with my usual good will and my usual realistic appraisal as to how effective my advice will be.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the hon. member a question? In view of the fact that we in the west would like to support the east in legitimate grievances, and we hope the east will support the west in our grievances, may I ask the hon. member whether he could be more explicit in explaining to us from the west why in his remarks now he pressed for the completion of the causeway and at the same time asked for the completion of the additional ferry service? Would he mind explaining to us what appears to me at the moment to be a paradox in asking for both?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I may point out that at the very best a good number of years will elapse before the causeway is completed, and with the age of the present boats in the ferry service and the rapidly increasing rate of tourist travel there is a rational projection which requires a new boat. Indeed it is already under way, but the government has wisely

May 26, 1967
Supply-Transport
made provision that when the ferry is completed it may be used in another area of Canada. So it will not be an uneconomic project at all. Otherwise, had it been unreasonable I would never have suggested it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I could second what the hon. member for Queens has said so well. For once he has answered a question in exactly the same way as I would have answered it.


Harold Edward Winch: May I then ask the hon. member or the Minister of Transport when the completion of the causeway is expected?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The government has never at any time been so imprudent as to suggest a precise date for the completion. We have always undertaken to push the project forward as rapidly as possible. My colleague, the Minister of Public Works, has the direct responsibility in this matter, but it is a transport matter in which I have taken a great interest. All hon. members know that this is going to be one of the biggest and most difficult engineering operations ever undertaken in Canada, and I do not think any wise man would venture to set deadlines. We realize this is going to transform Prince Edward Island and we want to get it done as fast as we can, but we want to make sure it is done properly.


Harold Edward Winch: Will it be in this decade or this century?


Mr. Dube:: Mr. Chairman, I want to take
advantage of this study of the estimates for the Department of Transport to bring forward a matter which is of great interest to our region, the northern part of New Brunswick; there is an urgent need for suitable air service to link the north of New Brunswick to the main centres of the country.
I should like to open my remarks by referring to an editorial which was just published in the Campbellton Tribune, a weekly paper, on Wednesday, May 24, that is to say the day before yesterday.

The Charlo Airport
It is reported in news items last week that Quebec Air, along with other air lines plan to study the inclusion of the Bathurst airport as a regular stop on their routes linking the maritimes with Quebec and Upper Canada. Why is the Charlo airport not included as well?
Although opened several years ago, the development of Charlo as an important link in air line routes has not materialized. What we believed was to become a major transportation terminal is 
still what it was: a minor stop on a minor route and with little prospect of any improvement.
We suggest that the various municipal councils of Restigouche join forces before it is too late and urge the Transport Board to make good on their promises of a few years ago and afford to Charlo the same opportunities for growing as to other new airports.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)

Mr. Chairman, the Charlo airport officially started operating in 1963 and, ever since that date, it has been quite busy servicing mostly the planes of American tourists who came to visit our region, as well as those of Eastern Provincial Airways.
This company carries passengers between Moncton and Sept-Iles, two and three times a week. Although this service is most useful, it does not meet the requirements of this area. What we need above all is a daily service towards the western part of the country, linking the whole northern part of New Brunswick, including Charlo, Bathurst and Ed-mundston, with Montreal.
Only recently, Quebecair asked for permission to include Edmundston, Bathurst and Gaspe in its daily route, using Montreal as a point of departure.
In this application the company asks for a class I commercial air transport licence. It provides enough seats for 28 passengers in Douglas DC-3 planes. This company was incorporated in January 1953 and it has proved reliable ever since.
It holds a very enviable record, although the route is quite rough in the northern part of the province of Quebec, and it deserves our full confidence. After many months of waiting, its application will finally be heard in Bathurst on June 19.
The whole population should be pleased with the good news. However, something spoils the picture; Quebecair did not include the Charlo Airport in the proposed route. On several occasions during the past year, the public bodies concerned in that district, including the representatives of the city of Campbellton, the town of Dalhousie, the municipality of the Restigouche riding, the Chambers of Commerce of Dalhousie and Campbellton and myself, as the federal member, have met with the directors of Quebecair.
We have set forth our arguments in favour of a stop in Charlo. Those arguments are numerous and I believe impressive. The Charlo airport is located right in the centre of a peopled area: Campbellton, Dalhousie and Belledune. That airport is the most central for
May 26, 1967

the large mills of Atholville and Dalhousie as well as for the new chemical and steel complex of Belledune and the three seaports of Campbellton, Dalhousie and Belledune.
During the last few years, new industries have settled in the immediate area. The province of New Brunswick is now building a large thermal power plant only a few thousand feet away from the airport.
Moreover, this airport just about at the gateway to the Gaspe peninsula and it would become the natural air terminal for the whole region.
On the initiative of the Chamber of Commerce of Dalhousie, a comprehensive brief comprising figures, statistics and facts has been presented to Quebecair. Following all those representations, the Quebecair management suggested to us that if its application for serving Gaspe, Bathurst and Edmundston were accepted, it would then present another application to include Charlo.
If this agreement gets due confirmation at the Bathurst sitting, all those interested will have reasons to rejoice. The whole population is happy about the company's proposal to serve Gaspe, Bathurst and Edmundston, as these communities are all in need of aerial service if they are to attain full economic development.
But I want to make sure now, in this house, and while the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) is here, that the Board of Transport Commissioners will see to it that our population shall be fully and adequately served, or in other words that the permit calls for serving the whole population and not only part of it.
Both the minister and the board should not forget that, out of the four mentioned sites, Charlo airport was the first built. In fact, it is the only one fully operative at present. Huge amounts of money were spent, by both the municipality of Restigouche county and the federal government to build that airport. The federal government paid 50 per cent of the building costs and 100 per cent of the paving and other improvements.
We have always had the wholehearted cooperation of the Minister of Transport at every stage of the construction and development of the airport. Now that we are near the ultimate goal, that is daily airline service for the population of that area, we must not allow all those efforts to come to naught, all those public funds to have been spent uselessly.
Supp ly-Transport
In closing, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport to grant us once more his efficient assistance, the prestige of his person and post, so that the people served by the Charlo airport might obtain the daily airline service they expect and are entitled to in 1967.


Mr. Bower:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to speak on vote no. 1 of the Department of Transport estimates. The points I propose raising are varied and therefore can presumably be discussed only under the generalities of vote 1.
I wish to begin what I have to say by voicing a conclusion I have reached which I think is now generally shared throughout the maritime provinces, namely, that the harnessing of the Fundy power potential is of the essence if we are to solve the economic troubles of the maritime provinces. The Fundy power potential-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit me in a friendly way to raise a point of order? It seems to me that the Fundy power project is not related to the Department of Transport though it is related to the Atlantic Development Board. Perhaps in order to permit a more orderly discussion of the estimates the hon. member would be willing to reserve his comments on that aspect until we reach the item relating to the Atlantic Development Board.


John Oates Bower: Mr. Chairman, I think I can relate my introductory remarks on Fundy power to what I shall have to say later about certain matters which I wish specifically to draw to the attention of the committee. The harnessing of Fundy power is a long term development and I propose to deal with it in more detail later when we come to the particular estimate which concerns the Atlantic Development Board. I wish to point out now that our approach to these matters must be made on both a long term and a short term basis, and I want to place the final solution in focus. The paramount need today is the improvement of water transportation for tourists, and it is fundamentally important to keep in mind in the background the development of Fundy power in the not too distant future.
The two major industries in Nova Scotia generally and in western Nova Scotia where my constituency lies are fishing and tourism. At the present time the ferry service between

May 26, 1967
Supply-Transport
the United States and Yarmouth is inadequate during the peak months when we depend on the maximum flow of tourists. Early last year I brought to the attention of the minister the need for an additional ferry for Nova Scotia. I persisted in my request but was told that no supplementary vote would be forthcoming. I am now taking this opportunity to ask the minister to assure the people of Nova Scotia, particularly those in western Nova Scotia who have missed the increased tourist potential for this summer, that they will at least have this additional facility by 1968. It is true that a second ferry from New England has been mooted, but this is not the kind of service to which I am referring. The way things are going at the moment, it looks as if this New England ferry will not be functioning for another three or four years.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Our tourist business and the demand for travel facilities to Yarmouth from New England are increasing. The ferry was overloaded last summer, it will be overloaded again this summer, and of course it will be even more overloaded next summer. Although my request in February of last year did not give the minister sufficient time to bring forward a supplementary vote to provide a new ferry for the summer of 1967, I implore him to take full advantage of the notice I am now giving him one year in advance to secure a supplementary service for the year 1968.
Digby is in bad need of a ferry to Saint John adequate to meet traffic demands on that route. I find some amounts in the estimates for wharf improvement at Digby which will be necessary if we are to have adequate ferry facilities from that port to Saint John, New Brunswick. However, I see no evidence that any money is being spent during the current fiscal year to provide a new ferry boat. This route is the other outlet from western Nova Scotia and gives direct access to rail lines to central Canada.
The next matter I wish to raise concerns deficiencies at Yarmouth international airport. It is the port of entry for visitors to Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces. They have to clear customs and immigration at the airport. The airport has grown something like Topsy. It was a wartime installation, and I recognize that today it does represent a large investment. About two years ago some welcome and fine improvements were made to one of the two runways. Some time ago I asked that the other runway be equally

