1967-01-26

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of standing committee on industry, research and energy development-Mr. Cashin.
Fourth report of standing committee on Indian affairs, human rights and citizenship and immigration-Mr. Klein.
[Note: Text of the foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (for the President of fhe Treasury Board) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Canada Grain Act, the Income Tax Act, the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, the National Energy Board Act. the Railway Act, the Tariff Board Act, the Canada Elections Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Representation Commissioner Act, and the Appropriation Act No. 4, 1964, with respect to the salaries of certain public officials.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act to revise judicial salaries and certain provisions of the said act respecting the payment to judges of travelling allowances and other expenses; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
23033-776J


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Fund for Rural Economic Development Act to increase the limit on the aggregate of the amounts that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund and charged to the fund for rural economic development under agreements with the provinces from fifty million dollars to three hundred million dollars.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the initiative of the government of Ontario in proceeding to convene a confederation conference, which we on this side of the house were ready to do four years ago and have asked for since? Under all the circumstances, is the dominion government going to co-operate in this regard, or is it going to take the lead itself and bring about the convening of such a conference in this year?


Righi Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have read the speech from the throne in the Ontario house in which this suggestion was made by the premier of the province. I understand that this proposed conference is not with respect to the amendment of the constitution or indeed to find ways to amend the constitution, but is a conference that might be devoted to a discussion of confederation and its problems, and that sort of thing. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting and important proposal. I have not received any communication on it from the Prime Minister of Ontario. Perhaps it is the kind of thing that should be put on the

January 26, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry agenda at the next federal-provincial conference in Ottawa.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the government of Canada allow the provinces to enter the vacuum created by its inaction in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: The answer obviously is
yes.



REQUEST FOR STUDY OF STATUS BY ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: would ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question with respect to the brief submitted to the government by the committee for the equality of women in Canada. This appears to be a well reasoned document dealing with matters of equality for women with respect to remuneration, access to occupations and various professions, and equality of treatment before the law with respect to domicile and property.
On January 10 the Prime Minister said this question had been considered in cabinet but it would be considered again on the return of the Secretary of State. Has the government had an opportunity to discuss this matter? Will the Prime Minister be able to tell the house fairly soon whether a decision has been reached with respect to the recommendation of this committee that a royal commission be established to look into the status of women in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a certain decision has been made with regard to this matter. I or the Secretary of State hope to be in a position to announce it within a day or two.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General but in his absence may I direct it to the Prime Minister. This question relates to one asked by the hon. member for Villeneuve in March of 1966, and concerns one Calvin Macdonald and his desire to appear before the commission of inquiry on national security. Has the government given or will the
[Mr. Pearson.I
government give him the privilege of appearing before that commission, that he may explain his case?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall discuss this matter with the Solicitor General as soon he comes into the house.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['In the light of the admission by Secretary McNamara, which I read or heard yesterday, that there has been only a trickle of troops moving from North Viet Nam to South Viet Nam since last June, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us, or is he ready to inquire, why the bombing of North Viet Nam was not only continued but was intensified, despite the fact that there was only this trickle of movement?']
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have an important question that I think should be addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I may say to him that I have noticed in a recent press report that two United States businessmen, one from Detroit and one from Chicago, have opened a business in Montreal at a cost of $5 million.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, my question is this. Inasmuch as this means $5 million of United States capital in Canada for the opening of a Bunny club, will the Minister of Trade and Commerce refer this matter to the Minister without Portfolio for investigation?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has let the bunny out of the bag, and the question is out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he now in a position to reply to the question I asked yesterday about the supplying of arms by the Soviet union to North Viet Nam?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Oxford, I think it is clear that there have been violations by all sides of the 1954 agreement on Viet Nam. The presence in North Viet Nam of Soviet missiles and other modern anti-aircraft weapons represents as much a departure from the state of affairs envisaged by the agreement as other forms of military activity in Viet Nam to which attention is more frequently drawn.
January 26, 1967

Taken together, all these violations admittedly have led to the dangerous situation confronting us all today. Through its membership on the commission Canada has consistently attempted to have this point of view recognized, in the hope that the commission's assessment of the responsibilities of both sides for bringing about the present situation might contribute to the reversal of the trend of military events, with one violation by one side leading to a further violation by the other. Our discussions with regard to this problem in all its aspects have taken this situation into account, and these matters were included in the conversations I had in Moscow.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would take it from the minister's reply that Canada has made formal objections to the Soviet union concerning the supplying of these arms to North Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said that in my conversations these questions were discussed.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: In the light of the admission by Secretary McNamara, which I read or heard yesterday, that there has been only a trickle of troops moving from North Viet Nam to South Viet Nam since last June, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us, or is he ready to inquire, why the bombing of North Viet Nam was not only continued but was intensified, despite the fact that there was only this trickle of movement?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: I had a question for the Minister of Agriculture but in his absence I will address it to the hon. gentleman's parliamentary secretary. Does the parliamentary secretary agree with the government's policy to eliminate the Crowsnest pass rates?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I will rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Agriculture be in the house this afternoon to protest against the elimination of the Crowsnest pass rates?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will have to wait a few minutes to find out.
Inquiries of the Ministry ROYAL FAMILY



CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION RESPECTING MARRIAGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I do not know whether the Prime Minister is in a position to answer this question. It has to do with the Royal Marriages Act, which has been in existence since the early part of the 18th century and is long out of date. In view of the expected and anticipated application of Lord Harewood to marry again after a divorce has been secured from his wife, and the difficulties inherent in the continuation of the necessity of obtaining the Queen's consent to such marriages, is consideration being given by Canada, in respect to the Queen of Canada, and by other commonwealth countries to the abrogation of this law, now in effect but totally archaic having regard to present conditions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not aware of such consideration being given on a commonwealth basis, though it may have been discussed by certain departments of commonwealth governments. I will be glad to look into this matter to see whether there has been any development and, indeed, whether this particular act still has application in parts of the commonwealth other than the United Kingdom.


John George Diefenbaker: Am I not right in saying that imperial acts are in effect unless abrogated or limited, amended or suspended, and that this act, which was in operation at the time of confederation, would affect Canada in that our sovereign in Canada would be subject to the law as it now is?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That might well be the situation, but I should like to look into it further.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. As the minister left his seat a few minutes ago, I shall direct it to the Prime Minister.
Has the federal government received a letter from the Quebec government protesting against the encroachment of Bill No. C-231, an act to define and implement a national

January 26, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry transportation policy of Canada, on provincial rights, and what is the answer given by the federal government to the Quebec government in that connection?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether this question could not instead be put during consideration of the bill referred to by the member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. My question is based on a statement contained in a question asked of the Prime Minister by the hon. member for Bow Raver on January 24 in which he said, as recorded at page 12159 of Hansard:
To review my question, it referred to $50,000 of aid to Viet Nam of which 90 per cent was going to North Viet Nam, to the Viet Cong, for purposes other than to assist civilian victims.
Has the Prime Minister received a letter from Dr. A. M. Inglis, chairman of the committee on Canadian Aid for Viet Nam Civilians, which committee, I might mention, is sponsored by a number of Canadians including the leader of our party and the hon. member for Kootenay West, which outlines the facts with respect to the distribution of this aid-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is not asking a question. He is obviously making a statement, and perhaps he should have made it on motions.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, may I just repeat the question. Has the Prime Minister received a letter from Dr. Inglis, chairman of the Committee on Canadian Aid for Viet Nam Civilians, with respect to the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that it is not sufficient to ask whether a letter has been received. Perhaps he might want to complement the question, although I suppose I am asking for trouble in that suggestion.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader, the Minister of Public Works, if he would mind having a conversation with the hon. member for Kootenay West and explain some of the rules to him.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Has the government protested to the United States against using in Viet Nam war equipment made in Canada and bought by the United States? Was the report correct that a protest was made by the Canadian government in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think I have already dealt with that matter, Mr. Speaker. There has been no such protest.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then may I ask is the government now going to take any steps with reference to money that is being sent to the Viet Cong from Canada, to be used for war equipment against the western world?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, our information is that the supplies that may be going to Viet Nam are medical supplies, and there is no authorization required under our law to send medical supplies to any part of the world.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As a further supplementary question, has the Prime Minister examined the report I sent him? I think he has read the report which says the money was not going to war victims. Has he made any investigation to determine to the satisfaction of himself and his government that the money is being used for that purpose?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have been making inquiries, and I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been discussing the matter this morning with representatives of some of these organizations.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, has the Secretary of State for External Affairs anything to report to the house as a result of his discussions with representatives of some of these organizations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker, the discussions are not concluded.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, or possibly it should be directed to the associate minister. Has the
January 26, 1967



R.C.A.F. made arrangements to fly two hockey teams to Europe for a tour of that continent, and does the minister approve of these arrangements?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if this is a matter of national urgency. I suggest that the hon. member find some other way to obtain the information he is now seeking.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. I would ask whether the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association or the Quebec Amateur Hockey Association have complained to him and protested the rather novel arrangements made by the R.C.A.F. and the minister of defence for the participation of two pee-wee hockey teams in a tour of Europe, in defiance of rulings by these governing bodies against making such a tour.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have received representations on both sides on this issue, and 1 am trying awfully hard to be neutral.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Have all the cheques representing the final payment on the 1965-66 crop year been mailed? If not, when would he expect the last of them to be mailed?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, if they have all not already been mailed they will be mailed very shortly, but I shall get a more precise answer and provide the hon. member with the information.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I should like to direct to the Solicitor General, but in his absence I shall direct it to the Prime Minister. The cabinet yesterday commuted to life imprisonment the death sentences of two convicted murderers in British Columbia. I
Inquiries of the Ministry should like to ask the Prime Minister what is the effect of this statement which he made on August 31 in this house:
-when this legislation passes it will be the will of the parliament of Canada and if it is the will of the parliament of Canada I know the law-abiding citizens of Canada, as they always have done in the past, will obey it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt that the hon. member is asking a question. Obviously he is submitting an argument at this time. I am not prepared to accept the question.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Your Honour having ruled in that way, may I raise the matter at ten o'clock.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg Souih):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the current season and the recurrence of a chronic problem associated with winter temperatures, can the Minister of Transport bring warmth to the hearts of thousands of chilled Canadian travellers and tell them when enclosed telescopic ramps will be installed at western Canada's major airports?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the question is one which should be asked at this time. I suggest that it might be placed on the order paper or discussed at ten o'clock.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: I had the impression that the minister was prepared to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister probably will welcome the opportunity to answer at ten o'clock.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question put to me on January 24 by the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway.
To protect unsponsored immigrants with large families and modest incomes from hardship, our officers abroad advise such families about housing conditions. This means that such immigrants are currently being advised against going to certain cities where housing

January 26, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry is difficult, but it does not mean that they are advised to go to any community where housing is available. They are advised on the basis of what suitable employment opportunities are available. When they arrive, the same facilities of the immigration division and the Canada manpower centres are available in such communities, to assist the newcomers in becoming established, as are available to immigrants destined to the larger cities of Canada.


Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Halifax):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister advise us whether the department has broken down the Canadian cities into these various categories, and if so could this information be made available to us?


Jean Marchand: I will take notice of this question.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the regulation laid down by the government of France with regard to our NATO bases and those of other countries, has a decision of been reached to move our forces from Metz and Marville and, if so, what are the names of our new bases?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minisier of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, a decision has been made to move in accordance with the requirement of the French government's note. I am afraid I cannot yet give the details to the house because negotiations are continuing in respect of the move and the various facets of it.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of a slightly more serious nature for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister comment on the status of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines application to the United States federal power commission in respect of their eastern route?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps that question more appropriately should be

addressed to my colleague who is responsible for that aspect of the problem.


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I then direct the question to the appropriate minister-I think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-and later I would hope that the Minister of Trade and Commerce would comment on my previous question.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Would the hon. member kindly repeat his question.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Could the minister, for the benefit of the house and Canada, comment on the status of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines application to the United States federal power commission for its eastern route?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The United States federal power commission's presiding examiner has asked that further evidence be presented. In the case of Panhandle he asked that evidence be presented by February 10, in the case of Northern Natural Gas, by March 1.
This evidence will be on two subjects; first, the effects of the undertakings on which Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has agreed with the Canadian government; and second, the proposal presented by the staff of the federal power commission. We are watching closely these developments.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. There seems to be a negative attitude at the moment with regard to this application, particularly in the United States, and I wonder whether it could possibly be in the area of retaliation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker. I might add though something else I have already said and which appeared in Hansard of January 19:
I can guarantee the hon. member-
That was the hon. member for Timmins.
-that we are taking these precautions. We have asked the company-
That is Trans-Canada.
-to keep us informed on alternative planning- which it is doing now-in case the federal power commission refuses to accept the Great lakes project in its present form.
So not only are we keeping in touch with events in Washington but we are going as far as possible in planning for an alternative project if the present one is rejected by the federal power commission.
January 26, 1967


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The press quotes the minister as having said outside the house something we were trying yesterday to get him to say inside the house, namely that Trans-Canada is being urged to take its planning as far as possible so that if the federal power commission rejects the application, construction of the Canadian route can begin immediately. I wish to ask the minister who is asking Trans-Canada to carry its planning as far as possible, the minister or the National Energy Board; and have Trans-Canada complied with this request and do they intend to carry their planning to the point where there will be no delay in proceeding with the Canadian section of the line in the event that the F.P.C. rejects the application?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The answer to the second part of the question is both, the minister and the National Energy Board. I do not remember exactly what the third part of the question was; the difficulty with long questions is that they require long answers which I am trying to give at the moment. What I said to the press, and would like to have said in the house but could not, was that we were planning in order to make sure that immediately after the decision is taken by the F.P.C. we will be in a position to act, whatever the decision may be.
I did not mean that we intended to act immediately but that we would act immediately after the decision is taken.
If the hon. member wishes to remind me of the third part of his question I will be delighted to try to answer it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The third part of my question was whether Trans-Canada had agreed to carry its planning to the point where it would be able to begin construction immediately in the event that the F.P.C. turned down the application.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is what I said in quoting my own words from Hansard of January 19. The company is keeping us informed of its alternative planning.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: I have a supplementary question. In view of the news we were able to obtain last week, and particularly yesterday and today, according to which we can look forward to a two year postponement before we can get a decision on this, may I ask the minister whether we will
Inquiries of the Ministry wait this long before any action is taken? Can no action be taken before we get a decision?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gasion Isabelle (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. It is urgent, since its object is to prevent the loss of life in the area.
As several thousands of tourists will be coming to Canada's capital during the centennial year and will certainly wish to visit Hull, namely the French part of our national capital, are they going to see the city of Hull through this dreadful ugliness, this heap of scrap, namely the interprovincial bridge, the guard-rails of which are dilapidated and out of repair?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member could easily put this question on the order paper.