improved but I was told no, that this would be done in the seventies when we get service by DC-9's.
It seems to me, that this is putting the cart before the horse. Let me give an example. Three hundred years ago Jamaica had all of the charms for the tourist that it has today but only a few people during the last 50 to 60 years were able to visit Jamaica. However, when travel facilities improved and hotels were built to make a person's stay comfortable, Jamaica experienced the rush in tourism that is now the lifeblood of the economy of that island. The minister tells me that these facilities will not be provided until the volume of tourists requires them. If tourists are unable to visit the maritimes with the present facilities that are available, then it seems to me that we have a vicious circle.
I see no provision in the estimates to bring Yarmouth airport into first class condition or that first class air service will be provided from places like New York, Boston and Philadelphia. There is a great tourist potential from these areas to the maritimes, and we want proper transportation facilities to bring these tourists to the maritimes because in the short term they are essential to the economy there. Our two main industries are tourism and fisheries and we want them to go from strength to strength. In western Nova Scotia, the gateway to the maritimes, we want adequate facilities to enable the tourist trade to grow. Lack of these facilities has stunted potential growth.
As I mentioned, the airport at Yarmouth was a happening. In addition to having inadequate runways, it is badly located from the point of view of prevailing weather conditions, being situated at the mouth of the bay of Fundy which is prone to heavy fog. On nine occasions out of the last 15 when I tried to travel from Ottawa to Yarmouth I failed to arrive at Yarmouth because of weather conditions. I am not, of course, asking the minister to control weather conditions, but I am providing for him a perfect solution to the problem, the building of an emergency airport about 15 to 20 miles inland. On occasion there is a solid curtain of fog along the coast of Nova Scotia but 15 or 20 miles inland weather conditions are much better. While no one can guarantee a completely fog-free airport in Nova Scotia, there is a much better chance inland of successfully landing an aircraft.
Yarmouth airport, as I mentioned, not only serves as a port of entry to the province but also serves the western counties of Queens,
May 26, 1967

Shelburne, Yarmouth, Digby and Annapolis which have a population of 100,000 people. So Yarmouth airport is not a country airport by any means. To neglect it is to neglect Nova Scotia.
Now that I have given the minister one year's notice I am sure he will be able to provide an additional ferry service. I also trust he will see to it that an emergency airport is built, not up in the Annapolis valley which is going to the extreme and would be somewhat isolated but in and around the area where Digby, Annapolis and Shelburne counties form an apex. There is an area there which would be ideal both topographically and weather-wise for the building of such an airport. It is an area which can be reached with relative ease on occasions of emergency by customs and immigration officials. I am not asking for an elaborate airport but for something that can handle, with Yarmouth airport, airborne traffic to and from the United States and the maritimes.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I mentioned the Atlantic Development Board deliberately in my opening remarks because it has a role to play in the matter of adequate airports. Let me put it this way. The trans-Canada highway is not much good to those of us who live in the western end of Nova Scotia. We need a highway spur to reach us, the main highway being 200 miles away. With an adequate ferry service from Digby to Saint John we would have easy access to the trans-Canada highway system, and the Atlantic Development Board should consider including the western end of Nova Scotia in that system. We would then be able to travel to the emergency airport I have mentioned. We would also have a road across the province for our fish producers to use. Fish could be taken to Digby, thence to Saint John, and put on a train to central Canada. All this would involve a package deal which would be eminently economical as it would take care of a number of matters without too great an investment. I hope the minister can assure the people of western Nova Scotia that some of the suggestions I have made will be adopted.
With reference again to the Atlantic Development Board, I note that $1.5 million has been devoted to a study which is being conducted by the board. I should like to know how that study is coming along and whether the board has sufficient funds. Will the minister assure us, should that study require experimental and empirical approaches, that
S upp ly-Transport
study groups and the necessary funds will be provided and that the study will not drop out of sight for the next four or five years?
Each year that the Fundy installations are not begun means millions of dollars in additional, inflationary expenditure. The installations must ultimately be built if we are to reverse the trend of swimming upstream and tying our trade to central Canada. We must get back to where we were when we were prosperous 100 years ago and we must trade with Asia, Africa and the United States.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to say that when the estimates of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources are before the committee this question might be brought up and gone into in more detail? A joint board of the Government of Canada and the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick has been established to study this problem and the ministerial responsibility for this is that of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Mr. Fawcett:: Mr. Chairman, in speaking today I shall deal with a specific subject, and if I sound a little parochial it is because what is happening in my area is all too typical of what is happening right across the Canadian National Railways system. I wish to deal specifically with the removal of agencies on the Canadian National system and in particular the removal of the agency at Coniston, all brought about because the Canadian National in implementing its master agency development plan is centralizing its agency system.
Though Coniston is a small town of approximately 3,000 people it is closely linked to a portion of suburban Sudbury and serves a large farming community to the northeast. Some who live 25 to 30 miles from Sudbury protested the closing of the Coniston agency as they conducted much business through it.
On October 11, 1966, Canadian National Railways applied to remove the agency at Coniston. Prior to that, on March 23, 1966, Mr. H. J. G. Pye, commission counsel, wrote this letter which was referred to my office by Mr. C. W. Rump, Secretary of the Board of Transport Commissioners. It has to do with the closing of the agency at Coniston, Ontario. You will note, Mr. Chairman, that this was some months before the formal application to close this station. The letter reads in part as follows:
As part of the master agency development on the northern Ontario area, on October 18, 1965, all services formerly provided from our Coniston

May 26, 1967
Supply-Transport
agency were transferred to our Sudbury office. The agent at Coniston has been retained with train order duties only, and will be retained until an application is made to the board for formal closing of the station along with a number of other points on the northern Ontario area.
Actually this means that the station at Coniston was technically closed some months prior to the application for closing, which is typical, as I have learned, of what is occurring all across the system.
In 1963 the Canadian National eliminated practically all its services at Coniston. There was no passenger service in or out of the area and the railway did not permit the second passenger train it had put into service to stop at Coniston. The only service provided was by a mixed train which made one trip each way per week and handled all the passenger, express and freight services.
On October 18, 1965, all services were transferred to Sudbury, and to show the sort of thing that has happened I shall read from another letter, written by a man whose name I shall not give but who lives at Wahnapitae and operates a chicken farm not far from Coniston. This man told me that he had protested the removal of the Coniston agency strongly because large shipments of chickens passed through it. In his letter he says:
In Nov. I wrote you on the C.N.R. set-up at Coniston. Which is no service at all now. I mentioned I would have to run to Sudbury for my chicken order. The ultimate has happened! The Chick Co., Hawkins, of Tillsonburg, after experiencing their own woes with express, delivered the chickens by their own truck to my farm direct, something like 500 mi., one way, for them. This sort of thing multiplied many times over, and there won't be need for express service at all!
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
This is what happens to C.N.R. business when they experiment with this type of centralizing of agencies.
A considerable number of protests were made by the people of Coniston against the closing of the agency, with the result that they were granted a hearing on February 22 last. The hearing was to commence at two o'clock on February 22, but at ten o'clock in the morning there was a knock at the door of the residential part of the station, and when the agent went to the door he was asked if he had moved all his belongings out of the station. When he inquired why, he was told that men had arrived that morning with instructions to start demolishing the station-on the very day the hearing was to be held to decide whether or not the agency at Coniston was to be closed.

It is typical of the C.N.R. that when they start on a project of this nature they go at it from all angles. They eliminate services. They started out in this case by phasing out the handling of express and freight at Coniston station. They let the station get into such a deplorable state that nobody wanted to patronize the place at all. However, in spite of the fact that they made every attempt to phase out the business at Coniston there is one very interesting fact I would like to put on record, namely, that in September, 1965, when actually all business was phased out at Coniston station, the revenue of that station for that month was $26,072.63. In the same month of the previous year the revenue was only $15,117.85. Further, in spite of the fact that the railway discontinued all business at the agency in September, 1965, total revenue for that year at the station was $238,197.15 compared with $198,716.45 for the previous year.
When revenues were decidedly on the increase, in spite of the fact that the C.N.R. let the station get into a deplorable condition and actually discouraged patronage by cutting off passenger service, express service and the like, it is pretty hard to explain to the people of Coniston why the C.N.R. saw fit to remove the station. I think this is typical of what is going on all across the Canadian National system. I have had many letters and complaints from people involved in this sort of thing. It seems to me the backroom boys in the C.N.R. are more interested in setting up a tight little system within their own organization which works to their advantage than they are in anything else. They do not give a hoot about service to the public. Yet what are the railways for but to provide transportation services and facilities to the public?
One cannot overlook the employees in this situation. The agent at Coniston is an example. He is practically out of a job. He has a daughter who needs constant medical care. The only other job he can take is 600 miles away from availability of that type of care, and so he is left high and dry.
In addition to cancelling the agency at Coniston the C.N.R. also made application for cancellation of the agency at Burwash on the same subdivision. Further, they have eliminated the agent at Capreol. All express and freight are to be shipped to Sudbury, sorted there and then returned to Capreol. The service we will get in my little town of Capreol is a big question. The C.N.R. has not lived up to its commitment to continue to provide service at Coniston, and so we cannot expect too much in Capreol.
May 26, 1967