PURPOSE OF FORTHCOMING MEETING IN WEST INDIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the subject of the forthcoming conference at Saint Lucia in the West Indies in the hope that he will be less brusque and irascible than the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


John George Diefenbaker: And more intelligible.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the minister outline to the house at an early opportunity the objectives of his department at that conference?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking whether the minister will make a statement. I suggest that the answer to this question can only be yes or no. I do not think the member can ask that a statement be made now. It should be made on motions.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

January 26, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I said "at an early opportunity" which would be on motions tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood the question fully and it was in order, but I wanted to make sure that the answer would also be in order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Secretary of State for External Affairs failed to answer the question yesterday and I thought I would revive it.


Robert Henry Winters: Generally the objectives will be to implement the terms of the communique which were agreed upon last July at the time of the prime ministerial meeting here in Ottawa.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Did the minister get in touch personally with the directors of the C.P.R. in order to ask them to provide bilingual staff in the province of Quebec?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: The only thing I have done on this matter is to have drawn to the attention of the railway the comments that have been made in the house, and I have reason to believe that this has been done by a member of my staff.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and pertains to a fire which took place along the right of way of the C.N.R. in Richmond and Tyen-dinaga townships last July 20. This fire was set by the rolling stock of the railway and the farmers along the line sustained considerable damage to crops, fields and fences for which they have not been reimbursed by the C.N.R. When can these farmers expect to receive satisfaction in this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unless the fire is still burning I suggest that the question be put on the order paper.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I wish to take this opportunity to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, after his pilgrimage to San Francisco where his enunciation of policy with regard to foreign investment in Canada took place, whether a copy of his speech and the sentiments contained therein was made available to his colleague the senior Minister without Portfolio. Would he also let the house in on the secret as to how his particular views, so different from those held by the chairman of that committee, the Minister without Portfolio, will be presented to the committee?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt that the second part of the question is in order. I think this will have to remain a secret for a while yet.


John George Diefenbaker: Is parliament to be denied the information that was propagated in San Francisco? We have the right to know it. Why is a different story told in San Francisco than in Canada?


Robert Henry Winters: May I say a word in reply?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister may be allowed to answer the question.


Robert Henry Winters: I simply wish to report that I had a very good and in many ways I think a successful visit to San Francisco and Los Angeles. I heard from the business community there many expressions of confidence in the policies of the Canadian government. I wish to assure the right hon. gentleman that copies of my speech were made available to my colleagues before I delivered it, and I understand that the distribution of the speech was even wider than that.


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the minister this. Which is the policy? Is it the policy enunciated by him, or that declared by the one recently returned to the cabinet ranks?
January 26, 1967

Which is the policy on foreign investment? That is all I want to know.


Robert Henry Winters: I can only reflect policy as I deem it to be, and the policy I reflected in the speeches I made in San Francisco and Los Angeles are the policies of the government as I deem them to be.



EXPO '67 REPORTED DISMISSAL OF MEMBER OF YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Last week in this house the hon. member for Cumberland asked the minister to investigate certain alleged discriminatory hiring practices at Expo in the youth pavilion. This matter was raised in Montreal originally by Mr. Oberfeld, who was a member of the Expo youth advisory council. I understand that because he raised this matter in Montreal Mr. Oberfeld has been fired from the youth advisory council. I would ask the minister if he has heard about this, and will he investigate the same?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine the firing, if such it was, being for that reason; but I will investigate this matter and report.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister in charge of immigration. I would ask him whether there is a security check on British and Irish immigrants. I would also refer to a recent statement of the minister that in future there will not be a security check on emigrants from France. This statement may have been misinterpreted, but I would like it clarified.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there is always some kind of security check on immigrants, mainly because we want to know of any criminal records of prospective immigrants. There are just as restrictive tests in respect of Great Britain, and the same thing will apply to France in the future.
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSE OF COMMONS



REPORTED DISSATISFACTION AMONG STAFF RESPECTING PROMOTIONS. ETC.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue may I direct a question to the house leader with respect to collective bargaining matters for employees in the public service. I would ask the minister whether he would mind looking into the dissatisfaction that exists with respect to changed rules regarding promotions, the feeling that there is discrimination in the selection of people for promotion, and the general collapse of morale amongst the security staff in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the question is in order on a number of grounds.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister taking any special precautionary measures to prevent counterfeiting of the centennial bills, which bear no serial number at the moment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the question should be placed on the order paper.


Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In the past few weeks the public generally have been advised that in order to obtain a $20 gold centennial piece they must purchase a package of coins at a cost of $40. In a recent edition it was said that Reader's Digest are offering 200 of these $20 gold pieces as contest prizes.
I wonder whether the minister could tell us how Reader's Digest could purchase these $20 gold pieces.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the question is sufficiently urgent to warrant it being asked or answered at this time.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian public have been advised that they have to pay $40 and can only buy these gold pieces in coin sets, while a publishing firm is buying them for $20. I think the question is urgent.

January 26, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister is satisfied that there is a question of urgency I will certainly allow him to answer the question.


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minisier of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, now the question has been asked I think there is some question of urgency. I would like to assure the hon. member and all hon. members of the house that there is a uniform price of $40 a set to all comers, including the readers of Reader's Digest.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I rise now on my own point of order relating to the question I asked the Minister of Finance. I would gladly put my question on the order paper on one condition, namely that it is answered a little sooner than the one I have had there since October, addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the right hon. Prime Minister concerning the question asked by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac. A week ago I put a question to the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, concerning the price of these gold coins. The Prime Minister, as I recall, undertook to discuss the matter with the Minister of Finance. I was wondering whether this discussion has yet taken place, and if so what was the result.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have been ready to answer this question for some time. The government of Canada, like other members of the International Monetary Fund, has an obligation to avoid taking any steps which would facilitate the speculative hoarding of gold, both nationally and internationally. The issuance of a special set of coins of the centennial year, including a $20 gold piece, in the form of a presentation set, is not inconsistent with this objective. It is designed for collectors and will be purchased largely by collectors.
On the other hand, interest in single gold coins could extend beyond those who are concerned with the commemoration of our centennial. Their issuance might therefore be inconsistent with our international obligations.


Raymond Langlois: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While we are on the centennial business, could the Minister of Finance inform the house whether the new centennial paper bills are only in the denomination of $1, or are they of different denominations?


Mitchell William Sharp: My understanding is that they are $1 only, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to advise hon. members that the time for questions has now expired.



TRANSPORTATION


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps before calling orders of the day I might remind hon. members, if it is necessary for me to do so, that a point of order was raised yesterday by way of appeal from a ruling of the chairman of committee of the whole. I have, of course, had an opportunity since yesterday of studying very closely the ruling of the Chair and arguments submitted by hon. members. Before rendering a ruling I am wondering whether the Minister of Transport has anything to add to the arguments he has already submitted in the course of the discussion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like, sir, in addition to what I have already said to make a point which it seems to me would be relevant to the consideration of whether the amendment was in order. I was, of course, well aware of the various rules and standing orders to which hon. gentleman opposite referred. I do not contest the validity of any of them. As I indicated in my argument the other day, I was quite well aware that if I attempted to introduce the same proposition again it would be out of order. Before submitting an amendment, or perhaps I will have to say a purported amendment since it has been called into question, to the committee I felt it was my duty to apply myself to this problem to the best of my rather limited abilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: I recognize that I do not have the long experience of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre nor the legal training of the hon. member for Bow River, to say nothing of the eloquence of the right hon. gentleman opposite, I think I can say, sir, I was aware that there did not seem to be any kind of amendment I could have offered to clause 50 which would be in order at all because it seemed to me that even to attempt to import into that clause, which dealt with grain rates, a review of rates on grain alone would quite obviously come so close to the line that I might very easily cross the line.
January 26, 1967

I then looked at clause 74, which is the clause which has reference to the financial relationships generally-I do not often ask for the indulgence of the house, but when we are considering a matter as important as this I wonder if those who prefer to carry on a conversation would consider doing so elsewhere.


An hon. Member:: You would lose half your party.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might need them badly later, but one or two of them could be spared. I recognize the extreme gravity of the issue before Your Honour. It is a very unusual thing to have an appeal from one of the officers presiding over us to another, particularly when the officer who made the original decision most obviously found it a difficult matter, and felt that it required profound reflection.
I can certainly agree with anyone who takes the view that this is a nice and very difficult question indeed to answer one way or the other. I was aware that if I were to make an amendment which the Chairman could possibly consider in order, or Your Honour if there were an appeal could consider in order, there must be, according to the standing orders, sufficient variance from subclause 329 of clause 50 which had been stricken out by the committee to make it a different question.
I realized also that there must be a difference in the pith and substance or the core, and that the amendment must not be substantially the same as the clause which was stricken out. It did seem to me that in clause 74, which deals generally with the financial relations between the government and the railways, which relates to many other matters in addition to the question of grain rates and indeed deals with grain rates only obliquely, but deals much more directly with payments in respect of branch lines and passenger services as well as the transitional payments and the relationship between any such payment that might be determined by the commission in the future, it would be possible to frame a motion which had sufficient variance to be in order.
It seemed to me also that there was no more reason for permitting an examination of the rates on grain than for permitting an examination of any other rates set by this parliament and not by the railways themselves, and that it was quite wrong to single out one commodity, even though it might be
Transportation
the most important one, for such consideration. In the interval between the time the committee made its decision in respect of subclause 329 and the time the amendment was moved, we had a debate on the new clause 59 and we had confirmed, so far as the committee could do so, every statutory rate with respect to the Atlantic ports. It seemed to me, sir, that if a review was provided which depended on someone else taking the initiative, a review that applied to all statutory rates, there would be a considerable variance but perhaps not sufficient variance.
It seemed to me also that in the interval we had a discussion in the committee on clause 16, and on the very important variety of cases in which a shipper might succeed under clause 16 in getting a rate substituted for a rate at which the railways themselves would have been willing, of their own volition, to carry the commodity, and that these cases could go on as long as this law was on the statute books. This would be, therefore, a continuing and continuous operation whenever a rate was substituted by the commission for a rate which the railways were voluntarily willing to give the shipper. This was something that was imposed by law, not directly by parliament but by virtue of the bill which we are putting through. This would be a process that ought to be continued.
It seemed to me it was just as right and reasonable for a carrier to be able to appeal against a rate that was non-compensatory as it was for a shipper to be able to appeal a rate that was not in the public interest because it gave undue advantage or caused him undue disadvantage. Indeed, this kind of consideration was very much more apt to be a continuing affair than any one shot affair such as the mandatory determination would have been under the proposal in subclause 329.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: What does the minister mean by a one-shot affair?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Section 329, which was removed by the committee, provided that within three years this determination should be made. If I may dare use a latin word in the presence of the hon. member for Macleod,
I think that section would have been functus. In other words, once this determination had been made there was no further mandatory determination. What parliament had said was to be done would have been done, and it would have been over and done with, or so it would seem to me.

January 26, 1967
Transportation


Gordon Minto Churchill: It could be reopened by the commission.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sorry, was the hon.
gentleman asking me a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would it not be within the competence of the commission to reopen the inquiry two, three or even five years later? It did not restrict the investigation just to the one occasion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre for making a point that perhaps is much stronger than any I have made yet, and for making it very much more clearly than I had been able to. Of course, he too has the advantage of legal training that I lack.
The hon. gentleman asked whether it would not be open to the commission on its own motion to take this step later. Perhaps; I do not know, but certainly parliament would have been saying, if we had passed that clause, that it should be done only the once. This responsibility was to be imposed upon them only once and it would never be imposed again. The possibility might occur a thousand times, but surely that has nothing to do with the case. What that section sought to do was to impose a duty on the commission to make one determination and one determination only, and that would have been the end of the matter.
The amendment that I have offered, Mr. Chairman, so long as it might remain on the statute books, creates a continuing right in a railway to ask the commission anytime after two years that any rate fixed by law has been in effect to fix any rate that the railways set at any time in the future after a lapse of two years, but not ealier. Therefore, it seems to me that really there is a quite fundamental difference between the two objects, that is to say, the object of section 329 and the object of the amendment I have now moved.
If I may put it in this way, Mr. Speaker, the object of section 329 was to make a determination whether the railways asked for it or not. Its object was to make a mandatory determination as to whether certain rates were compensatory once and for all, and which would never recur. If they were not compensatory, the commission was to determine what in its opinion might be a suitable relief or payment.
The amendment before us does not require the commission to do anything about any of these rates unless an application is made in

respect thereto. I suggest that that is a quite different situation in essence from the other situation. I do not deny that in one or two cases the same effects might flow, but in essence it is an altogether different situation. I suggest it is as different as appointing a royal commission of inquiry into something and establishing a court before which a party can appear if he wants to have a determination made as to a certain matter. Surely the difference is pretty fundamental. Also, Mr. Speaker, instead of creating a single operation for one occasion only it would create a continuing process that would be available to the railways, if they wished to avail themselves of it, in a great variety of cases which might arise over and above the one specific case alluded to in section 329.
In addition to that, sir, there is another difference which perhaps may not be fundamental but which I suggest creates two very considerable variants. Not only does the amendment that I am offering, if Your Honour finds it to be in order, provide for a hearing or for any number of hearings in the event they were asked for, but it also provides, in a way for which there was no provision made at all in section 329, for representation of ministers of the crown when they wish to respond to any such application. I do not attach the same importance to that point, but it is a variant.
There is another important variant, sir, in the amendment I have moved. A provision which I thought was very desirable but which the committee saw fit to reject, and which consistent with having this variation I could not possibly find any way to put into the bill, was subsection 3 of section 329 which read as follows:
In making its report under subsection (1), the commission shall have regard to all matters that in its opinion are relevant including any change that has been made by any railway company that is subject to the jurisdiction of parliament in the equipment, methods or procedures used for the loading, carriage and unloading of grain and grain products.
That provision clearly related exclusively to grain and grain products. However desirable it might have been in itself, it would have been out of place in an amendment of the general character and purpose of this amendment.
There is, perhaps, one further point, Mr. Speaker, which was not raised by anyone opposite and was not raised by me in argument before the Chair. The most substantial similarity between section 329 and the
January 26, 1967

amendment which I have sought to move is with respect to the definition of categories of grain and where they should go. I admit that that is just the same as it was in the amendment that was stricken out, but since there seemed to be no exception taken by those on the other side to having that provision in, it does make the two much more similar than they otherwise would have been. I admit that quite readily.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
However, Mr. Speaker, rightly or wrongly I interpreted the vote and decision of the committee as having relation only to the part which is directed to a review and not to the part which is directed to these rates. I would remind Your Honour that that part of the clause has been stricken out by the decision of the committee and that if this amendment is ruled out of order it is going to be very difficult for any hon. member to get it back into the bill. I just make that point en passant.
Finally, there is the proposed section 472 which deals with the rates on domestic grain to British Columbia. There is nothing similar to that provision, of course, in the other clause that was stricken. I do not think, therefore, that it would come into the picture at all. Certain technical amendments proposed at the beginning of my amendment have no relation to section 329, and I am not making anything of that because they are quite incidental. I assume that any decision on this matter would not preclude the right of any hon. member to move an amendment with respect to the new section 468A, and with the typographical error, even if Your Honour could not agree with the chairman that the amendment appeared to be in order.
May I briefly, sir, repeat the three points with respect to the matter in dispute. It seems that the amendment is different, or sufficiently at variance, to be in order. The first point is that there is no mandatory duty imposed on the commission to conduct a review, that there will be no review unless it is requested by a party. Second, the scope of the review that may be made is far wider than the scope of the mandatory review envisaged in section 329. My third point is that this proposed amendment, if it was accepted, would have a continuing effect whereas the other clause provided for one single process, and when that process had been completed it would have no further force or effect except in relation to the grain rates.
Transportation