There is another thing which disturbs me. Someone in the C.N.R. is on record as saying they are interested in getting out of a good part of their transcontinental passenger train service. I think it is a little premature for the C.N.R. to be talking in these terms. There is a need for a good transcontinental service, and if they continue to advertise what they have to offer the people will continue to patronize them. I am also concerned about the fact that it is fairly obvious that the extra train which the C.P.R. has put on-I think they call it the Expo Special-will be taken off at a certain designated time and there will be no opportunity to protest its removal because of the fact that it has been put in service only on a temporary basis. I am well aware of the fact that passenger business is something which the railways have to work hard to attract, but I am firmly convinced that if they do and if they provide better services they will have nothing to worry about so far as passenger service is concerned.
When I began I said I intended to deal with one particular subject. I would request that the minister look into the serious problem of elimination of agencies. Another problem has to do with the abandonment of railway lines, but I think the abandonment of agencies is equally as serious and the new transport board should examine what is taking place.
I must also say that when one looks through the correspondence I have on the Coniston agency it is not hard to understand why people in Coniston say that there must be some collusion between the board and the C.N.R. because it looks as though the die were cast long before the hearing was held at Coniston. When one looks at the recommendations of the board following its visit to Coniston, one wonders just what on earth it was driving at.
The board has gone along with the application of the C.N.R., but has included a recommendation to grant what it calls some measure of relief. It has recommended that a resident caretaker be appointed who will be in attendance at the station, to "execute all duties with respect to the handling of express traffic." How is there going to be any express traffic when the station goes? Further, it has recommended that the caretaker "keep the station clean, heated and lighted when necessary for the accommodation of traffic." What traffic? This is a real joke. How can there be any traffic when no trains stop there? The place is also in such a filthy state that I do not know how anyone could clean it up.
Supply-Transport
The board also recommends that the caretaker "take care of L.C.L. freight shipments." How can there be any such shipments when they are being sent under the authority of the C.N.R. to Sudbury? I hope the minister will look into this matter. I am sure that if the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. made a little effort to clean up their stations and provide the necessary services their revenues would increase. If this were done at Coniston there would be need for an agent there for a long time to come.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, a year ago, in February 1966, I spoke on the supply resolutions of the Department of Transport. At that time I devoted some considerable time going into detail regarding the water level of lake Ontario, because this has been a problem to the people living in the lake Ontario basin for some years past. A year ago, in commenting on the situation, I congratulated the Secretary of State for External Affairs for what had been accomplished by February 1966, namely, that the water level of lake Ontario had risen 2.7 feet in one year following unlimited protests by the people on both sides of lake Ontario, in the United States and Canada, about the fact that the water levels were not being maintained under the authority of the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and under the direction of the International Joint Commission. The protests on this point were based on the fact that there were in February 1966, have been for some years and are now, two dams across the St. Lawrence river, one at Iroquois and one at Cornwall. Both of these dams can control the water level of lake Ontario if they are closed and if attention is paid to the water level of lake Ontario.
The burden of our protest last year was that the dam at Iroquois never is closed and the power interests are allowed to draw off all the water they want at Cornwall despite the effect it may have on the water level of lake Ontario. Today, when we are considering the estimates of the Department of Transport we have every reason to congratulate the Minister of Transport for the fine level of lake Ontario today. We wish also to commend the Secretary of State for External Affairs because we know he has taken an active part in seeing that the International Joint Commission paid more attention to the International Boundary Waters Act than they had paid to it for several years previously.

May 26, 1967
Supply-Transport
During the 94 years from 1861, when the records were first kept, until 1955 when the first work was done on the St. Lawrence Seaway, the average level of lake Ontario was 244.78 feet. This was the average level of lake Ontario when the water was flowing freely down the St. Lawrence river impeded only by the Long Sault rapids and the islands between Kingston and Montreal.
When protesting about the level of lake Ontario last year and the year before that, when there were two dams across the St. Lawrence river, I pointed out in no uncertain terms that in 1965 the water level of lake Ontario was so low in Toronto harbour, according to the report of the harbour commission, that it was within one quarter inch of the all time low ever recorded in Toronto harbour since records have been maintained. As of today, May 26, 1967, the water level in Toronto harbour is 245.8 feet. I should like to state that all the people who are interested in shipping in Lake Ontario and the Toronto harbour area are very pleased with this water level of 245.8 feet. It compares favourably with the 94 year average-the period which ended in 1955-of 244.78 feet. So, today we have one more foot of water than the average level for the 94 year period.
In rising to comment on this situation, I do so because May is the second highest month in the year in respect of water levels in lake Ontario, June being the top month for high water levels. I should like to ask that the Minister of Transport be certain to see these dams are kept in a control position at Iroquois and Cornwall so that the water level of lake Ontario will not be allowed to sink below the 94 year average of 244.78 feet. We are one foot above that average today. I was told by the officials at the Department of Transport this morning on my way to the buildings that the mean level of lake Ontario for 1966 was 244.55 feet, according to the international great lakes data. The 1966 level of 244.55 feet is below the 94 year average of
244.78	feet.
Now, in the month of May, we have a water level in lake Ontario of 245.8 feet and have two dams on the St. Lawrence river which should play an important part in maintaining the water level at a figure equal to or above the 94 year average. The people in the basin will not be satisfied to see the level of lake Ontario drop below the average level for the 94 year period. Even if the power interests scream that they must have the water through the dams, they must be told by the

International Joint Commission, on which the United States and Canadian governments are represented, that they will have to restrict the use of power rather than drop the water level of lake Ontario below the 94 year average of
244.78	feet.
One of the most interesting sections in the International Boundary Waters Treaty is article 8. I have read this in the house before and I want to read it again because I appeared before the external affairs committee on the days when Mr. A. D. P. Heeney, the then chairman of the International Joint Commission appeared. I asked him a number of questions at that time concerning the enforcement of the International Boundary Waters Act. Hon. members might be interested to look at this evidence. I mentioned to him that the first use for water as set out in the international agreement between Canada and the United States is for domestic and sanitary purposes and, second, if there is sufficient water, for navigation, including the service of canals for the purposes of navigation. Then, the third use is for power and irrigation purposes.
It is interesting, in respect of this third point, the use of water for power, to note that we have the hydro people of Ontario and a prominent member of the Ontario legislature running around the country saying that the use of water for power has a high position in the international boundary waters agreement between the United States and Canada. They say it has a high position, being in third position. They do not point out that there are only three positions in the agreement and that the use of water for power is the third and last. They emphasize that it has a high position. Mr. Heeney, in my presence, said that the use of water must be divided equitably. Mr. Heeney was only chairman of the International Joint Commission. I understand that since then he has retired by reason of reaching age 65.
I should like to point out that there is nothing in the agreement between Canada and the United States which mentions equitable division of use of water. There is a table which sets out the priority for the use of water and the first use is for domestic and sanitary purposes. The second use is for navigation, including the service of canals for the purposes of navigation, and the third is for power and for irrigation purposes.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I should like to emphasize to the Minister of Transport that now, after waiting two
May 26, 1967

years, the people in the Lake Ontario basin have finally achieved a water level of 245.8 feet as of today. He should see that it is maintained above this 94 year average of
244.78	feet in order to live up to the terms of the international boundaries water agreement and to observe the table of usage as set out by the international agreement. If there are people downstream yelling that they must have more water, they are in an unfortunate position because they are downstream. The people on Lake Ontario have the first use of the water and the dams at Cornwall and Iroquois should be used to control the level of Lake Ontario.
In referring to the levels of Lake Ontario I do so with the definite intention of suggesting to the Minister of Transport that the Liberal party must give serious consideration to the question of erecting dams at Sarnia, Am-herstburg and Fort Erie to control the water levels in Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River and Lake Erie.
Expo has given a tremendous shot in the arm to business throughout Canada, and particularly in eastern Canada. When Expo closes in October, without question there will be a tremendous letdown to industrial and business activity in that area. Many industries and business are benefiting at the present time from the great activity engendered by Expo and centennial celebrations.
This nation should be engaged in another great enterprise such as the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the financing of the original component part of the Canadian National Railway, the building of the St. Lawrence Seaway, or the erecting of many national monuments such as those I mentioned. One of the great international activities that the United States and Canada should engage in quicky is a program for the control of water levels of Lake Huron and Lake Michigan, by the building of a great international dam at Sarnia.
We could also establish water levels for Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River and control the level of Lake Erie, always bearing in mind that the use of water as agreed by Canada and the United States must first be for domestic and sanitary purposes, which relates to the health of people and recreation. The water then can be used for navigation, and last of all for power and irrigation. If power makes too great a demand on water it should be the duty of the International Joint Commission to inform the power people that they will have to curtail the use of water for
Supply-Transport
power to be made available for consumers. They should not be given all the power they want for any purpose, and should not be allowed to unnecessarily use water for power when there is a shortage. The use of power in this case should be restricted, just as it was during the war years.
While we are discussing the estimates of the Department of Transport I should like to draw another matter to the minister's attention. I refer to the despicable situation which exists at airports in Canada where monopoly franchises are granted to transportation companies to move passengers to and from these airports. I cannot see for the life of me how the Liberal party can agree to these monopoly franchises that are granted to transportation companies for the transportation of people to and from the centres of cities and airports, and I have in mind from Ottawa to Uplands, Montreal to Dorval and Toronto to Malton, and then claim great credit for all they are doing to keep down prices.
I have in my hand a press release issued by the Department of Transport on March 27. At that time the Minister of Transport did not have a doctorate from the University of Manitoba, and the press release refers to him only as Hon. J. W. Pickersgill. I want to congratulate him on his honorary degree of yesterday and, as a newspaperman and friend of Lord Thomson of Fleet, I should like to congratulate him on the honorary degree he received a few days ago from the Memorial University of St. John's, Newfoundland. I sincerely hope he does not consider the degree he received from the Memorial University any less appropriate than the one he received from Manitoba because the chancellor of Memorial University is not a Canadian citizen. He had to become a citizen of the United Kingdom because of the provisions of the Canadian Citizenship Act. Lord Thomson was born and raised in Canada and loves his country better than any other on earth.
Tomorrow the minister, who issued this press release, is going to receive a hood from the Abbot of Bishop's University. I wish to congratulate him again on this honour. When he comes back to the house next week no doubt he will be able to explain to us how the Liberal party can appear to be walking down both sides of the road at the same time, particularly in respect of transportation between the downtown centres and the Malton airport, the Uplands airport, the Dorval airport and between the Ottawa Union Station and downtown Ottawa.

May 26, 1967
Supply-Transport
This press release dated March 27, 1967, relates to the fact that Canadian Pacific Airlines has been granted permission to fly-more aircraft in Canada during Expo. In the middle of this press release from the Department of Transport at Ottawa the Minister of Transport issued the following statement regarding transcontinental air services in Canada. The second paragraph reads:
A well known British aviation consultant, Mr. Stephen Wheatcroft, who had been employed by the previous government to report on this matter, was asked to make a further report. His report received last year indicated that the service by C.P.A. on the domestic-transcontinental route Van-couver-Winnipeg-Montreal-Toronto, limited to a once daily round trip, while it had not shown any indication of producing either major improvements in efficiency or new traffic, had led to a wider public satisfaction as a result of the availability of choice between two carriers.
After the minister learned from Mr. Wheatcroft that there was wider public satisfaction as a result of availability of choice between two carriers, why would he not consider there would be wider public satisfaction as the result of availability of choice in getting to and from these airports such as Uplands, Malton and Dorval, to name only three? I believe the statement that there is wider public satisfaction as a result of availability of choice is a true and accurate statement, but why does the cabinet limit the choice at airports to a monopoly situation by granting these franchises?
I have in my hand the last report of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on consumer credit, under the joint chairmanship of hon. Senator David Croll and Mr. Ron Basford. It is dated April 25, 1967, and is a progress report. At page 3470 under the paragraph heading "Consumer standards and consumer protection" we find the following statement:
It is essential for the government to take all measures within its power to foster the welfare of the consumer.
That is a nice broad statement. Who would disagree with it? The paragraph then continues as follows:
In particular, the government has a responsibility for protecting the consumer against all forms of exploitation.
Let me point out to you that the rates charged by the transportation people from airports to the centres of cities they serve are considerably higher than the rates charged by independent cab companies, and I can give you a specific example. When I use the authorized transportation service from Malton

to Toronto it costs me $4.50, or if they happen to go down Jane St. and get into another self-imposed zone it costs $4.75. If I call up the Northwest Taxi or a Yellow Cab the trip costs $3.50 or $3.75. There is a difference of one dollar in favour of the franchised carrier. The independent cab people are willing to provide this service at the lesser price, and the same situation applies in Montreal. I gave you the figures for Toronto because I have alternated between the two companies deliberately to have a comparison to present to the house, e (4:30 p.m.)
Continuing to quote from the report of the consumer credit committee, we read:
One aspect of this responsibility was referred by the government in July, 1966, to the Economic Council of Canada for investigation. The terms of reference of the study to be carried out are:
"In the light of the government's long term economic objectives to study and advise regarding: . .. (b) combines, mergers, monopolies and restraint of trade;"
If a monopoly position does not exist with regard to the airports in Canada when it comes to the transfer of passengers, I would like to know what else you can call it. And if it is not a restraint of trade, since other taxi companies are not allowed to stand at the airports and pick up passengers I do not know what the words "restraint of trade" mean. This situation is made even more ridiculous as far as the Liberal party is concerned when you read the debates in the House of Commons in 1951 at the time the amendment to the Combines Investigation Act was introduced to stop the maintenance of resale prices. I have been a businessman for 40 years and believe I look on things from a businessman's viewpoint. I did not agree with the Liberal government's attitude in 1951 when they brought in the amendment to the Combines Investigation Act in order to prevent the maintenance of resale prices at the retail level, and I do not agree with the act even at this time.
But listen to Hon. Lionel Chevrier, minister of transport in the St. Laurent government, speaking in this House of Commons on December 28, 1951. He is pointing out how the Liberal government is going to smash these maintained prices. Yes, sir; it takes the Liberal party to smash maintained prices, and it also takes the Liberal party to grant monopolies to these airport transportation companies. Mr. Chevrier said:
Hon. members will recall first of all that the royal commission on prices under the chairmanship of Professor Clifford Curtis of Queen's university
May 26, 1967

was-and I quote his remarks-"impressed by the degrea to which individual manufacturers fix the sale prices of their products, and so narrow the area in which price competition amongst wholesalers and retailers is operative."
There is very little competition among taxi companies when only one company is granted the right to run in and out of an airport. Mr. Chevrier continued:
That commission, which included a representative of the women of Canada, in the person of Mrs. Sutherland, and a prominent representative of the Quebec co-operative movement, Mr. Bois, recommended that the combines investigation commission give careful consideration and study to the problem, with a view to devising measures to deal with it.
Then, later on, we had the MacQuarrie committee, an impartial and distinguished group of Canadians who made a study of resale price maintenance and reached the unanimous recommendation that the practice is not in the public interest and should be made illegal. That was a unanimous recommendation, and there was no reservation to it whatever.
There has been criticism of that report on the ground that the committee did not obtain sufficient factual evidence. I am not much impressed by that kind of criticism. What I think is significant is that men like Mr. Justice MacQuarrie from Nova Scotia, and Mr. Curtis from British Columbia, Mr. Lamontagne from Quebec and Dr. Mackintosh from Queen's university, Kingston, Ontario, were satisfied that they had enough information to reach the unanimous conclusion that resale price maintenance is not in the public interest. I am quite sure that if they had felt that more information was required before reaching such a conclusion they would not have hesitated to say so.
That is Hon. Lionel Chevrier, then minister of transport, speaking in this house in 1951. What better way is there to maintain the price than to have a monopoly position so that the rates you set are not open to competition by anyone.
I came into Ottawa on Monday by the evening train from Toronto. I could not get airplane reservations for Tuesday, so came down on the evening train. I was interested in the fact that when this train, with a tremendous group of holiday people returning to Ottawa from Toronto, Belleville, Kingston, Port Hope and other places along the line, got to Ottawa station, passengers were jumping into Arrow cabs, Capital cabs, Diamond cabs and Buske cabs. I wrote the names of the taxi companies down. The franchise is with Blue Line, but the passengers from the train were jumping into the taxis of these other companies. I stood at the doorway for a while watching the service that Blue Line is supposed to give under the monopoly position which it holds. It was quite evident that Blue Line could not handle this traffic and they
Supply-Transport
were allowing these other companies to pick up whatever traffic they could.
I telephoned some of these private companies during the week and asked whether they had to kick in anything to Blue Line because they were picking up these passengers on Monday night. Blue Line could not convey the volume of traffic offered. They told me they did not make any kick-back to Blue Line, and when Blue Line are flooded with business they do not object to these other taxi companies servicing the people at the station. If Blue Line do not object to other taxi companies servicing people at the station on a holiday night, why should they object to them picking up passengers on any other night of the year?
We live in a competitive age. I have lived with competition in the business world, and I can tell you that it does not do any harm. It keeps you sharp, I can assure you. Why should a monopoly position be allowed to develop in Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa or anywhere else? The situation in Ottawa is pinpointed in this respect. There is a new hotel opening here, the Skyline. One taxi company has a monopoly position to run from the station to the Chateau Laurier and the Lord Elgin, and another company in the city of Ottawa wishes to make a similar arrangement in respect of the new Skyline hotel, running out to the Ottawa station at $1 a passenger. They will even make a second stop at West-gate shopping centre. They are trying to get the government to give them the right to pick up passengers at the station and run them to the Skyline hotel and the Westgate shopping centre. I wonder what reaction this will have? According to the report of the consumer credit committee and Mr. Chevrier, the Liberal party is in favour of competition in order to keep prices down. It will be interesting to see whether a second franchise is granted at the Ottawa railway station to a taxi firm so they can operate to the Skyline hotel. I wonder whether they will be allowed to compete for business at the airport and at the station, as they should be allowed to do.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. member a question?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: Does the hon. member realize that the Skyline hotel is approximately three quarters of a mile beyond the Chateau, and the price of a taxi is 25 cents less than from the railway station to the Chateau?

May 25, 1967
Supply-Transport


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am glad to have that contribution to the debate. I am pointing out that the federal cabinet claims that it wants to keep a competitive position in business in this country, but business is being prevented from competing by a cabinet which accepts the report of the consumer credit committee and has enacted measures to prevent resale price maintenance, but on the other hand grants monopoly positions to people who are thus able to maintain any price they want to maintain.
With regard to Malton, I point out that I was told once the reason the contract was not thrown open to public competition was that the original contract was less than $5,000. It is quite interesting to know that the original contract was less than $5,000, because within three years a 51 per cent interest in the company was sold to the present owner for better than $1 million. How you can expect the public to believe the statement that the original contract was entered into without public tender because it was less than $5,000, yet within three or four years the controlling interest in the company was sold for over $1 million to a group of bus lines in western Ontario, is beyond my comprehension. But the public are supposed to buy that and are not supposed to protest too much about it.
I had intended to speak on the question of land fill in lake Ontario, which is still going on despite the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I do not know of anything authoritative on the matter, but I have seen a letter to the effect that the Navigable Waters Protection Act is now under the authority of the Minister of Transport rather than under the authority of the Minister of Public Works. However, in the Navigable Waters Protection Act it is stated definitely in the interpretation clause that "minister" means the Minister of Public Works. I would like to discuss the question of illegal land fill in lake Ontario, but I understand the discussion continues next week with the Minister of Transport and perhaps I could deal with it then. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to ask the minister whether the Department of Transport is still making informal references to the Board of Broadcast Governors on all cable community antenna television applications.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The regulations are that the Department of Transport shall rule on these applications, and the cable companies want the department to rule on them. Are they now being referred

to the Board of Broadcast Governors informally?