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have given the minister an opportunity to restate the arguments he advanced the other day in support of the legality of the amendment proposed by the Minister of Fisheries.
As I told hon. members a moment ago, since yesterday I have spent a great deal of time, which may be well understood, considering the arguments advanced and reported in Hansard both in support and in opposition to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Bow River on the proposed amendment to clause 74 of Bill C-231.
In the comments he has made the Minister of Transport has confirmed how extremely difficult and complex this matter is, both in substance and from a procedural standpoint. My colleague, the Deputy Speaker and chairman of the committee of the whole, has spent at least as much time as I have, I am sure, in the preparation of the very learned ruling which was delivered yesterday and is now under appeal. The question is whether our respective and separate studies of the arguments have led us to the same conclusion.
I should state once again that the procedure of an appeal from the chairman of the committee of the whole house to the Speaker places the Chair in an awkward position. This, I am sure, is recognized by all hon. members. Yesterday two members of the house-I refer to the hon. member for Oxford and, I think, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-suggested that perhaps the procedure might be changed in some way. In passing I take the liberty to suggest that a review of the chairman's decision might come to the Chair by way of stated case rather than by way of appeal. Be that as it may, the standing order is there and I have no alternative but submit to its requirements.
It seems to me that when there is nothing more at issue than the chairman's interpretation of the facts on which is based the ruling under appeal, the Speaker should not normally attempt to substitute his own judgment for that of the chairman. This is a principle I have enunciated before. When it is simply a question of judgment with respect to the personal opinion of the chairman of the committee there is no justification in my view, for the Speaker to take the chair to substitute his personal interpretation of facts for those of the chairman of the committee. It may be that in this particular case there is more at issue than a limited question of personal judgment.

January 2G, 1967
Transportation
In his ruling the chairman made the following statement, reported at page 12,240 of yesterday's Hansard:
The problem which the Chair has to decide is whether or not the amendment moved by the Minister of Fisheries is sufficiently different from subclause 329 of clause 50 as to constitute a substantially different question.
In fact, most of the arguments advanced in opposition to the minister's amendment were founded on this approach. I am wondering, however, if this is entirely correct. The problem which the Chair has to decide is not only whether the amendment is different from subclause 329 of clause 50, which in its entirety has been negatived by the committee, but also if the amendment is inconsistent in whole or in part with the committee's recorded decision. The relevant citation is in 406(c) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which is a restatement of the rules cited in May's seventeenth edition, page 549. The citation from Beauchesne is the following:
Amendments are out of order if they are-
(c) inconsistent with a decision which the committee has given upon a former amendment:
The statement in May's seventeenth edition is the following:
An amendment must not be inconsistent with, or contrary to, the bill as so far agreed to by the committee.... nor must it be inconsistent with a decision of the committee upon a former amendment.
I am in full agreement with the chairman that there are many substantial differences between this amendment and the section formerly deleted by the decision of the committee. This, however, does not necessarily satisfy the requirement of the citation to which I have just referred.
In his argument the minister has quite rightly pointed to the differences between the two proposals. These differences possibly are substantial; I am sure that any number of other additional substantial changes might have been tacked on the amendment. The cumulation, however, of all these added changes does not obviate the basic requirement that no part of the new proposal should be inconsistent with the committee's previous decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The committee has voted against a review of certain statutory rates and, contrary to this, the amendment would provide for such a review in certain circumstances. This seems confirmed by the minister's statement of this afternoon. The
minister this afternoon showed that in the one case there is a mandatory review, and in the other what he calls a facultative-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Facultative.


Mr. Speaker:: -review. In the one case there is a one-shot review; in the other a continuing review. These, I admit, are substantial changes and I might even be prepared to admit that the objectives of the original clause and of this amendment may differ. But from my limited understanding it seems that the adoption of the amendment would reinstate in part a clause which has already been rejected in its entirety by the committee.
Hon. members of course are all agreed on the most important rule of procedure, that a question which has once been negatived cannot be proposed again in the same session. I am not suggesting that there is a clear, unimpeachable case one way or the other. I do suggest, however, that the application of citation 406(c) of Beauchesne's fourth edition is enough to raise a serious doubt about the legality of the proposed amendment. I am prepared to interpret the doubt in favour of the most important principle in the citation and to reject the amendment.



NATIONAL ANTHEM


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, before you call the orders of the day may I raise another point of order. I apologize for doing so at this moment without giving notice to Your Honour, although I did raise the matter on an earlier occasion. It has to do with the motion to set up a committee to consider the resolution respecting O Canada and God Save the Queen.
Your Honour will recall that on the earlier occasion I raised a point of order about the propriety of introducing a motion to refer this matter to a committee when there was already on the order paper under government order a motion for consideration of the same matter by the house. Last evening at the hour of adjournment, six o'clock-I was not in the house-the motion to refer the matter to a committee was called and adopted. Neither Your Honour nor I had an opportunity to consider the matter again at that time. I had understood that Your Honour had deferred your ruling on the point of order already raised until the matter would come up for the consideration of the house. The result is that the motion has now been passed.

January 2S, 1987	COMMONS
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
But the question of the propriety of leaving the resolution on the order paper where it appears on page 5 of today's issue still remains. I feel strongly that it is improper and contrary to the rules that a matter should be at one and the same time referred to a select committee for consideration while still standing for the consideration of the house. I submit on the basis of the precedents cited from Beauchesne and particularly from May that if the government wishes to have the matter considered in a committee, the order standing as item 14 on page 5 should be discharged.
In support of this submission I refer Your Honour to May at page 399 where, under the heading "Motions and the rule of anticipation", it is stated:
A motion must not anticipate a matter already appointed for consideration by the house whether it be a bill or an adjourned debate upon a motion.
Instances are then given in support of the principle, and the citation continues:
Stated generally, the rule against anticipation (which applies to other proceedings as well as motions) is that a matter must not be anticipated if it is contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it is sought to be anticipated, but it may be anticipated if it is contained in an equally or less effective form.
In other words, on the basis of the elaboration of the rule the proposal that a matter be referred to committee for consideration is, in my submission, less effective than a resolution that it should be considered and acted upon by the house. The motion for reference to a committee was therefore within the rule against anticipation and should not have been proceeded with unless the other motion had been withdrawn.
It seems to me that members should not seek to complicate unnecessarily the procedures of the house and put the house in a difficult position. What was done yesterday was done and cannot be undone. I am not seeking to have it undone. But I am suggesting that in order to regularize the position Your Honour should now, in accordance with the rule against anticipation, make an order that item of business No. 14 be discharged, as in my submission it should have been discharged at the outset if the government wished to proceed by another method. All matters of procedure, all points of order, and in particular the regulation of the order paper, are within Your Honour's control and it
Duplication of Notices-National Anthem is, I submit, within Your Honour's power to direct that this item be discharged.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to indicate to the hon. member that I did, of course, take into consideration the point of order he raised the other day. I studied it meticulously and prepared a very learned opinion. Indeed, I was sorry when I learned that the house had unanimously agreed to refer this matter to the committee because it deprived me of the pleasure of reading this learned opinion. I can tell the hon. member, if it will bring him some consolation, that the decision was not in his favour, in support of his point of order. Unfortunately there would have been no appeal from the decision which I would have rendered. Perhaps, however, because the point raised by the hon. member is of interest and importance, I might put on record the fruit of my labours which would confirm the opinion I have that I cannot support the point of order raised by the hon. member.
The proposed ruling-and I am reading it now-was along the following lines:
On January 11 last, as reported at pages 11664-65 of Hansard, the hon. member for Kamloops raised a question of order to the effect that it was irregular to have two notices of motions dealing with the question of a national anthem on the order paper under government orders. The hon. member went on to say that he was unable to find an authority for his contention but he suggested that his question of order be taken under consideration by the Chair.
Admittedly, it is unusual to have a duplication of notices dealing with the same subject matter under government orders., but no specific authority bearing on this aspect of the point of order can be found.
The hon. member for Kamloops also suggested that a minister of the crown should ask the house for leave to withdraw item 14 from the order paper. Here again, the Chair might say that it is not in disagreement with the hon. member's statement that it would be tidier were one of these items removed from under government orders. But it is suggested this action may be taken only by a member of the ministry.
At any rate, due notice was given of both item and in turn each was called and transferred to government orders, pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21, for consideration at a subsequent sitting. Since the transfer of government notices is merely a procedural technique adopted in the 1955 session for the
12272	COMMONS
Duplication of Notices-National Anthem purpose of eliminating extended debates during routine proceedings, it is suggested that the house has not yet entered upon the consideration of either of the proposed motions. In this regard the Chair might refer hon. members to the Journals of the house, 1955, page 901, and point out that a similar technique is employed under standing order 47 in respect of notices of motions for the production of papers.
Accordingly, it would appear that the two notices of motions concerning a national anthem are of equal status and that it would be difficult for the Chair at this time-again, of course, I am referring to the position as it was when the point of order was raised by the hon. member for Kamloops-to state which one may be considered by the house and which one the government should remove from the order paper. At any rate, as stated previously, it has not been possible to find any authority that would support the Chair in ordering the removal of one of these notices from the order paper.
There is, however, little doubt that it would be not only illogical but also irregular to proceed concurrently with these two proposed motions and when one of them is taken up for consideration the other, in effect, will lapse. That is to say, when one of the proposed motions has been considered or adopted, or the debate thereon has been adjourned, an order must be made to rescind or discharge any resolution or order of the house that inevitably follows from the consideration of any item of business.
As stated, in part, in section 3, citation 88, Beauchesne's fourth edition:
The discharge of an order is the indispensable preliminary to the making of a different order with regard to the same subject.
In other words, when the report comes from the committee there would, I suggest to the hon. member, be a point of order which might be taken up at that time, that the first order ought to be discharged before the second one is adopted. So it may be the hon. member will have another point of order to raise with regard to these two motions, though it would be premature to do so today.
This was the result of the studies I made of the question. I do not suggest that this is necessarily the last word, and I am quite prepared to review the matter in the light of the additional comments the hon. member has made which perhaps throw a different light on the subject. I hope I shall have an opportunity to make a ruling on this before the second order is adopted by the house.

DEBATES	January 26, 1967
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, January 25, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-231, to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof, and to enact other consequential provisions-Mr. Pickersgill-Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening clause 1 of the bill as amended was under discussion.
On clause 1-National transportation policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word at this point. In view of my lack of success in moving the amendment that I sought to move on clause 74 I wish to say on this clause, upon which there has been a wide-ranging discussion, that after listening to what I am about to say I hope hon. gentlemen will agree to stand clause 1 and revert to clause 74, if the proposal I am going to make is acceptable to the committee.
The proposal I am going to make is that I should be given unanimous consent to move a motion which, in the light of the opinion given to us by the Speaker on appeal, would be clearly out of order if anyone attempted to move it because it would simply be asking the house to reverse a decision that was made on Wednesday of last week.
I do not think at this stage that I need read all the verbiage preceding the amendment which I will ask unanimous consent to move, but the pertinent part is as follows:
"470. (1) In this section "grain products" means any commodities to which, under the freight tariffs of the company in effect on the 1st day of January. 1966, the rates known as grain products rates, flaxseed products rates or rapeseed products rates applied on that date.
(2) It is a condition precedent to the payment to a railway company of any financial assistance provided, in respect of the movement of grain or grain products as in this subsection described, pursuant to a report under paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section 15 or otherwise provided to the company as compensation for an imposed public duty in respect of such movements, within the intent of paragraph (c) of section 1 of the National Transportation Act. that the company has not increased the level of rates prevailing on the 31st day of December, 1966-
And the rest is an absolute repetition of what was in new section 329 describing grain products other than flour moving from any point west of Fort William to Fort William or
January 26, 1967

to Port Arthur over any lines of railway of the company, and so on and so forth.
The purpose of moving this amendment would be to give protection to all the rates that are not directly protected by statute but which are generally called the Crowsnest Pass related rates.
I would also like to be permitted to include provision for renumbering new section 472 and my previous amendment related to domestic rates with respect to British Columbia as new section 471. There was never any dispute with relation to it and it is obviously not in contradiction to anything done up until now.
The effect of accepting this amendment would be to protect all these related rates that are not directly protected by statute. It involves an absolutely direct reversal of the position taken by the house last week and would therefore, under the Speaker's ruling, be even more out of order than the amendment I moved previously. That is why I am saying that I hope I would have unanimous consent. It was certainly never the intention of the government at any time to endanger in any way the rates on any of these grain products that are related to the Crowsnest pass rates.
I appeal to hon. members to overlook the fact that the house took an opposite view on this matter last Wednesday and unanimously to allow me to move my amendment. I am not asking that it be accepted by the committee but, if I had unanimous consent, when we come to clause 74 I could move it because we would have got over any possible procedural difficulty.