Herman Maxwell Batten: I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit me to say one word. It is my intention on Monday-I reached this conclusion because of what was said by the hon. members for Vancouver East and Quadra earlier today, and I felt it would help them to answer some of the questions they raised about the development of Vancouver harbour-to ask the port manager in Vancouver to release publicly a report on the Vancouver harbour traffic trends and facility analysis which was done by the British Columbia Research Council. I have had this report for a few days but only had time to read on the way back from Winnipeg yesterday where I received an honorary degree, which contributed materially to my understanding of the report. The report itself is very interesting and illuminating. It is done by a very reputable body indeed, as the hon. gentleman would recognize.
I think it will contribute very materially to an understanding of the problems and of what is being done to meet them, in what is already the second largest port in Canada and on the Pacific coast of North America. I think, of our largest ports, it is the most rapidly growing one. I intend to make copies available to all hon. members from the metropolitan area of Vancouver some time on Monday.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to take advantage of the suggestion made by the minister today to hear opinions and suggestions from all hon. members of the house with regard to his department. I would just like to raise briefly one particular problem which has to do with the discrimination against northern Ontario by Air Canada. I want to make it perfectly clear from the start that when I speak of this discrimination I am not referring to the staff of Air Canada. I would like to take this occasion to pay the highest possible tribute to the Air Canada staff. I include not only the hostesses and the operators of the airplanes but also the staff in the various airports across the country who have demonstrated nothing but the greatest patience and courtesy and have given a very high standard of service.
The matter I am raising is not new. I have raised it before with the minister and his officials as well as with his predecessor, now
May 26, 1967



the Minister of Public Works. In fact, this complaint goes back to the days when Hon. Leon Balcer was minister of transport. This matter is particularly highlighted this year, and becomes even more a responsibility of the government, owing to the fact that this government has spent millions and millions of dollars to attract people to the wonderful show at Expo.
Of course, in order to get to Expo we have to consider the means of getting there. It is a very interesting point that Air Canada fares average in the neighbourhood of six cents a mile. Passengers travelling from Timmins to Toronto pay approximately that rate, and passengers travelling from Toronto to Ottawa also pay that rate. However, if one wants to travel from Ottawa to Timmins one has to pay $19 for the first 12 miles, or to get 12 miles closer to one's destination. I have raised this matter with the president of Air Canada, with whom I have exchanged considerable correspondence over the years, and as I have said, I have raised it with various ministers. If the ministers of transport of this country can be resistant, I would like to let them know that I can be just as persistent as they can be resistant. I intend to keep raising this matter until something is done to correct it. The distance from Timmins to Toronto is approximately 453 miles by highway. The return air fare over that distance costs $54, which is approximately six cents a mile. This is certainly a very competitive rate. I do not think one can travel that distance by car for that cost.
The distance between Timmins and Ottawa is about 12 miles further, or about 465 miles in all, but the difference in the return fare is $92 as compared to $54. Thus, it costs $1.50 a mile to travel the first 12 miles from Ottawa to Timmins. I do not deny the right of Air Canada to route passengers travelling from Timmins to Ottawa and Montreal around by Toronto if they wish to do so, but I do think it is very unfair to charge passengers for that distance. As is well known, we have in the north country a great number of French Canadian people. Many of them would like to make the trip to Expo this year, but they are met with what I can only describe as a discriminatory rate.
I should also like to say that it is interesting to note the transport policy adopted by this government. As I mentioned before, the air service between Timmins and Toronto is excellent. The train service from that area to Ottawa and Montreal is extremely bad, and so is the air service. I do not know why it is 27053-41
Supply-Transport
that when the train service is good we have a good air service as well but when the train service is bad, we supply poor air service. The president of Air Canada has given all kinds of excuses for this, none of which I can accept as valid. I was told by Air Canada first of all that they tried this sort of flight about ten years ago when the Timmins airport first opened, but they found there was an insufficient number of passengers to warrant the flight. Anybody with any realization of the situation today knows that far more people travel by air than was the case ten years ago. The train service which I mentioned has deteriorated in the same period of time. When I was first elected to the house some ten years ago, if one wanted to travel to Ottawa by train one could get a berth right in Timmins. A year or two later one had to go down to Porquis Junction, a year or two later one had to go to Englehart, and a year or two later one had to go to North Bay to get a berth. Now, one has to change trains about two o'clock in the morning and continue the rest of the trip to Ottawa and Montreal on a train which has neither berth or diner. The only other way one can get train service is to drive some 70 miles over what I believe is the only highway in Canada that is in worse condition than the trans-Canada highway as it goes across Ontario. Then, you catch the only convenient evening train which is the same train one would normally catch from North Bay. This is the train which has neither diner service nor berth, and is certainly a very uncomfortable mode of transportation.
I was also informed by the president of Air Canada, and I have the correspondence in my files, that Air Canada has made a check of the number of passengers travelling from the Timmins area to Ottawa and Montreal over a certain period of time. As a result, the company has concluded that the number of passengers does not warrant a direct flight between those points. How can a passenger service be built up if one has to pay six cents a mile to go to Toronto but the cost is almost twice as much for the additional 12 miles distance between Toronto and Ottawa? Of course this situation applies also to the passengers travelling from Montreal.
One other point which emphasizes the need for some corrective action in this field was illustrated to me the other day when I had lunch with a former member of this house, Mr. Jake Schultz from Winnipeg. He had been out to the west coast this year and he drove down this way. He said that the trans-Canada highway all the way across Canada

May 26, 1967
Supply-Transport
up to the Ontario border is in excellent condition. However, he said that once he crossed the Ontario border and travelled through northern Ontario the road was in such bad condition it was dangerous to life and limb.
I realize that this is not the particular responsibility of the minister but is primarily the responsibility of the government of Ontario. Even so, this matter would be under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works rather than the Minister of Transport. However, I made this point in order to direct the attention of the minister to the additional need for some corrective measure to be taken, particularly this year in view of the fact that everybody is drawn to Expo in Montreal. We certainly want to make the travelling facilities attractive to the Canadian people who will visit Expo so as to warrant the expenditure on advertising. So, I would urge the minister to use his influence to try to do one of two things, either establish a direct flight from Timmins-North Bay-Ottawa-Montreal or, if this is not practicable, then at least establish a flight with fares which would be equitable as compared to other flights across this country.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, it has been a while since I made any remarks concerning transport, but there has not been the sort of improvement which I had hoped to see in air services. I am reminded of the years when the Conservative government first allowed C.P.A. to have some air transport rights in Canada. As I recall the arguments advanced at that time by trans-Canada air lines, as it was called then, as well as by some hon. members on the other side of the house, there was a feeling that since we had a national air line it was necessary that it be put in a position where it could start to pay its way as soon as possible. A fear was expressed that there was not enough business to afford competition. They said that we were putting Air Canada in a position where it was likely to continue at a deficit or would not be able to afford to buy new planes so as to provide the kind of service we wanted it to give. As I recall, the president of Air Canada at that time, Mr. McGregor, in his arguments before the transport committee, said that the plans were for T.C.A. to acquire new aeroplanes to take care of the increase in the business. However, the cost of these new aeroplanes was such that they had to have that increase in business that was anticipated in order to

be able to provide a service and to have a chance of breaking even.
The argument was then put forward that the other carrier, the C.P.A., would be glad to compete just for the increase in air traffic. In other words, once we had obtained a sufficient level of business for the national airline to be able to meet expenses, the increase in traffic should be thrown open to competition. They felt that in this way Air Canada would be assured of a situation in which they could break even, and that we would then be giving service to the country by having two airlines competing for the increase in traffic. It is my contention that we made the right move by allowing C.P.A. some rights in domestic airlines but that we have not gone nearly far enough. It is obvious to anyone who does any amount of travelling that the increase in air traffic was grossly underestimated by trans-Canada air lines and by the government. I am sure that the increase in air traffic today is such that had it been foreseen, we would have had much less objection to T.C.A.'s arguments regarding what competition would do to them. I am sure we would have had much more enthusiasm even from C.P.A., and a stronger bargaining position in order to get more service.
The situation in western Canada today is such that, even without Expo, we are not getting the service to which we are entitled. Businessmen as well as tourists must line up for a long time in order to get reservations. When we have Expo, which puts an extra load on the lines, something has to give. I know that in the city of Edmonton representations have been made for some time for another air carrier. C.P.A. should be able to pick up passengers on its way to Vancouver or Winnipeg, and it would be nice to have a choice of two airlines. As I understand it, the argument put forward was that the amount of business was not sufficient to warrant two airlines. The only reason for giving Air Canada a monopoly in certain areas was to ensure that the amount of business that was available there would generate the income necessary to ensure that they would not have to skimp on money.
I do not say that the provision of good service is not the objective of the air line, but I think the time has come-indeed, it is long past-when we should consider ways in which greatly improved facilities to the travelling public could be made available. In my opinion, since the preservation of a monopoly has not provided it we ought to make sure the routes are thrown open to competition
May 26, 1967



throughout Canada. I am not saying the present operator is not now prepared to give extra service; I understand there is difficulty in getting additional planes. But we are in a desperate situation in the west as far as air services are concerned, and I hope the method I have suggested will be used very soon in order to improve things.
May I call it five o'clock?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I presume the committee does have to rise. But if I indicate that I am quite willing to go on listening, I wonder whether hon. members might not feel that it would be more profitable for us to resolve ourselves again into committee of supply and continue for another hour.