Mr. Rapp:: Does the minister's proposed amendment mean that rapeseed will be classified as grain?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The amendment would include rapeseed and every other grain or grain product that up until now has been protected because of orders of the board or decisions of the railways related to the Crowsnest pass rates. The Crowsnest pass rates are protected in new section 328 in clause 50. This proposed amendment would provide protection for all these related rates. I do not think any of us wanted to take that protection away. All I am seeking to do is get over the rules of the house, which I do not seek to invoke against anybody else merely because they were invoked against me, in order to make sure that this protection, which is so important to the western farmers, continues to be afforded to them.
Transportation


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the minister for the rapidity with which he was able to produce another amendment within about 20 minutes of the Speaker's ruling against the previous one. But now that we have it in our hands I would suggest to the minister that rather than asking us at this moment to give unanimous consent, which may subsequently be given, we should have an opportunity to study it because we have to go back to the various sections of the Railway Act. A little later today the minister might repeat his suggestion and perhaps at that stage unanimous consent would be forthcoming.
In saying this I am not doubting that this is an accurate proposition. I am simply asking that we have a little time to study it. The amendment occupies a foolscap page and we want to consult on it. Subject to studying it I think I can say that we will be in agreement with the minister's suggestion because, as I stated previously when I moved to strike out new section 329, I anticipated that something would be substituted somewhere in the bill dealing with the definition of grain products. I thought it might be done in the interpretation clause. The minister has produced a version which we may find to be quite satisfactory, but I ask him to let us study it for a while and renew his request a little later today.
o (4:10 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the exact terms of my amendment are not satisfactory, I think that once we get over the problem of unanimous consent and have them properly before us there could be a further amendment then if anyone wishes to move it. I should not wish to be unreasonable and therefore I am quite prepared, if we can go on and make some progress on clause 1 and perhaps even pass it, to move the other amendment which we had at the beginning and which relates to new section 468A. I do not think I need ask for unanimous consent in that regard. It is true that my whole amendment was ruled out of order, but this part of it in which there are technical amendments was not even mentioned. It certainly has not been considered before. All it does is correct an error or a couple of errors, one in printing and one which is very little more than a grammatical error. It is very important, however, that this should be done. I would hope it could be understood at this stage that there would be no objection to this. It is identical to the first part of the other amendment, that is, it starts

January 28, 1967
Transportation
with certain lines substitutes others, and corrects the typographical error. It does absolutely nothing more.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question while we are reflecting on the amendment which the minister has proposed and while the committee is dealing with clause 1? I should like to ask the minister a question which I think goes to the root of the whole issue. Is it the minister's view that in this amendment the government in effect is accepting what I think was suggested by the hon. member for York South, because I see there is reference to financial assistance being provided in respect of the movement of grain and grain products pursuant to report under paragraph (e) of subclause (1) of clause 15? I take it that this is acceptance by the government of the fact that under clause 15 the transport commission in fact has the right to make a certain inquiry and if as a result of that inquiry it makes certain recommendations the government might have to take some action hinging on that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it is the reverse. My understanding is that it would prohibit any action being taken at all if any of these rates was ever changed. If any of these rates was changed, then a railway would be prohibited, unless a new law was passed by parliament, to receive any compensation whatsoever. It is just the opposite. There may be some implications in it but it is a prohibition in itself.


Gerald William Baldwin: I understand that, but it does accept the fact that the transport commission under clause 15 can hold the type of inquiry which was the subject of discussion. I quite agree that if any changes are made which involve the carriage of grain by railway companies under what are called the statutory or related rates which have become attached to them, then of course the railway companies are out of court but this, I think, does accept the principle that there can be an inquiry under clause 15.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In relation to those matters which are not covered by the statute.


Mr.   Kindi@: Mr. Chairman, would it be possible for the minister to provide us with a copy of his proposed amendment to section 329 so that we may study it? Several of us over here do not have copies.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can assure the hon. member that it is not an amendment to section 329.


Mr.   Kindi@: It is a proposed amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is an amendment to clause 74, which purports to put in two new sections, 470 and 471, of the Railway Act. The section 329 which is now in the bill as amended is the one relating to the At and East rates. This has no relation to it. The old 329 is gone but not forgotten.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, since we are going to allow the minister's proposed amendment to stand while consideration is given to it and while discussion is being carried on in respect of clause 1, may I ask the minister for a brief explanation of the second part of his amendment which has to do with section 471. Section 471 as proposed by the minister was included in the amendment moved by the Minister of Fisheries but I understand it was not in section 329 of clause 50 in the original form.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is an attempt to
meet in the only way which seemed to be very feasible at this stage, without much more study of all the implications than I felt it possible for me to give, the very urgent and rather compelling observations of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra which were echoed by the hon. member for Kootenay West whom I described perhaps rather irreverently as a "venerable echo". Both hon. gentlemen seemed to think that an inquiry of this sort would at least satisfy the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture, which had made representations, that the problem about which it is concerned was being taken under urgent consideration and that indeed a statutory examination of this problem was being provided for. I may say that one of the difficulties to which I did not allude the other day in dealing with this problem in this fashion is that we already have made a decision in the house, under a bill brought in by my hon. friend the Minister of Forestry, to deal with the same problem in another way through freight rate assistance for feed grains. That is not the only problem; there are half a dozen others. I do think, however, that this study ought to be made. It was felt that while this is only the statutory requirement of an examination of the matter, in view of its importance it ought to be done in this way.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I do not like the wording of the clause in the amendment.
January 26, 1967

I wonder whether the minister would consider a change. The reason I do not like the wording is that it says in part:
-the commission shall undertake a study of the differences between rates on grain moving for export to ports in British Columbia-
Then follows the part I do not like:
-and rates on grain moving otherwise-
Does that mean moving east?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. It relates only to ports in British Columbia. To put it bluntly it means the domestic rates as compared to export rates. That is what the people from British Columbia were asking. It has no relation to any part of the country except British Columbia and grain moving into British Columbia.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I have no objection if it relates to ports in British Columbia and so on but I am suspicious of the wording here. I should like to have it changed.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, I might assist the hon. member. If he will read a little further he will find that it says, "on grain moving otherwise to such ports". "Such ports" refers back to the ports of British Columbia. So it refers only to grain moving from the prairies to British Columbia.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, might I say a word?


Herman Maxwell Batten: I recognize the hon. member for Acadia, but I should like to point out to the committee that when the minister rose he rose to ask for unanimous consent to present an amendment to clause 74.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
At the moment I should point out to the committee that we are on clause 1.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to say that I was recorded yesterday as saying some words in the heat of the debate which I now wish I had not said. I do not deny having said them but I would like to apologize to you, having had my faith in democracy restored by what might be termed the supreme court's ruling on the case that was before the house. I should like you to know that the remarks I made were in the heat of battle and I would not like you to consider them to be as harsh as they sounded at the time. I should like to make that apology to you, Mr. Chairman.
Transportation
Having said that I should like to ask the minister a question. There is a small amendment to clause 74, section 469, which I should like to move. Would the minister like to hear the amendment now or are we to discuss clause 1 at this time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no reason why the hon. gentleman should not make an amendment as long as it is in order, and I wish him better luck than I had.
May I say, sir, how pleased I am by what the hon. member for Acadia said today. I think he has revealed to me and to a lot of us that in the consideration of this bill about which he felt very strongly and to which he has applied himself with great diligence-and I would say has had some influence on-he has revealed to us a new side and has gained new stature and new respect in the house. We all do things in the heat of battle. Perhaps I do not get as hot as fast as some other hon. members do, although I think perhaps there have been times when I have been provoked. I regretted and deplored the fact that those words were uttered. I am glad the hon. gentleman feels the same way and I hope Your Honour will feel that the amends are complete. I am sure all of us on both sides of the house have absolutely undiminished confidence in Your Honour's impartiality.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Can the chairman tell us what clause we are considering now? Are we on clause 1 or on clause 74?


Herman Maxwell Batten: May I say to the hon. member for Acadia that we are now on clause 1 and it would be the preference of the Chair if the hon. member could hold his amendment in abeyance until we get to clause 74.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since we are proceeding in a highly irregular but somewhat more harmonious fashion and since we have allowed in discussion of clause 1 latitude almost beyond where latitude stretches, perhaps we could let the hon. gentleman read the amendment which he proposes to move at a later stage and send a copy to you, Mr. Chairman, so that it would be handy when we reach clause 74. This would give me a little chance to do some thinking about it.


Herman Maxwell Batten: If it is the intention of the hon. member for Acadia to give notice of the amendment which he proposes to move I would suggest to him that there is nothing irregular in that procedure.

January 26, 1967
Transportation


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The amendment I propose to move is to clause 74, section 469. I give notice of it if the minister wishes to study it.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Perhaps the hon. member misunderstood me. I see nothing irregular in receiving from the hon. member notice of an amendment which he proposes to move to clause 74 while we are on clause 1.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will deal with my suggested amendment first. As has been stated many times before, this bill deals with many aspects of transportation. On reading committee proceedings No. 34, in which appears a brief submitted by Canada Steamship Lines, a small omission in clause 74 was brought to my attention. On page 2301 of the proceedings of that committee this company presents strong arguments in support of its contention that section 469 of clause 74 does not allow it a phasing out period with regard to the subsidy to which it is entitled under the Freight Rates Reduction Act. Section 469 states:
"eligible companies" means the railway companies under the jurisdiction of parliament that are subject to Order No. 93600-[DOT]
The point is that Canada Steamship Lines has been entitled to part of the subsidy under the Freight Rates Reduction Act, which was a roll-back of the 17 per cent increase. Order No. 93600 refers directly to the order of the Board of Transport Commissioners allowing the transportation companies to increase their freight rates by 17 per cent.
In 1959 the government introduced the Freight Rates Reduction Act which states that "company" means a transportation company. The important point here is that in the Freight Rates Reduction Act reference is made to transportation companies while in section 469 reference is made to railway companies and the phasing out over a three year period of the $20 million subsidy granted to them under the Freight Rates Reduction Act. I do not know just what is the minister's intention in changing the wording from "transportation companies" to "railway companies".
On page 2436 of the same proceedings of the transport committee there is a list of transportation companies which have received the subsidy. I could read it but to save time let me say that there are about 13 companies in all and only one of them is a steamship line; the others are railway companies.
[The Chairman.]
Some of them are United States railway companies. As the bill stands now, on that part of the business done in Canada by United States railway companies they will be allowed a phasing out period under the bill but we are excluding Canada Steamship Lines whose freight rates on class and non-competitive goods were frozen on the introduction of the Freight Rates Reduction Act.
I think it is logical to expect that they should be given an equal chance with regard to the phasing out of this subsidy. If they are not, they are being placed in a difficult position vis-a-vis the railway companies with whom they are in competition. The railway companies will be allowed to keep their rates a little below those the competition shall set, but the steamship company will have to set its rates in relation to its costs and in that case they will be higher than those of the railways. Therefore the steamship company will either lose business to the railway companies, because with this subsidy the railway companies will be able to charge lower rates, or the steamship company will have to keep its rates low and lose money or have a diminishing return in respect of profits. In this connection I have taken into consideration the minister's remarks as reported at page 12130 of Hansard. In dealing with this matter he said:
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
It was represented to us in the standing committee by the Canada Steamship Lines that their rates had been frozen at the time of the rate freeze put on by the previous government in 1959-
The minister went on to say that he had given this matter a great deal of thought and had come to the conclusion that because the transitional subsidies for the railways are made up of a number of different things, upon some of which Canada Steamship Lines has no claim to any share, this computation should be made very carefully. Surely the minister is there suggesting that by some means Canada Steamship Lines has been receiving part of this subsidy under the Freight Rates Reduction Act which it cannot justify or was not entitled to receive. If it was entitled to part of the $20 million subsidy provided under the Freight Rates Reduction Act, it should be entitled to part of the money which will be allocated to these companies in the phasing out period.
I have a minor amendment which I should like to put forward. I ask the minister to consider it very seriously. I have read the remarks of the minister in this regard. He
January 26, 1967

suggests there are a number of differences. If there are a number of differences, Canada Steamship Lines must have been receiving payments in the past to which it was not entitled or there has been some error somewhere.
When this clause comes before the committee again I will move that the word "transportation" be substituted for the word "railway" in line 28 on page 63 of the bill. I shall do this because the clause pertains to order No. 96300 and that order is specifically concerned with the Freight Rates Reduction Act. It is stated in that act that "company" means a transportation company. There is a difference between a transportation company and a railway company. Having said that, and I shall probably say more when the amendment is before us, I shall send a copy of the amendment to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the minister. I should now like to deal briefly with the bill in general.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether before the hon. gentleman does that he would permit me to make a very brief observation about his proposed amendment. I would have some difficulty in accepting it in the form it is. But in view of the statement I made to which the hon. gentleman referred -I forget which clause we were dealing with at the time but it does not matter; it was some time ago-about putting an item in the estimates, I will see whether between now and the time we reach clause 74 again I can find some form of words that would perhaps indicate that an appropriate sum, because I think the rules would have to be slightly different in this cause on account of certain other payments that were made to the railways for other reasons, should be made available to Canada Steamship Lines and any other transportation company covered in the order. Then this provision would be in the bill.
I can see the great advantage of having it in the bill. It is a problem only of seeing whether we can find a form of words that will express the intent we both have and not do something that was unintended. The reason I rose to make this speech was not for the members of the committee so much as for certain persons who are not present but who in fact we all know are in the gallery.