Mr. Howard:: If the minister could guarantee to us that his listening would do some good and that he would take action with regard to some of these points which are being raised, it might be worth while. But can he guarantee that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.
Progress reported.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Might I be permitted to repeat my appeal and ascertain what the sense of the house is?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: We have just begun a new session and I think it would be setting a bad precedent if we were to dispense with private members' hour so soon. I know there are various hon. members who wish to speak during private members' hour and I suggest we go on with our business in the normal way.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps before the house proceeds to private members' business I may announce to the house the proposed business for Monday. The government proposes to ask the house to consider the estimates of the Department of Transport. Should these estimates be disposed of it is the intention to ask the house to consider the 27053-411
Business of the House
estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the acting house leader whether he has satisfied himself that estimates on Monday will be proceeded with without having the usual supply motion. I believe there is a rather difficult situation in this regard. I do not think this is the time to argue the issue, and I certainly do not want to intrude upon private members' hour because I am going to make a speech then; but I hope the hon. gentleman has satisfied himself in this regard. I remember another government on another occasion getting into some quite considerable difficulty in this respect.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for his suggestion, which I take very seriously. I have been giving this matter close attention, and in view of the remarks of the hon. member I will certainly look at it again.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: We want to be sure that there is no possibility of discussion of the estimates on Monday being considered one of the four supply motions.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I will assure the house now that it is not the intention, in asking the house to consider estimates on Monday, to regard that debate as one of the four motions for supply.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker may rule on Monday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish only to make the comment that there has been a change in the rules since the previous occasion to which the hon. member for Carleton refers. I confess that I too was concerned about this matter, but on a closer reading of the provisional rules we passed just before the end of the last session I am persuaded that what the government is asking for is within the rules under which we are now operating.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am grateful to all hon. members, but I once again reassure the house it is not the intention to count this debate as one of the four supply motions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will not make any comment on this point at this time.
I think the time to do this is when the occasion arises.
640	COMMONS
Canadian Citizenship Act CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT



AMENDMENT TO REMOVE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CHILDREN BORN ABROAD, REJECTED APPLICANTS ETC.

Richard Albert Bell: the second reading of Bill No. C-2, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, centennial year is, I believe, an appropriate time to discuss and to assess the meaning and the significance of Canadian citizenship. To me it is a matter of gratification that the first private member's bill to be discussed at this centennial session of parliament is this bill, which is designed and introduced by me to serve a threefold purpose, each of the purposes being related to Canadian citizenship. For in this very special year, sir, the year of Canada's centennial, nothing could be more significant or vital than our dedication to a common Canadian nationality.
The basic purpose of confederation was to create a new nationality, one which, as Professor Frank H. Underhill has so well stated, would include but transcend-and I heavily underline the word "transcend"-the two main groups of English speaking and French speaking Canadians. To those two groups, divided in race, language and religion but united at confederation in a new nationality, has been joined the representatives of many other people-a genuine third force in our nation.
Now, sir, why do I describe the basic purpose of confederation as the creation of a new nationality? Permit me to read the words of the second paragraph of the first speech from the throne ever delivered in this parliament on November 7, 1867:
I congratulate you on the Legislative sanction which has been given by the Imperial Parliament to the Act of Union, under the provisions of which we are now assembled and which has laid the foundations of a new nationality, that I trust and believe will, ere long, extend its bounds from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.
The words "the foundation of a new nationality" were uttered by Lord Monck, Canada's first Governor General, but most probably their author was Sir John A. Macdonald. Certainly those words were approved by the first cabinet, which included many of the fathers of confederation, the architects of the new nationality, men of French heritage, men of English, Scots and Irish heritage. What they proclaimed-and again I underline this-was the foundation of a new nationality, neither French, English, Scots, Irish, Welsh nor that of any other "old land", but one

DEBATES	May 26, 1967
which was to be unique as well as new and which was to bear the proud name "Canadian". It was not to be two nationalities, Mr. Speaker, nor three, nor four-just one.
This view of the intentions of the fathers of confederation was stated by Professor Frank
H.	Underhill with his usual clarity in the Massey Lectures, published under the title "The Image of Confederation". I should like to refer to an extract from page 1 of those lectures:
The experiment of the new nationality that they thus proclaimed was of a nationality that should link together a variety of rather isolated, little colonial communities scattered across the northern half of the continent, and that, in particular, should include and transcend the two groups of English speaking and French speaking Canadians, divided though they were in race, language, and religion. That is, it was a complex nationality; and they were well aware of their own boldness in the initiation of this experiment.
A nation is a body of men who have done great things together in the past and who hope to do great things together in the future. What makes them into a nation is not necessarily community of race, language, and religion, though these are powerful forces when they are present; it is their common history and traditions, their experience of living together, their having done great things together in the past, and their determination to continue doing great things together in the future.
I should like to repeat the words "their determination to continue doing great things together in the future", because I think that that is the real spirit of this nation of Canada.
In that light, Mr. Speaker, and with that background I would ask the house to give favourable consideration to this bill which would revise the Canadian Citizenship Act in three particulars.
The first problem dealt with by this bill is that of children born abroad to Canadian citizens. Under the law as it now stands a child born outside Canada of a member of Canada's armed forces or a member of the diplomatic or other public service or, indeed, of any other Canadian will lose his Canadian citizenship unless two separate things are done-and these things must be done about 20 years apart. First, the fact of his birth must be registered at a Canadian office abroad within two years of its occurrence.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Second, the individual born abroad must file between the ages of 21 or 24 a declaration of retention of Canadian citizenship. Today there are large numbers of Canadians serving or engaged outside of Canada; undoubtedly the number will grow. Many of the children of these Canadians born outside Canada are
May 26, 1967	COMMONS
likely to lose their Canadian citizenship, and lose it unwittingly, either through the failure of their parents to register the births abroad or through their own failure between the ages of 21 or 24 to file a declaration of retention.
True, he who loses his citizenship for either reason may regain it, but to do so he must file a petition for resumption of Canadian citizenship; the minister has a discretion in the granting of that petition. In my submission that is to make second class citizens of those children who are born abroad to Canadian citizens. To place the children of Canadian citizens who are serving their country abroad in the armed forces or in some other form of public service, as missionaries or as members of the Company of Young Canadians, in a category different from the children of Canadians performing the same duties in Canada is discriminatory and, I submit, a genuine hardship to the parents and children.
Now, you sir, as a distinguished member of the bar-and I proclaim that the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) who is now the Acting Speaker is a distinguished member of the bar, as is the usual incumbent of the Speaker's chair, you will know that under the old rule of nationality, which was related to the status on British subjects, dual registration was required only in the instance of the child, born abroad, the father of whom was also born abroad. In other words, the second generation born outside the realm needed to act to preserve its status. The rule, I think, made more sense than our existing rule under the present Canadian Citizenship Act.
This bill, sir, would preserve without registration or declaration the status of natural born citizen to any child born outside Canada to a Canadian citizen who was enlisted in the armed forces of Canada or was a public servant of the dominion or any provincial government, or was employed outside Canada by any firm, business, company or organization-religious or otherwise-the principal office of which was in Canada, or who was employed by an international organization in which Canada participates. This would cover virtually all the births abroad. For persons not within these categories the existing provisions of registration of birth and declaration of intention would continue to apply.
My submission this afternoon to the house is that we ought not to leave the children born abroad to our armed forces, to our diplomats, to our foreign aid officers, to our missionaries-to use only a few examples-in
DEBATES	641
Canadian Citizenship Act the existing state of "nationality no man's land".
Sir, since the bill was introduced I have had many calls from persons in the armed forces and from officers in the Department of External Affairs expressing their resentment at the secondary status of their children -children which have been born abroad. One officer indicated that of his four children the first and third had been born in Canada when he was on duty in this country but that the second and fourth were born in different countries while he was on overseas duty. These brothers and sisters have a different status as Canadian citizens-an anomaly surely within one family.
Mr. Speaker, the second proposed amendment arises out of frustrations I experienced as minister of citizenship and immigration in being unable to deal with applications for citizenship which were rejected, and which I was not able to deal With, for a two year period from the date of such rejection. Let me illustrate, and I think the matter will become clear.
In one instance I satisfied myself that the rejection was made on grounds which arose from mistaken identity. Had the applicant been guilty of the conduct alleged, the grounds for rejection would have been valid; it was not the applicant however, but another, of similar name, who had been guilty. Yet the minister was deprived by statute of doing justice for a two year period. I say that that situation is intolerable-although the likelihood of the situation arising again will be minimized by the proposed creation of a court of citizenship appeal. I emphasize that the court of citizenship appeal proposed in the government measure has nothing to do with the minister's final discretionary authority, and particularly where such authority is related to security matters. Nevertheless the minister, I believe, should have the right in special cases to deal with rejected application before the expiry of the two years, and that is what this bill proposes.
Finally, sir, this bill seeks to give full and absolute equality of status to all Canadian citizens, irrespective of whether they are natural born or naturalized. At present, for a number of reasons, Canadian citizens who are not natural born may be deprived of citizenship, whereas natural born citizens may not be so deprived for identical reasons. I say that this is a serious and regrettable discrimination which is resented deeply by naturalized Canadians. When the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), the
May 26, 1967

Canadian Citizenship Act present hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate, was in opposition, he railed against this and in 1959 he introduced a private member's bill on the subject. Four successive speeches from the throne promised to rectify it, and the hon. gentleman for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) has talked of it on a number of occasions. Bill No. S-59 of the last session and Bill No. S-4 of this session-now on the Order Paper-deal with this matter, and Bill No. S-4 purports to do something about it. The bill I now discuss, sir, was first drafted before the original Bill No. S-59 was first introduced in the Senate.
This bill would make it clear that hereafter, under no circumstances, could a Canadian citizen who is not natural born lose his citizenship for any cause which would not in the same circumstances lead to the loss of Canadian citizenship by a natural born citizen. I believe that this is to be prefered to the retention of the power of revocation where citizenship was obtained "by concealment of material circumstances"-a vague and dangerous term-as proposed in Bill No. S-4. That is a government bill, and we shall discuss that on another occasion.
This bill now moved, Mr. Speaker, has three purposes and I hope that all three purposes will commend themselves to the house and to members on all sides.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
There is nothing political, there is nothing partisan in this bill. I believe it could very well be accepted by the government and accepted by the house. By the grapevine, I hear that the government proposes to refer its bill which is on the order paper, Bill S-4, to the standing committee on Indian Affairs, human rights and citizenship and immigration. What would be most agreeable to me is that if this bill, after being debated until five minutes to six o'clock, could then be referred to that committee and given the opportunity for detailed study which I venture to suggest it genuinely deserves.