Mr. MacEwan:: The heavenly host.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I appreciate the minister's remarks. I would like to say a word or two about the purpose of the bill. I know that
Transportation
perhaps most hon. members think I have said enough about it already but there are one or two other things I should like to say. My remarks concern the over-all purpose of the bill and its effects. I shall not deal with the public utilities aspect other than to say that the bill denotes that competition shall be the keynote in transportation in the years ahead. Competition shall be the guide line which will in effect set rates, provide services and, we hope, put the railways in a better financial position. In a sense this is one of the big reasons for the bill. It arose from the report of the MacPherson commission which felt we had to do something to allow the railways to obtain more revenue.
However, I would point out that the bill puts no ceiling whatsoever on the railways. They can charge as much as the traffic will bear. This is where we will get into trouble. We see farm machinery companies all across Canada charging whatever the traffic will bear. The Minister of Agriculture made some brave statements some time ago. He said he would watch this situation and the farm machinery companies would have to account for any price increase. We have seen price increases on farm machinery but we have not seen any action by the minister.
It is perhaps a true interpretation of the minister to say that he says a lot and does very little. This takes me back to his tour of western Canada shortly after he became Minister of Agriculture. He went there to test western reaction with regard to an eastern lawyer being made Minister of Agriculture. I remember the brave statements with regard to transportation that he made in Winnipeg. I wish we had had his help in the last couple of weeks on the subject we have been debating. He has been noticeable by his absence. He was reported as having said:
The C.P.R. is chafing more and more under statutory freight rates that it maintains are unrealistically low in modern days. Mr. Greene displayed a good grasp of Canadian history and economics in publicly stating that the C.P.R. was given rich rewards in return for the guaranteed freight rates.
It is too bad he could not have said that in the house where it would really count. He also said at about the same time on the same tour, as reported in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of January 13, 1966:
There was one slight departure from the latter when he-

January 26, 1967
Transportation
The Minister of Agriculture.
-told newsmen that the C.P.R. should abandon oil rights "and other amenities" if it wanted to claim a right to rail line abandonments on strictly economic principles.
It is too bad the Minister of Agriculture could not put some emphasis on this matter when we were debating the question of branch line abandonment. It is lucky for us that after this bill passes branch line abandonments will be considered by the transport commission which is to be set up. I should like to see the Minister of Agriculture representing some of the people in rural areas in which lines are to be abandoned and hear him state publicly then that the Canadian Pacific should abandon its oil rights and other amenities if it wanted to claim the right to rail line abandonment on strictly economic principles. These are very sound words. It is too bad the minister did not pronounce them more often during the last two weeks.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I could go on quoting from the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture during his western swing. He said:
Some very drastic action should be taken...to ensure that grain can be moved as quickly as possible.
Is this bill going to answer that problem? The Minister of Agriculture never told us what the drastic action would be under this bill during the two weeks we have been discussing it. I hope he will take part in the debate on clause 1 and tell us just how this bill can be improved before third reading and what drastic action he is considering.
In the same newspaper, he is also reported as follows:
"The first thing that made me see red," he said-
I suppose he is another one who loses his temper.
-was a situation that arose when Canada sought to send grain to help relieve famine in India.
"Even though the country had the commodities and shipping available," he said, "it was not able to move the grain because of railway limitations."
We hear all this talk about rail line abandonment and we have a minister of the Crown who went out west so he realizes there are many limitations on the railways and our grain is not able to move. This is an interesting point that was not made earlier in this debate.
I should like to quote from the Star-Phoenix of January 14, 1966 some further sentiments attributed to the minister. He has not

been very forthright in the last two weeks during this debate but apparently he was forthright during that western swing to test the climate. This editorial reads in part:
But Mr. Greene did echo the sentiments of many prairie citizens that as far as the current grain movement situation is concerned, "We might as well be back in the stone age."
This statement verifies the point I was making earlier that there has to be a good deal of modernization of the railway plant and grain handling equipment. However, the minister has not made any suggestions in this regard.
The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of January 21, 1966 deals with what the Minister of Agriculture had to say about the Canadian Pacific. Then the minister went on to deal with the farmers. We have not heard him speak for the farmers lately. He was going to do something with regard to farm machinery prices. I tie in all these remarks because in this bill we are taking the wraps off the railways. They can earn as much as they like. They can charge as much as the traffic will bear.
The minister was going to do great things with regard to farm machinery but he has not done anything. He has not even produced a set of guide lines. Some of the other ministers have relied heavily on guidelines but he has not produced any. He made a bold statement about the railway situation in western Canada. We have had a long, difficult debate on this bill, but not once did he give us the benefit of his wisdom. Not once did he stand up in the house and say, "I have a duty to speak when the farmers are prejudiced as they are." Not once did the minister take part in this debate to outline the modernization that he felt should take place in grain handling.
I should like to say one more thing about the movement of grain while we are on this aspect of the problems of western Canada and our whole transport system. Many members will wonder why we debated the question of the Crowsnest pass rates review so hotly. Here is a very good example. I should like to quote from an editorial in the Montreal Gazette for January 20. The heading is "Botched Bill'. The editorial makes reference to last Wednesday when we defeated clause 50. One sentence in the editorial reads:
What is certainly an issue is how much the railways should be paid for carrying such products at uneconomic rates.
January 26, 1967

We have heard judges criticize newspapers for passing judgment before a case has been heard. Here is a newspaper which boldly says that these are uneconomic rates. It reminds me of the attitude of the press throughout this debate. We in this House of Commons have been told time and time again by the news media that we should get down to work, that it is a terrible thing the way members project their petty conditions, their petty jealousies, and fight for personal gain. The news media, radio and television are continually telling members to get down to work, to set aside petty things and produce some honest-to-goodness legislation for the good of Canada.
The bill before us was described by the Minister of Transport as the most important piece of legislation that this house will be dealing with this year. We have spent two weeks debating it here and we spent six weeks studying it in the transport committee. We moved seventy amendments in the committee and we have moved something like seven or eight amendments here during the last two weeks. Do you know what I heard on C.T.V. news last Sunday evening? In a report on what was happening in Ottawa it was stated that Ottawa has been rather dull during the last two weeks, that not much has been happening but that the weeks ahead look good because there is a fight developing in the Conservative party over whether there should be an early or late leadership convention. Who is it who projects across the country the image of members not working? It is the vultures who sit up there. They are the ones who project this image across the country. No wonder we have a man coming to Ottawa and attempting to throw a bomb into this chamber.
There was an editorial in the Star Weekly some time ago to the effect that members had brought this on themselves because they had driven the man into a state of frustration. He had written letters and the newspaper reached this decision because of the letters he had written. The newspaper said the members of this house drove the man to frustration by continually fighting, displaying petty jealousies and trying to pick a fight over nothing. This is what we are supposed to be doing. We have been working hard for two weeks on this bill and we worked for six weeks in the committee. We have examined a bill which has some 94 clauses and will affect the Canadian economy. The minister described it as the most important piece of legislation the house will deal with this year.
Transportation
The vultures sit up there waiting to see whether or not a member is going to be in a dangerous position. Then they flock in and feast upon the bones. If we are all healthy and working there is nothing sensational about which they can write so they circle high and stay away. They know nothing and care nothing about a parliament which is working. They want sensationalism to sell their newspapers and capture the imagination of the television and radio audiences. They have agitated the public and discredited the House of Commons all across Canada. They alone are responsible for the disrespect in which this house is held. It is high time that they educated themselves. When I first came to Ottawa I used to forgive the press.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope the hon. gentleman will not mind too much, but a little while ago he asked what we were doing about speeding up the movement of grain. I should like to speed up movement of this bill a little, if we could leave the vultures aside and get on with the debate.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am going to deal with another aspect of the press and also with seaway tolls. The minister has thrown me completely off stride but I will come back to it.
When I first came to Ottawa to represent an agricultural area I used to forgive the press because not too many of them were farm boys or knew much about agriculture. Therefore I could not expect them to write intelligently on the subject. I had hoped that after nine years some members of the press gallery above us would become educated and would write intelligently about agriculture, but I found that as soon as they began to write intelligently their editors took them out of the House of Commons.
What the press wants is sensationalism. They do not try to create a good impression of what members of parliament are doing in the House of Commons. We have worked hard over the last two weeks and have brought in some beneficial amendments to this bill. We improved clause 16. We deleted the provision for a review in regard to a major commodity in western Canada. We improved clause 1 and amended a number of clauses in committee of the whole.
I should now like to turn to another subject dealing with transportation, and that is seaway tolls.

January 26, 1967
Transportation


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to seem to restrict any hon. member, but there is absolutely nothing in the bill having to do with seaway tolls, sir. I commend the hon. gentleman for his zeal, but an encyclopaedic debate at this late stage of the bill surely is not warranted.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We all realize, Mr. Chairman, that this bill embraces all modes of transportation. The minister should not have been quite so quick. An earlier clause in the bill deals with the Transport Act which in turn deals with navigable waters in Canada. I should like to deal with navigable waters in Canada for a minute or two and also with the very foundation of the bill.
The bill provides that competition shall be the ruling force in setting rates. How can we move our goods to export markets by using a transportation system which has no regard for the movement of such goods to export markets?
I should like to quote an article in the Manitoba Co-operator for January 19 which says among other things:
Washington has advised Canada it cannot reach an agreement on Canadian proposals to increase St. Lawrence Seaway tolls by roughly 10 per cent-
According to this article Canada wants to increase seaway tolls. The farmers want to move their grain economically to the lake-head by rail and then through the St. Lawrence seaway which was built by taxpayers' dollars and is part of a modern transportation system in Canada. Yet the Canadian government wants to increase tolls by 10 per cent. This is a problem that we are facing. Under this legislation railway companies can charge what the traffic will bear. We now see the Canadian government placing domestic producers in Canada in a worse position by advocating that seaway tolls go up another 10 per cent.
I urge the minister and the new transportation commission set up under this bill to keep a close and careful watch over the railway companies and the seaway authority. The onus will be on them to assure producers, whether it be of wheat, iron ore or manufactured goods, the right to move their goods to domestic or export markets. Even a manufacturer who wants to move his goods to a market in Canada must do so as economically as possible or he will be faced with severe competition from abroad. The same thing applies to the movement of iron ore or of wheat from western Canada by rail to the lakehead and

then through the St. Lawrence seaway system to their final market. Control of transportation will rest with the 17-man commission that this bill will set up and the onus will be on that commission to assure the producers of Canada the right to market their products.
May I make one more point about competition. Up to this time the rate setter in the major centres of Canada has been the railways. Trucking companies have followed along at correspondingly lower rates in order to assure for themselves a portion of the business. As we look ahead this bill provides no ceiling on rate setting by the railways, so how is competition going to affect the rate setting of the railways?
Competition will have to come from the air lines. More and more air lines are moving into the field of bulk haulage of freight. The bill is very deficient, to say the least, in bringing about more competition among the various modes of transportation. It does nothing to amend the Aeronautics Act to allow for greater competition between the air lines and railways in the haulage of freight from many centres in Canada producing goods for domestic markets. During the past year businessmen in cities like Calgary, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver have been complaining that sufficient landing rights had not been established between their cities and other countries.
This bill does nothing, Mr. Chairman, to remedy the deficiencies in the Aeronautics Act and it does nothing to promote real competition between the modes of transportation which will set the rates in the years ahead, namely the air lines and railway companies. There is no doubt that the trucking companies will be in favour of the railway companies increasing their freight rates, because that in turn will allow the trucking companies to increase their rates on a scale in most cases somewhat below that of the railways.
In many respects this bill is deficient. While we have worked hard in the committee during the past two weeks and improved the bill a great deal, it could be further improved and broadened a good deal to provide greater safety for domestic producers and increased competition among the various modes of transportation.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, after 12 or 13 days of debate I think I may be allowed to speak and although I was assured two days ago that I would be the first to speak
January 26, 1967

on clause 1, other members once again got in ahead of me. But I realize, as the discussion goes on, that the first mistake of the minister was to show excessive tolerance to the other members who break the rules of the house. We have here, I feel, the natural result that ensues when the rules are not observed. I am completely opposed to this idea of standing consideration of clause 1 to the end of the debate. We see now what happens in such a case. We stand clause 1 and go on to clause 20, 50, 60 or 75 and then revert to clause 1 and to the point where we have to listen to members speak four or five times on clause 1. We can even see amendments to clause 4 or 75 brought forth on clause 1.
I think we are making the worst imaginable mess of this thing and that we cannot entirely blame one group or another for it, although one newspaperman took it upon himself to blame the whole opposition saying that the opposition was carrying out a filibuster.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out at this time that I am the first of my party to rise to speak on this transport bill. I have only general remarks to make but this I should like to say to the newspaperman I have mentioned and for whom I have much esteem: I am very surprised at his statement because he usually is very careful about what he writes. He seems to have taken leave of his good habits this time. It may be that certain parties gave the newspaperman the impression that a filibuster was being carried out but there again, I am not ready to cast the first stone at anyone because in view of the significance of this bill, it is quite normal I think that such a discussion be foreseen, particularly on the part of the Conservatives, but I should not like to put all the blame on them because if more Conservatives seem to take part in this discussion, it may be because we have been discussing the problems of the west for the last 12 days.
In this regard, I was saying a few minutes ago that I am most anxious to get out, to fly out, once and for all from this Crows-nest pass.
We have been in the Crowsnest pass for about ten days and I wonder when it will hatch. Here again, I am not blaming the members from western Canada, because they are pleading their case, and I only hope that from now on we shall adhere to the rules. I object especially to any violation of the rules, because if we had fully complied with the standing orders, we would not be experiencing our present difficulties today.
Transportation
I do not wish to speak too long on the subject, because I tried to take a few notes so as to keep my remarks to a minimum and avoid incurring the accusations often made by journalists against the opposition.
Mr. Chairman, allow me first of all to congratulate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). We have few opportunities to do so, but I must commend him for his continual attendance in the house during the discussion of his bill. He is also to be commended for his repeated interventions, because it seems, at first sight, that he has taken up alone half the time devoted to this study. It was worthwhile, since we shall probably pass within a few days one of the most important bills for the country. The minister was therefore right when, in his statement at the committee stage, as reported on page 11372 of Hansard for December 20, 1966, he gave the following warning:
I think we all realize that transportation, as I have said too many times already, is the bony structure of our country and that it is very important to keep the skeleton healthy if the body politic is to be at all healthy. We had a big responsibility, when we came to do something about its basic structure, to make sure that we did it well.
In fact, Bill No. C-231 indicates the course of action for the future Canadian Transport Commission. I must say also that I was greatly surprised when, after that introduction, the minister told the house that this bill should be passed before December 31, 1966, in order to avoid the legal and administrative effects of a delay.
Those are very surprising words coming from a minister whom I always considered very sincere.
The minister knew very well, when he said this, that he was asking the house to do the impossible. He knew very well that the budget contained no provision for further payments to the railways after December 31, 1966. The minister also knew that the order in council dealing with the freeze on present rates for grain moved to Atlantic and eastern ports was due to lapse on December 31, 1966.
He was perfectly aware of the conditions set forth by the railways with respect to abandonment of branch lines on so-called protected lines. Knowing all this, why was the bill not introduced two months earlier? Why was it not brought down ahead of the medicare bill, for example, which will only be put into operation in 1968? Why did he take such a risk with the economy of our

January 26, 1967
Transportation
country? Was it to protest loudly and publicly that the opposition is holding up the business of the house? Or did he wish to shock the house so that it would hastily pass a piece of legislation deserving the most thorough scrutiny?
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
That is the procedure to which we have always taken exception, ever since we came here, and we entreat the government to stop playing this game, for although I have drawn the attention of the house to the present bill, I could say as much for other measures, for the government has taken wicked pleasure in using this weapon.
Canada is a vast country and it seems even bigger as in the course of the present debate one hears the different opinions of various parts of the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific and particularly as one becomes aware of the different worries and many needs of the various economic regions. In fact, I think it might be preferable to have a definite law for each region in the country.
Therefore, I hope the hon. minister, who is certainly full of good will, as may be seen from his patience in listening to all our opinions and his determination in answering all our questions as clearly as possible, may give this direction to the business of the house.
Often, it is not his explanations which seem obscure, but the economic complexity and diversity of various regions which make it difficult to implement legislation.
In some parts of Canada, all modes of transport are operating simultaneously and seem to be in competition with one another while in some others, there is neither the number nor the competition, yet, all citizens are entitled to the same justice.
For instance, in my riding of Roberval, the activities are far less numerous than in large cities, since we make shift with the C.N.R. and private trucking. We hope that with the new act, the Roberval-Lake St. John valley will be looked upon as deserving more attention than it has received in the past.
As far as the Canadian National is concerned, I should not like this bill to permit the Canadian Transport Commission to simply eliminate the Chambord-Dolbeau branch line. I am notifying the hon. minister because the C.N.R. authorities have already tried to greatly reduce the freight service by suggesting the closing of certain stations in rural areas.

Of course, I am not afraid of the branch line being eliminated, for the C.N.R. knows very well, in view of freight level and logging companies and so on, that this branch line is the most economical in eastern Canada in relation to its run.
But, it is on passenger service that I wish to call the attention of the minister. Certain young Montreal technocrats, who came to the area, will try to satisfy the commission that the operation of that passenger train is uneconomical. But I can assure you that it is so because the most important point of all was overlooked: service. Indeed, if users in Montreal, Ottawa or Toronto were to receive the same treatment as those of the Lake St. John-Roberval area the "intermetropolitan" trains would be empty.
Once it has been decided that a line is uneconomical, it is not so stated overnight. They do precisely as the Canadian National authorities are now doing, in my area. They start by removing the postal service, thus taking a capital daily revenue from the express service. They gradually abandon the express service to individuals, to such a point that we now have left but one express car, and they even talk about removing it. And because not a single dollar was spent on improving passenger service in the last 30 years, because there is a preference for building skyscraper hotels in large centres, the future commission will be directed to take away the last passenger train, while the former users will still be obliged to foot the bill for the follies committed in large centres. Such is the sorry lot of our remote areas.
In order to remedy this situation, I suggest that commissioners should be chosen in remote areas rather than in large cities; for instance, they should be chosen among the chairmen of great farm co-operatives in the province or in all other provinces, the labour leaders, county council associations, etc., since the law will, after all, be administered by the commissioners. Therefore, we must act at that level in order to assure equal justice.
After freezing the arbitrary decisions of the Canadian National authorities until this bill is passed, we now ask the government to make a sensible choice of commissioners.
In our area, the track itself should be completely rebuilt. That is what is most urgently needed. Then, there are the passenger coaches. The minister must convince the C.N.R. management, since we failed to do it, that the coaches for the Chambord-Dolbeau
January 26, 1967

line will be used by human beings. I wish the minister had come to my riding, particularly around the Christmas and New Year holidays. I would say that the coaches we had were the first ever used in Canada. As a matter of fact, for a moment I was sure that they were being shipped to the Saguenay historical society museum when a station master brought me back to earth.
I know that the minister likes a good laugh but there is a limit to ridicule. I am confident that this time my representations will be heard favourably and that I will not have to raise the matter a tenth time.
I also want to call to the attention of the minister the situation of our private trucking companies which are up against the C.N.R. with its own fleet of trucks. In fact, when we subsidize the C.N.R. and, indirectly, its trucks or trailers with the taxpayers' money, we must remember that we are also taxing the trucking companies which employ more people in my area than the C.N.R. Thus we are forcing our private companies to pay the cost of an unfair and illegal competition. The new legislation must therefore prevent such injustice.
I also pointed out to the minister on other occasions some hypocritical methods used by the C.N.R. on passenger trains running between Montreal and Dolbeau, particularly with regard to sleeping cars. A few years ago, accommodations cost $5, then $7 and today $9. That is more than the price of the ticket. You will be told that the $9 includes $2 for the meal, but what if the passenger does not eat-indeed what if he cannot eat-in fact, the train leaves Montreal at 9.30 p.m., long after supper time, and in the morning, when you wake up, in Roberval or in Saint-Felicien, there is neither kitchen nor cook. For the return trip, it is even worse, since we arrive in Montreal at 7.10, and coffee is served at eight o'clock. I say "coffee" because I had the experience once: when I came in to the dining-car at seven o'clock, I was told that there was no more coffee.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
If this is not deluding the public hypocritically, I wonder what all that means. Where are those truly responsible in the Canadian National?
Furthermore, what effect will this bill have on interprovincial transportation? Mr. Chairman, on this point, I would simply like to quote an article which appeared in La Presse today, the 26th of January, pointing out that
Transportation
Quebec had protested to Ottawa about that. I trust that the minister received this protest, since we can read this.
The federal bill to define and Implement a national transportation policy for Canada prompted strong protest from Quebec to the federal government.
That is what Quebec premier Daniel Johnson said yesterday in the legislature in reply to the leader of the opposition, Mr. Jean Lesage.
Mr. Jean Lesage had asked the premier to table the correspondence he had exchanged with the federal Minister of Transport, and Mr. Johnson replied that he could not, unless he received permission to do so from the minister himself. That is as it should be, it is legal, because that is what we are told here when a question is asked about a third party; I believe the Quebec premier was right in giving such an answer. On the other hand, the attack by the Leader of the Opposition was nothing but boastfulness and hypocrisy.
I hope the present minister saw to it that an answer was forwarded to the Quebec premier as soon as he received this protest, because I sincerely feel that the Quebec government is very worried at present, and has good reason to be, in view of what has been happening these last few years.
Repeating that he had sent a letter of violent protest to Ottawa, Mr. Johnson said, and I quote from the newspaper:
-the bill, to which Mr. Lesage had given his approval while in Ottawa, represented a "mousetrap" which the Union Nationale government had continuously rejected before 1960.
He went on to say that clause 5 of the bill contained a provision enabling the federal authorities to take over provincial jurisdiction in the transportation field.
Now then, we would not want to pass a bill providing more mouse-traps, thus placing Quebec in an even more difficult position.
I want to put one last point on the record -since words come to pass and writings remain-with respect to newspaper reports on increased Canadian Pacific Railway profits. No doubt all hon. members have read this report. For the month of November, Canadian Pacific Railway revenues amounted to $48,103,659, with expenditures totalling $43,880,358, leaving $4,223,301 in net profits for one month. The report goes on to state the profits, revenues and expenses covering an 11-month period. From January to November, 1966, railway revenues amounted to $505,392,223, with expenses totalling $461,859,497 giving a net profit, for 11 months, of $43.532,726.

January 26, 1967
Transportation
The figures are then compared with those of Canadian National Railways, a crown corporation. For the same 11-month period, Canadian National Railway revenues amounted to $812,309,000 with operating expenses totalling $802,305,000 leaving a difference of $10,004,000, which represents the net deficit on railway operations.
Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am very surprised to note according to those figures, that the Canadian Pacific Railway, with net profits exceeding $43 million, enjoys the same subsidies as the Canadian National Railways, operating at a $10 million deficit.
What is being protected through all that? What influence does the Canadian Pacific have with the authorities of the commission that it can get the best lines while benefiting from the same assistance as the Canadian National? Might some of the powers that be in the Canadian National have interests in the Canadian Pacific? Why are some shareholders of the Canadian Pacific going up in the management of the Canadian National?
There, sir, are some of the questions the people of Canada are asking themselves today. The time I am allotted does not allow me to take the wraps off that extremely favoured company, the Canadian Pacific. We had another example yesterday, when a member proposed an amendment to allow municipalities to tax the Canadian Pacific where it operates within their limits. The amendment was negatived.
The Canadian Pacific has nearly always been exempt from paying certain taxes. Even the minister, at times, seemed to invite the Canadian Pacific to pay certain taxes in certain places. I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that the point is not to "invite" that company, because the Canadian Pacific is just an ordinary company like all the other companies in Canada which pay taxes for their presence, but to require the payment of taxes by the Canadian Pacific as a private company. If this bill stipulated that the Canadian Pacific must pay taxes, in view of all the privileges it enjoys, this would not only benefit the Canadian people but it would be fair toward the other companies.
It is incumbent on the government to bring our transportation companies into line and to remind them that they must serve the people not take advantage of the people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a brief word about one subject

which the hon. gentleman mentioned. He made reference to certain proceedings that took place in the Quebec legislature yesterday. Strictly speaking, under the rules of our house we are not supposed to import strangers into our debates here, but I am not going to make any point of that. I have the impression that if we in this house talked about the exercise by a provincial legislative assembly of its functions we would be criticized pretty strongly in that assembly.
What I want to make very clear is that although there was very little if any debate in committee on Part III of the bill, that part of the bill respecting extra-provincial motor vehicle transport is completely and exclusively within the jurisdiction of this parliament.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
There is absolutely nothing in it which invades in any way anything about which a provincial legislature can legislate. If we are to have any law at all in this country with regard to trucking companies which operate from one province to another or which travel out of a province into another country, that law can be made by this parliament and by this parliament alone. No one else can make such a law because that is the way the constitution reads. We cannot regulate trucking operations which are entirely within a province because that is entirely within provincial jurisdiction. We have never attempted to touch that and are not doing so in this bill. We have no intention in this regard.
With regard to the Motor Vehicle Transport Act passed by this parliament in 1954, the purpose of that act was to fill a vacuum in the law. For many years it had been believed that jurisdiction over all trucking operations, even those crossing from one province to another or even going outside the country, was within the province. This parliament never attempted to make any law regarding that subject matter until the matter was taken to the courts and carried to the Privy Council. The Privy Council decided that parliament and parliament alone could make laws in respect of that matter.
The result was that there was no law at all, because parliament had never made one. At that time I was a very junior member of the government but, as I believe every hon. member here knows, I was a very close personal friend and a former aide, if you like, of the then prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent. I remember very well the discussion which took place at that time about this decision. I
January 26, 1967

Transportation
remember very well the time when the Motor Vehicle Transport Act was introduced to fill this gap in the law. This act has been the law of Canada since 1954 and to the best of my knowledge its constitutionality has never been challenged in the only place where a challenge could be made effective, in the courts, by any provincial government or by any agent of a provincial government. That is the situation. All we are doing here is continuing to exercise that jurisdiction which parliament and parliament alone possesses. That is the factual situation.
This is a free country and I take no exception at all to what anyone wishes to say concerning what we are doing in this house. We, after all, are the people who must decide what is to be done in matters which are exclusively under the jurisdiction of parliament. I suggest that if we are to have a country at all it is just as important to protect the autonomy of Canada as it is to protect the autonomy of any province. I do not believe there is any member in this house who has been more anxious than I to respect in letter and in spirit the full rights of the provincial legislatures which are given to them by the constitution. I believe that the powers that were given to the provincial legislatures were given to them and to them only and that we should neither attempt to invade them nor take them away. I also believe, however, that provincial legislatures and other people should not try to take away from parliament or appear to suggest that parliament cannot exercise the jurisdiction which belongs to us and to us alone, in this parliament as representatives of the people of Canada.
It is possible that we might desire to change the constitution or change some of its provisions. This has been done before. It was done quite recently. It was done in 1952 in respect of old age pensions and there was another amendment made a year or two ago. These amendments can be made. But so long as jurisdiction belongs to this parliament and to this parliament alone we are the only ones who have any say concerning how that power shall be exercised. Each person must act according to his best idea of what is the proper thing for us to do.


Mr. Gauihier:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? I thank the hon. minister for his answer and I would like to ask him whether it would be possible to tell us if he received any protests from the province of Quebec and whether he answered them.

Mr. Pickersgillr The hon. member for Sherbrooke attempted to ask the same question on orders of the day. At that time I happened to be out of the chamber for a moment or two preparing for later events. I therefore was not able to answer his question. I indicated to him that if he would ask it at this time I would have an answer for him. I think it is only fair to the hon. member for Sherbrooke that I should mention this because he was very alert to ask the question, as the hon. member for Roberval has been. The answer is that I received no protest from the premier of Quebec. I would not have expected to. The premier of Quebec did write about this matter to the Prime Minister. He is the person to whom I would expect the premier to write. The Prime Minister replied. I believe there was a second letter and a second reply. I consulted my right hon. friend in anticipation of the question from the hon. member for Sherbrooke.
I am authorized by the Prime Minister to say that so far as we are concerned there would be no objection whatever to the production of this correspondence but we feel, nonetheless, we should make sure by means other than reading about it in a newspaper that the premier of Quebec has no objection. Steps will be taken to do that today, I hope, so that if there is no objection we can comply tomorrow or at the latest on Monday with the request for the correspondence which I should be very glad to have made public.


The Deputy Chairman:: Does the hon. member for Sherbrooke wish to direct a question or to take part in the debate?


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, I should have liked to participate in the debate. But it seems to me the Chair is a little short-sighted and that we do not often get the opportunity, in this corner of the house of being recognized, especially during this debate on transportation.
So, if you do not recognize me, I will resume my seat once again.


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member said that the Chair seems to be affected with a visual defect of some kind or that it is a little short-sighted. I must point out to the hon. member, who gave notice to the Chair of his desire to ask a question, that it is for that reason I am asking him whether he

January 26, 1967
Transportation
wishes to ask a question or take part in the debate.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, the question was asked previously by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier). I should like to participate in the debate for five or six minutes, not very long, as you deem it proper.