Auguste Choquette: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Richard Albert Bell: Indeed.


Auguste Choquette: According to the Citizenship Act those who are born in Canada are also British subjects, and I say this with apologies to the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan). Since Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada would the hon. member recommend that the status of British subjects for Canadian citizens be eliminated?


Richard Albert Bell: Indeed, I certainly would not. It is one of my great prides that in addition to being a Canadian citizen, which is my first love, I am also a British subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief because I believe in trying to promote the concept that bills introduced by private members should be sent to a committee, regardless of their place of origin in the house, in order that a committee, and consequently government, may be able to draw upon all the brains in the house and not only on those which happen to reside in the heads of cabinet ministers. This has been my persistent approach to bills introduced by private members, and I therefore endorse the appeal made by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell). Of course, if those appeals had been listened to during the time the hon. gentleman was in the cabinet of the Conservative government, we might not now have to make such appeals because there would be an automatic procedure to refer public bills in the hands of private members to committee. Thus, we would have advanced a little more than we have into the field of reform of parliament.
After listening to the very effusive and perhaps voluble remarks of the hon. member for Carleton, I rather expected a glistening and shining document to be presented to the house, and perhaps the bill in so far as it goes falls within that category. But I think even the hon. member would admit it does have, not deficiencies, but that there are some items relating to matters of citizenship in Canada that could be included in it. In other words, the bill is not completely exhaustive of the necessity of altering our citizenship act to comply with the sense of what has been advocated by the hon. member for Carleton in his speech, and what has been advocated by others over the years.
I am not going to try to transgress on the rules of the house by commenting on Bill S-4, which also deals with the citizenship act, but it would seem to me to be an admirable course to take, to remove the present requirement that a person be of landed immigrant status for five years before he can make application for citizenship.
I have advocated this on other occasions, and I reiterate it now. If this bill does go to a committee, and if the government takes the course of referring Bill S-4 to a committee as well, the committee might well consider reducing the present five year requirement to
May 26, 1967	COMMONS
one year. Not only do I think the five years inordinately long, but also within it there is an element of discrimination because, as I understand the law, it says that if a woman becomes the wife of a Canadian citizen she can apply for citizenship after one year. That is why I choose the one year period and advocate making it applicable to everyone. The one year period is now contained in the law, but it applies only to a woman who becomes the wife of a Canadian citizen.
Conversely if a man becomes the husband of a Canadian citizen-and this is the discriminatory part-he has to wait for five years before he can make an application for citizenship. It would seem to me that at least the justice of equality, of making men equal with women before the law, should find its way into the Citizenship Act.
I presume we have to have some period specified and I suggest this one year period. I suggest we should make it universally applicable to anyone who comes to Canada from Europe, Asia, Africa, any country large or small. I suggest we should base our requirements for citizenship not upon the rituals that exist now, of having people learn by rote the names of the Great Lakes, the names of the highest mountains, how many provinces there are, and who happens to form the government for the time being, but rather place a greater emphasis on the intentions and the hopes that the individual has, on his concepts of Canada, his concepts of citizenship and of responsibility to mankind and to society.
If we placed more emphasis upon this, and less upon learning from a text prepared by the department itself about what one should say when one goes before a citizenship court,
I think we would be starting off on developing a far greater understanding and appreciation of what Canada is.


Richard Albert Bell: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: If we did that we would be much further along the road to which the hon. member referred when he quoted from the speech from the throne of November. 1867.
I am not so much concerned that this happens to be centennial year or that we should make a fetish out of doing things just because it happens to be centennial year. I am more concerned about doing things of this sort because I believe it is fundamentally correct that we should place emphasis upon the dignity of mankind and the worthwhileness of mankind in our society rather than upon the
DEBATES	643
Canadian Citizenship Act fact that we have reached a certain stage in our history. But if it takes the centennial emotion to bring these things to a head and permit them to pass, then all well and good, let us use that centennial emotion to do something worthwhile.
It is government members who usually talk out private members' bills. Today I hope that someone on the government side, especially the minister who I am sure is here for the purpose of paying particular attention to the bill being discussed, will announce it is the government's wish that this bill receive approval and referral to a committee. Then, the committee can get its teeth into some aspects of citizenship before the government sends its own bill, Bill S-4, which is much more expansive than this one, to that committee. I do not say this to detract in any way from the principles contained in the bill of the hon. member for Carleton, and I support them wholeheartedly.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to say in respect of this bill which has been presented by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) with his usual ability, concern for the history of this country and concern for the concept of Canadian citizenship. I think the spirit in which it has been presented is to be commended. I believe it would remove several anomalies from the act as it stands. I must also agree with the concern expressed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) in respect of the clauses in the present act which are discriminatory and which I hope would be one of the topics to be investigated by the royal commission on the status of women.
Within the amendment as presented by this Bill C-2 I wonder why, for example, the only children born out of wedlock who automatically would be Canadian citizens would be those in cases where it was the mother who served outside of Canada. When one starts discussing children born out of wedlock in cases where the father is serving outside of Canada, I know difficulties in determining paternity arise. It does seem to me, however, that this has been one of the most distressing aspects of the situations in wartime or peacetime, where large bodies of armed forces have been outside the country and where in several countries of the world a sizeable proportion of second class citizens have been left behind when the armed forces have withdrawn.
844	COMMONS
Canadian Citizenship Act
These are citizens who have no claim to the citizenship of the countries to which their fathers belong and who have not been received by the country in which the armed forces were serving. A moral problem, and one which admittedly is perhaps unsolvable, has remained through the years in such countries. I have nothing but praise for the subsequent clauses of the bill and particularly the part of the bill which would remove any second class status from naturalized citizens. Having been a teacher of social studies, I had the embarrassing experience of a bright student asking me why some Canadian citizens were second class citizens lacking the full rights of citizenship even though citizenship had been granted to them because what had been granted to them was not as complete as the citizenship of the native born. When that question was asked, I was placed in the embarrassing position of having no defence whatsoever to make for this most irrational, illogical and discriminatory situation.
I felt that surely, if citizenship is to be granted at all, it should be granted completely. Therefore, I would approve wholeheartedly of this bill. If it should be referred to the committee, I would hope that the committee and subsequently this house would move as rapidly as possible to implement the amendment to the act which would make Canadian citizenship a factor that is indivisible so that it would have the same full meaning and value for anyone who held it.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to sincerely congratulate the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) for his moving speech this afternoon and especially for his introductory remarks.
At the outset I must say that some of the points raised in this Bill C-2 are very well made. In fact, some of the proposals made by the hon. member for Carleton are included in Bill S-4 which was passed in the other place on May 10 and which was introduced here and given first reading on May 15.
Clauses 4 and 5 of Bill S-4 are almost identical to clauses 3 and 4 of this bill. The purpose is to remove the areas of discrimination which appear to exist between the natural born and the non-natural born Canadian. However, I think it is appropriate to retain the power to revoke citizenship which is obtained fraudulently and for this reason I do not agree that section 19(1) of the Canadian Citizenship Act should be repealed in its entirety. I do not consider that discrimination

DEBATES	May 26, 1967
can be charged by permitting revocation of citizenship obtained by false representation, fraud or concealment of material circumstances even though only the non-natural born Canadian can become a citizen by such malfeasance.
I am rather surprised that the hon. member for Carleton, who was a former minister of the crown then responsible for the administration of the Canadian Citizenship Act, would suggest that the minister be given discretion to shorten the two year delay period before which rejected applicants again have the right to re-apply for citizenship. I am sure that he is personally aware of the heavy responsibility carried by a minister when under the law he rejects an applicant for Canadian citizenship who has already satisfied a citizenship court that he is a fit and proper person worthy to receive the high honour of Canadian citizenship. It seems to me that such a decision is only reached after the most careful consideration of all the available information, and then applicants are only rejected in the national interest when there appears to be no other alternative.
In so far as applicants who are rejected by the courts are concerned, hon. members are aware that the citizenship act does not provide the minister with any discretion unless the court decision is favourable. To provide the minister with authority to direct a court to receive a new application would serve little or no purpose since the court could reject the new application on the same grounds as the previous rejection. However, I think the establishment of a citizenship appeal court, as proposed in clause 7 of Bill S-4, will achieve the real aim of the proposal found in clause 2 of this bill. Although it does not entitle a rejected applicant to file a new application before two years, such an applicant will be able to have his existing application reviewed by a higher court. This will protect his rights, particularly in cases where applicants consider that their qualifications have been unfairly assessed by the lower court or in cases such as have happened in the past where the rejection of an applicant appears to be contrary to the basic principle of freedom of religious belief or for that matter, disbelief which we profess as a basic right in Canada.


Richard Albert Bell: That is the precise purpose of this.