Mr. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I have followed this bill with a great deal of interest. When I spoke on another clause I mentioned that my constituency had many problems. At that time the minister mentioned that he hoped I would read the bill. I have done so; I have studied it from cover to cover. I must say I am very pleased with the debate which has taken place. The debate has been thorough as I believe it should be on a subject as important as transportation in this great nation of ours. [DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I was very pleased to note that the minister was aware of the concern in my area with regard to rail line abandonment. I was also very pleased to hear the announcement made by the minister the other night that no applications for rail line abandonments will be granted before 1975. I think this is very good but I hope that in the meantime consideration will be given to closing the gaps to which I referred so as to provide the service which rightfully belongs to the people in that area.
I did some further research to find out more about the contract that was signed for the construction of a branch line on Spruce Lake the subdivision of the old Canadian Northern Railway and to discover what was holding it up. I have in my hands the Order in Council with regard to this matter and I should like to put on record, that it is dated May 27, 1927, 40 years ago. This 38-mile gap has been left there for 40 years. If one looks at the map of rail line abandonments one can see a natural barrier in the area north of the North Saskatchewan river. Not a single railway line crosses the provincial boundary in that area. I think this is a shame and I believe that discrimination has been exercised. One can see there a gap extending 38 miles. The result is that all freight on the west side of the provincial boundary has had to be transported through Edmonton to reach the head of the lakes or the port of Churchill.
[The Deputy Chairman.]
Mr. Donald Gordon, speaking in Winnipeg in 1962, referred to the cost of moving grain over some of the branch lines. He estimated that the cost in some cases was as high as 15 cents per ton- mile. When one realizes the amount of grain that has had to be transported hundreds of additional miles owing to the gap existing there one realizes that if a rail line had been built to close the gap it would have paid for itself in one year.
Hon. members may wonder why more people in that area have not spoken and asked that this important gap be closed. The reason is that people become discouraged when they wait for something for 40 years. We realize that there is no shortage of material for building railway lines. What I wish to bring out tonight is not the fact that we know that this line will not be abandoned for a few years but our hope that the railway company will decide to fill in this gap to give the people the service that is required.
In the same speech in Winnipeg Mr. Gordon pointed out that in many cases grain was being trucked for 4 to 8 cents per ton mile. I do not think Mr. Gordon has ever done much trucking or he would not have quoted such a figure. I am familiar with trucking and I know that any truck driver who attempted to haul grain for 4 cents per ton mile would not be in business very long. I hope that the railway will decide to close this gap at the earliest possible date. Then we can consider the situation and decide whether the line is a paying proposition.
I did some further research to find out what has been done about the expansion of the line from St. Walburg in Saskatchewan to Bonnyville in Alberta. I have here a copy of the Order in Council dated July 2, 1929. The first paragraph reads as follows:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated June 27, 1929, from the Acting Minister of Railways and Canals, representing that the management of the Canadian National Railway Company have furnished a plan showing the proposed location of a proposed branch line of railway of the Canadian National Railway Company, one hundred and twenty-six miles in length, extending from St. Walburg in the province of Saskatchewan, to Bonnyville in the province of Alberta. The expenditure for this line, estimated at $4,212,000, has been authorized by chapter 32 of the Statutes of Canada, 1929.
I think this is disgraceful because although the grade was constructed the steel was only laid from Bonnyville to Grand Centre,
January 26, 1967

approximately 29 miles, and left there. It appears, from looking at the map that the railway was afraid to cross the provincial boundary. One cannot help but reach the conclusion that pressure was applied by an effective group of people in one of the cities to stop this line from being constructed. If one looks at the map closely one can see that not one railway line crosses that vast area North of the North Saskatchewan river. I hope that in the period of time when no rail line abandonments are to take place the railway companies concerned will take a close look at the situation. There will be no shortage of material available, as I said before.
In speaking about the St. Walburg line I should like to say a few words about the number of settlers who have become established in that area. Both Orders in Council to which I have referred have stated reasons for this settlement, namely, to improve the area and to develop the country. Nothing was done about this but I should like to mention some of the injustices that have taken place. In the dry 30's many people moved up from the south to what was called the Saskatoon settlement in the Loon Lake area and also the Moose Jaw settlement. Many people from other countries settled in this area and built up fine farms. If justice were done the railway lines would be completed for these people even at this late date. [DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I shall now refer to the three lines that are up for abandonment in the constituency of Meadow Lake. I should like to say something about the Heatherly subdivision line from North Battleford to Medstead. It would be very unjust to abandon the line in this area. The C.P.R. has applied for abandonent to a point near Leoville. It has been operating as far as Medstead and using running rights on the C.N.R. line. This provided a connection between North Battleford and Meadow Lake. Both these lines are up for abandonment.
Should not the Canadian National get this part of the C.P.R. line so it can run trains in to link up with the C.P.R. and by means of running rights go into the vast area of Meadow Lake? Certainly it would not hurt anybody if the two railways went into Meadow Lake. Approximately 100 miles to the south is the city of North Battleford. I do think these people should not be cut off completely from Meadow Lake so far as rail transportation is concerned. I think it would be only just if the C.N.R. were given running
Transportation
rights from Medstead to join the C.P.R. line near Leoville and then go on into Meadow Lake. I believe one railway should also make an extension beyond Meadow Lake to the west and into the north country.
The resources are there. There are many people in the area hauling grain from west of Goodsoil clear to Meadow Lake. I do not think this is fair. The C.P.R. has had running rights all these years from Prince Albert to Debden, and I think the C.N.R. should be given running rights over the C.P.R. from Medstead to Meadow Lake; either that or the branch line of the C.P.R. from Leoville to Medstead should be turned over to the C.N.R. It is not just that a city the size of North Battleford should not have a railway link with Meadow Lake.
Before there is any talk of rail line abandonment these matters should be very seriously considered and the railway companies should be compelled to accept their responsibility in this regard. The situation that prevails at the moment is very unjust. I have referred to the order in council. The C.P.R. was given almost blanket permission to run wherever it wanted and build a line. This is how it got running rights from Prince Albert to Debden.
These are some of the big beefs of people in the constituency of Meadow Lake. I hope these complaints will be seriously considered and we will not have to wait another 40 years before something is done about them. There are many other problems in this area. We all have a beef about freight rates. I believe there is a lot of injustice in this field. I do not think the country is getting the service it should get. We cannot be getting the service we should when a constituent can write to me saying, "Mr. Cadieu: Is it impossible for me to buy a railway ticket to a city like North Battleford? The railway tells me that I cannot buy a ticket." This is a city of 25,000 or 30,000 people only 100 miles from Saskatoon, and there is no passenger service. I do not think there is any justice in that and the matter should be looked into.
We have a line to cities like Prince Albert and North Battleford, with no rail service whatsoever between them. In recent months I have received complaints from livestock buyers who say they cannot use the railroad line because the trains only leave at the end of the week, and they will not ship stock and let them lay over at the stockyards all week end. The railway could make money in moving these cattle but they have done themselves

January 26, 1967
Transportation
out of the business by not providing service to the people.
Therefore I hope this new commission will get down to business and work out a policy whereby this country will be given the opportunity to develop in the way it should. I read from Mr. Gordon's speech made in Winnipeg. He said that since the last great war $200 million had been spent on opening up railway lines to mining areas but not one single penny has been spent that would benefit agriculture.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, it is almost six o'clock. I understand there is a desire to have the private members' hour this evening. I was wondering whether before the committee rose there would be a disposition now, since hon. members have had a chance to look at the proposed amendment, to give unanimous consent to its introduction. That does not mean it will pass.


Maurice Rinfret: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the committee revert to clause 74 and let clause 1 stand?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That would be very agreeable to me, sir. If we could revert to clause 74 I should like to move the amendment.


Maurice Rinfret: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 74-Cessation of "bridge subsidy".


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Before I put the motion from the chair I should like to remind hon. members of standing order 50 which states as follows:
Whenever Mr. Speaker is of opinion that a motion offered to the house is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament, he shall apprise the house thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the standing order or authority applicable to the case.
I am not now going to rule on whether this amendment is in order; there is no question before me. But I say to the committee that the procedure being adopted is highly irregular. However, the committee is in charge of its own rules, and if it prefers to accept this amendment unanimously that is entirely up to the members of the committee. Having made this statement, I feel that the position of the Chair is clear. Is it now unanimously agreed that I put the motion to the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I so move, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It is moved by the Minister
of National Defence:
That Bill C-231, an act to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions, be amended by adding immediately at the end of page 64 of the bill, as reprinted, the
following: "Grain products" defined.
Condition
precedent.
"470.	(1) In this section "grain
products" means any commodities to which, under the freight tariffs of the company in effect on the 1st day of January, 1966, the rates known as grain products rates, flaxseed products rates or rapeseed products rates applied on that date.
(2) It is a condition precedent to the payment to a railway company of any financial assistance provided, in respect of the movement of grain or grain products as in this subsection described, pursuant to a report under paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section 15 or otherwise provided to the company as compensation for an imposed public duty in respect of such movements, within the intent of paragraph (c) of section 1 of the National Transportation Act, that the company has not increased the level of rates prevailing on the 31st day of December, 1966,
(a)	on grain products other than flour moving from any point west of Port William to Fort William or to Port Arthur over any lines of railway of the company:
(b)	on grain products other than flour moving for export from any point west of Fort William or Armstrong to Churchill over any line of railway of the company:
(c)	on grain or grain products moving for export from any point west of Fort William to a Canadian port on the Pacific coast, other than Vancouver or Prince Rupert, over any line of railway of the company;
(d)	on grain products other than flour moving for export from any point west of Fort William to Vancouver or Prince Rupert over any line of railway of the company: and
(e)	on grain or grain products moving from any point west of Armstrong to Armstrong over any line of railway of the company.
Rapeseed. (3) For the purpose of this section and section 328 and the act and agreements therein referred to. the expression 'grain' includes rapeseed and the rates applicable to the movement of rapeseed from any point referred to in subsection (2) of section 328 after the coming into force of this section shall not exceed the rates applicable to flaxseed.
January 26, 1967

Rate dif- 471. Not later than six months after ferentlal	the coming into force of Part I of
study.	the National Transportation Act, or
this section, whichever last occurs, the commission shall undertake a study of the differences between rates on grain moving for export to ports in British Columbia and rates on grain moving otherwise to such ports, and shall report to the governor in council for such action as he deems desirable or expedient in the public interest."


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should say this when the Speaker takes the chair, but I believe it was the understanding that the private members' hour was to go on today and notwithstanding that fact we would take the hour off from seven o'clock to eight o'clock. I would certainly appreciate that because there are one or two points upon which I should like to get a little advice.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Mr. Knowles:: May we also have it understood now which clause we will be discussing at eight o'clock?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think there is no doubt about that. Clause 1 was stood. Clause 74 was called and an amendment was moved by the Minister of National Defence. The amendment is now before the committee, so I think it is clause 74 and the proposed amendment thereto which will be discussed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: When the committee resumes after eight o'clock clause 74 will be considered. It being six o'clock, pursuant to the provisions of standing order 15(3), in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business I do now leave the chair.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), Transportation-Montreal-Use of French language in railway transportation services; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Unemployment Insurance-Request for increase in maximum benefits; the hon. member for Kent (N.B.) (Mr. Crossman), Transport -Improvement of ferry service, Digby-Saint John.
Private Bills
I think there is some agreement amongst members of the house that when private members hour expires at seven o'clock the house will suspend its sitting.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered. The order of business for today as listed is notices of motions for papers, private bills and then public bills. Is it the intention of the house to proceed with private bills?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-21, to incorporate Seaboard Finance Company of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to incorporate a small loans company within the meaning of the Small Loans Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, Chapter 251. Section 2(f) of the Small Loans Act defines a small loans company as being "a company incorporated by special Act of Parliament and authorized to lend money on promissory notes or other personal security and on chattel mortgages." The proposed small loans company would be known as Seaboard Finance Company of Canada. There is already in existence an Ontario Company known as Seaboard Finance Company of Canada, Limited. Should parliament grant a charter under the provisions of the Small Loans Act, the existing Ontario company would immediately proceed to sell all of its commercial paper to the new federal company.
The Ontario company would also proceed immediately to effect a change in its corporate name to one completely dissimilar to that of the federal company and change its corporate objects from those of a finance company to those of a holding company.
The existing Ontario company, Seaboard Finance Company of Canada, Limited, was incorporated by Ontario letters patent on August 17th, 1955. There are two basic ways for a company to become authorized to make small loans. The most obvious is to apply to parliament for a charter under the provisions of the Small Loans Act. The second and relatively more simple way is to incorporate a provincial letters patent company and to obtain a money-lenders licence for that company from the federal Department of Insurance.

January 26, 1967
Private Bills
when Seaboard commenced its operations it did so in Ontario initially on a small scale.
That being the case it did not wish to take the time or trouble to apply to parliament for a charter under the Small Loans Act. However, now Seaboard is a large organization operating on a nation-wide scale in every province except Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. Seaboard therefore feels that it should more properly be operating under a federal rather than a provincial charter. It wishes to take this step notwithstanding the fact that by so doing the operation of Section 13 of the Small Loans Act would result in most of the regulatory provisions of the Loan Companies Act R.S.C. 1952, Chapter 170, being made applicable to the federal company. For example, Section 19 of the Loan Companies Act requires that a majority of the board of directors of a company incorporated under the provisions of the Small Loans Act must be residents of Canada and British subjects. Nevertheless Seaboard, operating as it now does on a nation-wide scale, would prefer to do so under a federal charter and has therefore petitioned parliament accordingly.


Frank Howard: In recent years, Mr. Speaker, the house has given greater and greater attention to this type of bill. In passing and by way of comparison, may I say that when North American General Insurance Company was incorporated not many years ago there was no discussion. I looked up the record and ascertained that the bill was sponsored by the then member for Mount Royal, I believe, former Speaker McNaughton when he was a private member. There was not one word said during the progress of that bill as recorded in Hansard. There was just a motion to give it second reading without any comment by anyone. Likewise, on the motion for third reading there was not a word expressed about the purpose of the incorporation or anything of that sort. The bill was referred to a committee, but what transpired there we do not know, because no verbatim record of the proceedings of the committee was kept.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
As a result of the recent traumatic experiences of the shareholders and investors of Prudential and Atlantic there has been growing concern in the minds of Canadians about whether or not they are dealing with sound, efficiently operated companies. Consequently, though this responsibility rested on our shoulders to a great extent before there is an even greater responsibility resting

on the shoulders of members now with regard to such bills. This responsibility is to do our level best to see that we are being asked to incorporate companies which are likely to operate their business in such a way that the operation is not sound or ethical. Quite frankly, as I have said on other occasions in this house we do not have the machinery or the adequate facilities to enable us to do this. The best we can do is to make extensive inquiries during debate and to follow up in committee, drawing only on our relative ignorance and the advice given to the committee by the Department of Insurance with regard to a particular company.
On December 8 last, Mr. Speaker, I made some comments in connection with another company seeking incorporation. That company engages in the same field of business and in seeking a federal charter it also desired to replace provincially-chartered companies. Earlier I telephoned the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) to advise him that I had something to say which would be directed to him but unfortunately the hon. member cannot be here today and I do regret making these comments about this conversation in his absence. However, I am sure he will have the opportunity to follow this up.
On December 8 last I expressed concern about the manner in which a company called Aetna Investment Corporation Limited had conducted itself in so far as the purchase and sale of shares in Cowichan Copper Company was concerned. At that stage the hon. member for St. Paul's rose and indignantly asked whether I would be prepared to repeat what he classified as "slanderous remarks" outside this house and I said that I would. Subsequently the hon. member for St. Paul's and I had a conversation outside the chamber in which he repeated his request that I make my statement outside the house, to which I replied I would be pleased to do so. Following this the hon. member said he would send a newspaperman to my office the next morning so I could speak to him about it. I waited all next morning hoping some newspaperman would call upon me at the request of the hon. member for St. Paul's, but no one came.
However, Mr. Speaker, all this is aside from the other matter I want to deal with in connection with the operation of this company. Shortly after the events of December 8 I came to understand the intense concern of the hon. member for St. Paul's about the activities of Aetna Investment Corporation Limited, because I subsequently discovered that one George E. Creber, who at the time was
January 26, 1967