Albert Béchard: I now come to what I consider is the principal proposal in Bill C-2 which is found in the first clause. The explanatory note in the bill alleges that the registration
May 26, 1967	COMMONS
process required under the Canadian Citizenship Act for children of Canadians born abroad since January 1, 1947, is discriminatory particularly when related to the children of Canadians who are serving their country abroad either in the armed forces, the federal or provincial public services. This applies as well to Canadians in the private sector who are employed abroad by industry which is established in Canada and also to persons employed outside Canada by international agencies in which we participate.
I must admit that at first glance there seemed to be an element of discrimination in the existing law, particularly when related to children of Canadians serving abroad in the direct service of their country.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
On the other hand, I wondered if it would not be equally discriminatory to single out certain groups of Canadians by professions or occupations and give them what might be considered advantages over all other Canadians. As a result, I decided to do some research into the reason for this registration of birth abroad requirement to see whether it should be retained for all Canadians or deleted from the law completely.
I find that at page 506 of Hansard of April 2, 1946, the present minister of external affairs (Mr. Martin) who was then secretary of state, had this to say when comparing the requirements for Canadians born abroad after the new citizenship act came into effect with the provision then found in the Naturalization Act:
The principal difference is his. that in future all Canadian children born abroad will have to be registered within two years either at a diplomatic, consular or trade commissioner's office or in Ottawa. Hitherto registrations have not been necessary in all cases of children born abroad who have acquired the status provided for in existing legislation. There is, I believe, good reason for this. There is a slightly greater strictness in the new bill. Hereafter Canadian children born abroad will, as Canadians, have the right to entry into Canada. They have never had it before. In giving this important right it is felt necessary to have some record and some form of evidence that will serve for immigration purposes. Children born in Canada will in all cases have birth certificates. In a parallel manner we are requiring the registration of children born abroad, in order that there may be a basic record to establish their rights as Canadian citizens.
On reflection I have come to the conclusion that the registration requirement is both a good and a necessary provision even though some may say "merely more paper work". I don't think we would be helping those
DEBATES	645
Canadian Citizenship Act Canadians serving their country abroad by exempting them from this requirement.
I should like to point out to hon. members that government staff who are sent abroad, including forces personnel, are well briefed on the requirements of Canadian legislation which might affect them while outside Canada. To this end they are warned by their respective departments of the registration requirement related to children born abroad. It is the duty and responsibility of Canadian consular officials abroad to warn all Canadians of the requirements and, surely, it is not too much to expect them to personally remember to register their own children.
At any rate, once the birth is registered, there is a permanent basic record from which claims to citizenship can be confirmed. Departmental officials inform me that one of the greatest problems they face relates to the documentation required when a Canadian who was born outside this country 50 or 60 years ago suddenly finds himself in need of proof of his claim to being a Canadian by descent. He must document his parents' marriage, he must prove the father-child relationship and, in addition, he frequently must establish his own lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence. I am sure many hon. members have received letters from irate constituents complaining bitterly about the almost impossible task demanded of them by the citizenship officials to document their claim to the truth of the simple statement "I am a Canadian". Nevertheless, if Canadian citizenship is to retain its high value all this is necessary because proof of citizenship cannot be issued on the mere say so of every individual who claims to be a Canadian, but who was not born here.
On the other hand, let us look at the case of a 20 year old alleged Canadian who arrives at our border for the first time in this, our centennial year, and demands his right to come into Canada to attend the centennial ceremonies of "his country" but who has not equipped himself beforehand with proper travel documents and identification papers which will bear out his claim to being a Canadian. The fact is that if his birth was not registered he is not a Canadian. However, if his parents attended to the matter of registering his birth as required by the law since 1947, then a simple phone call or telegram to the citizenship authorities will confirm his claim to citizenship because it is a matter of record.
I know there are those who might say that this is all very well, but let the registration be
May 26. 1967

Canadian Citizenship Act merely an administrative process for establishing a basic record. However, the status itself should be automatically conferred at birth without the paper formality. How many of us would attend to this sort of detail if it were not absolutely essential? Many would be inclined to delay and procrastinate, and in the final analysis, no application for registration would be completed until an urgent need for proof of citizenship arose. Of course, it is this undesirable situation which should be avoided.
I should also mention that all Canadian passports carry a warning that children born abroad must be registered, and a further warning concerning the possibility of automatic loss of citizenship at age 24 if such Canadians are then domiciled abroad and have failed to exercise their right to protect their Canadian citizenship.
Here again this bill alleges discrimination against children born abroad of parents in certain professions or occupations who were required to live outside Canada. This is because such a person may inadvertently fail to take the necessary steps under the act to file a declaration of retention between his 21st and 24th birthdays. Of course, if he has never come to Canada or having come here has moved away again, he will automatically lose his birthright on his 24th birthday.
Earlier I said that at first glance I was inclined to agree that the existing provision seems to provide a discriminatory element against children of Canadians serving their country abroad. As I pointed out, the registration requirement provides a control measure related to citizenship by descent and ensures that such Canadians are citizens of record just as their brother and sister Canadians born in Canada are recorded under the provincial birth registration requirements.
In essence, we have here a further control measure which seems to be related to the fact there is an outward movement of Canadians to other countries, particularly to our great and friendly neighbour to the south. By this provision, children born outside Canada of such migrating Canadians lose their citizenship at age 24, but have the right to protect their nationality by filing a declaration of retention. This right is usually only exercised by those families who maintain strong ties and associations with their country of origin. I am rather inclined to the view that the birth registration requirement is sufficient


control. It is unlikely that successive generations of Canadians would carry out the registration procedure unless strong Canadian connections had been maintained.
In the latter instance, no doubt they would make very desirable Canadian citizens and little or no harm could result if a family of Canadian origin acted in accordance with the law and exercised their legal right to register children through a number of future generations.
Having said all this, it seems to me that the experts should be asked to consider this point in relation to possible future changes in the act. It seems to me that consideration might be given to dropping this provision as it relates to all Canadians born abroad or, conversely, substantial reasons should be advanced for its retention without any exceptions. I should mention, however, that as the law now stands, any Canadian who has lost his status under this provision may be permitted to resume it.
It is for these reasons that I consider it would be more appropriate at this time to approve Bill S-4 which has already received first reading, and leave consideration of other changes including those referred to in the bill introduced by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) until the entire law is under revision.
[DOT] (5:50 pm.)


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, it is a particular pleasure to take part in this debate on the first private member's bill in our centennial session, particularly because of my strong interest in the subject of Canadian citizenship and, parenthetically, because I have the opportunity of supporting a bill put forward by my own member of parliament for the time being, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell).


Richard Albert Bell: Hear, hear.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I hope to be here for some years, but perhaps the member for Carleton will be different after the next election. The bill of the hon. member reflects the concern of many Canadians that there is a kind of second-class citizenship inherent in our Canadian Citizenship Act. Many of us on both sides of the house have for some time been putting forward suggestions for the removal of this discrimination. I am pleased to see that some of our representations are bearing fruit in the government bill which will reach us as S-4.
May 26, 1987
When that bill is under discussion in the house and in committee I presume the hon. member for Carleton will want to make suggestions for amendments, and I think that would be an ideal time to consider the ideas which are included in his private member's bill. I am also concerned about discrimination in another direction against our new citizens. I am concerned about the discrimination, that appears to be inherent in our laws, to which immigrants are exposed before they have the opportunity of becoming Canadian citizens.
I look back to the debate on the introduction of the Canadian Citizenship Act in 1946 and see that when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), then secretary of state, moved second reading of the bill he said, as reported at page 504, volume I of Hansard for the session of 1946:
One thing we hope to do, following the passage of this measure, is to provide a more effective and impressive ceremony of admission into the Canadian family. Our citizenship is made up not only of people born in this country and of people who acquired domicile as British subjects under the Immigration Act, but of many thousands of new Canadians living in all parts of our country who have come from other lands and who have made a notable contribution to the development of Canada. There are people who came from many parts of central Europe and who are now living and working as Canadians on our farms and in our factories. Many of those people came here without being able to speak the two languages of the country and without being accustomed to its traditions. Most of them have rendered notable service to Canada. We should not lose the opportunity of impressing ourselves and reminding them that just as we are glad to welcome them to our shores, now that they are here they should enjoy with us the full measure of partnership in the Canadian community.
Under our present laws those who come to us from shores other than those of the British commonwealth do not enjoy a full measure of partnership in the Canadian community. I certainly would not deprecate the connection and the very warm affection that exists between Canadians and the mother country of so many of us and so many of our ancestors, the United Kingdom. But I suggest that we should consider very carefully whether the time has now passed, in this centennial year, when we can afford to put more stress on origin than we do on citizenship.
Canadian Citizenship Act
We And that under our electoral laws immigrants from countries other than those of the commonwealth are discriminated against. In order to vote at a federal election a person must be 21 years of age or over, a Canadian citizen or other British subject. In the case of a British subject he must be a person who resided in Canada for 12 months immediately preceding polling day.
The argument is put forward very often that naturally a person coming from a British country, with British parliamentary traditions, is more familiar with our democratic processes and our history and therefore should have rights superior to those afforded immigrants from other countries. But I would suggest that there is no longer any logic to this argument. There have been so many changes in our commonwealth that a great many commonwealth countries do not accord Canadians the same voting rights and rights of candidacy in their countries as we accord them here. In fact, we accord these rights to citizens of countries which are no longer in the commonwealth or which do not consider themselves to be within the commonwealth. We accord these rights to citizens of the Republic of Ireland. We accord these rights to citizens of the Republic of South Africa. We accord these rights to British subjects who are residents of Rhodesia but apparently do not now consider themselves to be members of our commonwealth.
Mr. Speaker, I think the least we could do in amending the citizenship act is recognize this kind of discrimination, ensuring for instance that the stress placed upon a person being a British subject does not accentuate the discrimination against others which is already inherent in our laws. I hope that the suggestions of my member of parliament will be considered very carefully when Bill No. S-4 is before the house. I am sure that the minister and her officials will consider his suggestions very carefully between now and that time.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. The hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
27053-42J
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 29, 1967