vice-president and a director of Aetna Investment Corporation Limited, is also the same George E. Creber, or so I am informed, who is a partner in the law firm of the hon. member for St. Paul's. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seemed to me that there was not that detached approach to that bill that one might have expected, that there was more of a personal or individual involvement in the matter on the part of the hon. member for St. Paul's his law partner being vice president and a director of Aetna Investment Corporation Limited.
The president of Aetna Investment Corporation is a Mr. Mark Tanz. Mr. Tanz was quite concerned about what I said on that day in the house in connection with the operation of his company and so he came to see me. We had a long conversation about the activities of Aetna Investment and other companies with which Mr. Tanz is connected. Mr. Tanz advised me that he had no personal dealings whatever in the sale or purchase of Cowichan Copper shares. Upon hearing that I tendered to him my apology for involving him individually in the transaction which took place, and I now publicly tender my apology once more to Mr. Tanz for having intimated, if not having said directly, that he had participated in the sale or purchase of Cowichan Copper shares.
Subsequently, Mr. Speaker, another matter came to my attention which I think places us in an even more awkward position when dealing with bills of this sort in the house. I am quite sure that the hon. member for High Park, as sponsor of this bill, is taking the information which has been given to him at its face value. He is accepting the word of whoever is promoting this bill. He presents to the house what he is told is the case, and what else can he do? I do not think that he should be expected to be a private investigator inquiring into all the nooks and crannies of the structure of the company whose bill he is sponsoring.
Consequently, if anything untoward happens the sponsor of such a bill is left in an extremely untenable position. Not only that but if there is, as is the case in some instances, a connection, however tenuous, between members of the house and those interested in the company either through a law firm or because they are directors of associated companies, then these members are placed in an awkward position. I submit we must look extremely carefully at this sort of thing.
Private Bills
On April 15, 1965, Sheep Creek Mines Limited, which subsequently became Aetna Investment Corporation Limited, filed a document called a filing statement with the Toronto stock exchange. This document is extremely important in talking about the involvement at Aetna Investment Corporation with Cowichan Copper Company, and at this juncture I do not want to go beyond that point and to talk about other connected companies.
This filing statement dated May 5, 1965, was a specific undertaking, and I should like to quote from it:
The undersigned Sheep Creek Mines Limited hereby undertakes and agrees with the Toronto Stock Exchange that all shares of Cowichan Copper Co. Ltd., (Non-Personal Liability) acquired by it pursuant to the agreement between the undersigned and said Cowichan Copper Co. Ltd., (N.P.L.-et al) dated 12 April 1965, as referred to in Item 9 of the filing statement of the undersigned dated 12 April, 1965, will be held for investment purposes only and will not be sold or distributed for a period of six months after the date or dates of acquisition thereof and thereafter will not be sold or distributed without prior notice of such sale or distribution being filed and accepted by the Toronto Stock Exchange.
This filing statement is really in the form of an undertaking for the specific purpose, I submit, of protecting the rights of other shareholders in Cowichan Copper. Reading the statement of Aetna Investment Corporation Limited filed on October 17, 1966, wherein is set out the purchase of Cowichan Copper Company Limited's shares, with the price paid and the amount received shown by months, one sees that it shows conclusively that Aetna Investment Corporation Limited sold its block of shares in Cowichan Copper Company Limited contrary to and with full knowledge of the undertaking made to the Toronto stock exchange on May 5, 1965. It is argued that this was an oversight, that one Robert A. C. Douglas, at one time secretary of the company-I do not know if he is still secretary-and also a barrister in Vancouver, forgot to notify the Toronto stock exchange of the sale of the Cowichan Copper Company Limited's shares.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
This is the sort of thing, Mr. Speaker, which, added to the promotional activities of companies like Windfall Mines and others, puts the investing public in Canada at a great disadvantage, and I submit places a great responsibility on the shoulders of members of this house to inquire as closely as possible into the affairs and activities of companies

January 26, 1967
Private Bills
which come here to be incorporated. We should inquire as carefully as we can in order to protect the rights and welfare of individual Canadians who at times place their life savings in such companies.
At this stage I can do nothing more than repeat in essence what I said on December 8 about the activities of this company. I might add that, unfortunately for those who want to pay attention to the structure or activities of companies which are incorporated here, a bill went through this house not long ago to incorporate the Canada Health and Accident Assurance Company. When that bill went before the committee regrettably the committee did not have disclosed to it information that would have connected the ownership of that company with Aetna Investment Corporation Limited subsequent to my having raised the activities of Aetna Investment Corporation Limited in this house.
There is therefore, I think, a responsibility on the sponsor of the bill to incorporate Canada Health and Accident Assurance Company to state in the house that this company is owned by the people who own Aetna Investment Corporation Limited. It may be that the sponsor of the Canada Health and Accident Assurance Company bill did not know of this connection. If so, that underlines the point I made earlier that members of this house are placed in a very awkward position, because I am sure that in most instances all the member sponsoring the bill knows is the information placed before him by counsel for the company seeking incorporation. If there is any other connection and the hon. member is not cognizant of it, then he proceeds in good faith, as was done in the case of Canada Health and Accident Assurance Company.
But if it is discovered subsequently that there is a connection between the company to be incorporated and another, such as Aetna Investment Corporation which I have just mentioned where it turns out that we should have had another look at Canada Health and Accident Insurance Company, that makes a mockery of the activities of parliament and puts the sponsors of bills in an awkward position. Who knows what may be the awkward developments falling on the shareholders of any one of those companies so incorporated? If there are connected companies and if the directors happen to be members of the house, and especially if they happen to be former cabinet ministers as in one instance, they are placed in an awkward position, particularly where there is a connection between

a finance company, an insurance company, a borrowing agency and a savings and loan company. Where these companies are owned by the same principals I submit that at best parliament is put into an extremely bad position. Because there is an intimate relationship between borrowing money and lending it to one of the other companies controlled by the same group owning the company that borrows the money, the shareholders of any one of these companies do not have their rights properly served.
I put these comments on the record, though my remarks deal with one particular company. I repeat that the activities of Aetna Investment Corporation with respect to the purchase and sale of Cowichan Copper Company shares were contrary to and in disregard of a specific undertaking made to the Toronto stock exchange, an undertaking that was there to protect the rights of shareholders of Cowichan Copper Company Limited. I submit that this is not within the ambit of the good business ethics, as anybody will appreciate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Though the hon. member has not yet discussed the principle of this bill, I must advise him that his time has expired.


Frank Howard: I had just got to that point, Mr. Speaker, but I shall sit down.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On a point of order, I wish the hon. gentleman would live up to the rules of this house with the determination he showed earlier this afternoon and would practice what he preaches.


Mr. Arnold Peiers (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, when we talk about companies, I am always interested in who owns what. I was interested to hear the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) say that the Seaboard Finance Company was an old and respected company operating in eight out of the ten provinces. In checking the survey of industrials for 1966, the only reference to Seaboard that I see is to Seaboard Utilities which has housing developments in Tampa, Florida. There is no reference in the Financial Post survey of industrials to this company, though it does mention all the other finance companies I can think of, including some that the hon. member who preceded me referred to. There may be a reason why this particular company does not appear in the survey of industrials. There is no information in the survey about the principals of this company, and the survey covers a very wide range of companies.
January 26, 1967

Every member of parliament is aware of his responsibility in creating new companies. As the former speaker said, we have created some companies in the past that we have not been proud of. Also, many companies are now looking to federal incorporation for the protection that previously has been afforded by the inspector general in the Department of Insurance.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Many finance companies in Ontario have apparently operated very loosely under the aegis of the Toronto stock exchange and have engaged in activities not in keeping with the principles of high finance and banking. We have heard much about those principles recently before the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs. It therefore behoves each hon. member to look with a jaundiced eye on companies which come to the federal government for incorporation. It might be well to exercise caution with regard to Seaboard Finance, because I am unable to find any statement in the surveys in which companies are usually content to present their financial picture. Thus I am unable to ascertain whether the Seaboard Finance Corporation in Ontario is connected in any way with other companies whose conduct might be questioned. In my opinion, the unpleasant situation which developed a few months ago is sufficient to make us wary of passing bills of this kind which immediately give these companies an immense amount of prestige, and in some cases set them up as going concerns. Before we grant incorporation we should make a point of knowing a great deal about the background of these companies.
The hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) is sponsoring the bill before us. Frankly, I wonder why supporters of the government are so free in sponsoring the applications made by these companies. A member of parliament might well leave himself wide open for criticism by doing so, because there are bound to be some bad eggs. If I were sponsoring such an application I would need to possess a great deal more information than has been made available in some of these cases. I assume that the hon. member is in no better position than we are to ascertain the background of this company. We are being asked to set up a potential threat to the operations of the Department of Insurance, and other departments with similar responsibilities, without knowing what the company has done in the past.
Private Bills
I have seen the signs of the Seaboard Finance Company in a number of communities. I gather that the operations of this company are fairly recent in most of the communities outside Toronto. In some of the smaller communities I have noticed signs of recent date indicating that the Seaboard Finance Company is operating.
I have been looking up the records of the Senate to see what examination was given to this bill in the other place, and, I find that the banking and commerce committee reported that the committee had considered Bill S-21 and directed that it be reported without amendment. The discussion which took place in the Senate was confined to formalities, indicating that the bill would be placed on the order paper for third reading at the next sitting. The Senate committee hearing was not covered, so a report of what took place there is not available.
Recently I have received letters from my constituency raising grave doubts about the financial responsibility of one of the largest finance companies in this country. I have checked with the Inspector of Insurance who tells me there is nothing wrong with this particular company. But constituents of mine who take contracts with this company are being told there is no money available for those contracts, and that the finance company is not buying the contracts. I am also told that a proportion of their money-in the case of a small businessman it runs as high as $13,000-is being held by that company as collateral against bad debts which may be incurred in the purchase of paper from the dealer.
I know an accountant who is familiar with the operations of Bay Street, a man who is closely connected with many of the transactions there, and had him make inquiries in Toronto as to the financial situation of this particular company. He tells me there is no danger of this company going bankrupt, for the simple reason that if it did, two banks would go with it.
It is good to know that this organization is guaranteed because two large financial institutions, banks of Canada, are also involved up to their ears in the relationship. But what protection is given to those who over the years have brought their business to a particular finance company against apparent willingness to pay hold-backs to cover the extra charge for the purchase of the paper they may buy? As I understand it, when a company buys paper, the finance company is really

January 26, 1967
Private Bills
not taking any risk at all with regard to the product being supplied by the businessman. I have found in the past that when a finance company buys a piece of paper, then whether the product is of any value or not the promissory note is a liability of the person who signed it, and no liability rests on the finance company. The finance company, however, has the right to repossess and claim the collateral which is given up by the person who has sold or transferred the note.
Four or five of the people in my riding included their statements with the statement which came to my attention, which became known on the occasion of a trade fair in Toronto, where rumour went around that this very large financial institution was closing its offices that day-and it has, to the extent of not supplying any money in certain areas.
I think it would be unfair to agree to the passage of this bill without knowing a good deal more about Seaboard Finance or without being able to reach the conclusion that its operations in the provincial field had been satisfactory. I am not talking of ten months from now, when the company will have been able to raise $500,000, or even of the time when it can raise $250,000 to call a meeting of the board of directors and begin operations. If we pass this bill they will be able to go into business immediately, because they have the money and, I presume, they have the capital equipment, the offices, and the staff who would be transferred to the new company. If we are asked that a reserve fund be set up to cover the liabilities of these companies we surely have a responsibility to ensure that the government is not saddled with a company which may become a liability.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
This must be part of our responsibility. It is not good enough for us to treat these people as though they were boy scouts, and tell them that we think it is a worth-while effort they are making. We are prepared to say that the directors of this national organization will have the interests of the organization at heart, but when we incorporate a finance company such as the Seaboard Finance Company we must remember that we are creating an institution which, in conjunction with all other financial institutions, will play a vital role in deciding the economy of our nation.
This company will decide what businessmen can sell their promissory notes to it, and so finance their businesses. It will also decide which business people can finance their

stocks. Incidentally, the case I referred to previously occurred at the furniture show in Toronto. Businessmen there had to finance their purchases on a short-term basis in order to put stock into their respective showrooms. On the basis of the information that has been provided to us, it is unfair that we should be asked to make up our minds on the incorporation of this company. Just recently we had a case of a company being incorporated which changed hands while its application was before parliament, but the sponsor of the bill in question did not inform the house of that change. I do not say that is the case here, but the information that has been given us is not sufficient for us to make an intelligent decision on this application.
It may be that this is a bona fide company which does business in a legitimate manner, but I have yet to meet one of these finance companies that I think does business in a bona fide manner. I say that because of the interest rates they charge and the hosing they give to the general public who borrow money from them.
When we are asked to pass this kind of bill it should state what the company intends to do, what type of business it intends to conduct, whether it will engage in the small loans field, how much interest it will charge, what methods it has of gouging the public, and whether it intends to use the hold-back procedure when making loans. At present some companies have a procedure whereby when a person borrows $1,500 he has to deposit $200 or $300 of it in a bank to be retained as a guarantee that repayments will be made, even though he has to pay interest on the full amount and cannot use the full amount.
Companies such as this should also be willing to provide parliament with financial statements showing how they have operated in the past and stating who will compose their provisional boards of directors. That information should be provided prior to the inspector of insurance deciding whether they should be incorporated federally.
We are almost giving this company the right to print money. We are giving it the right to allow its board of directors to steal money out of the treasury and take it away. We are giving it the right to do all those things which we have seen done in finance companies during the last few weeks, and are putting no new restrictions on it. We are not even asking for the normal type of protection
January 26, 1967

which we would seek from other such companies. Changes must be made in the rules before we agree to pass such legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must advise him that the time allotted to him has expired.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, although I have a high regard for the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron), that does not mean 1 have a similar regard for finance companies. It is the hon. member's job to pilot the bill through the house, and he is doing his best under the circumstances.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I must inform the hon. member that it is not a job; it is a voluntary task which I assumed.


Raymond Langlois: I apologize for the error; I took the word job to mean task. I know the hon. member has a kind heart and is doing his best, but despite that I am under no obligation to change my opinions about finance companies.
This bill leaves me somewhat perplexed. I agree with the opinions expressed by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), and in view of recent experiences with finance companies I consider that we must keep our eyes peeled. At present there are a number of items on our order paper dealing with the incorporation of finance companies and insurance companies. We must examine these items closely.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
There have been a number of collapses of finance companies in recent weeks. We do not know whether this company will follow that pattern. The sponsor of the bill says that the company is a very solid one, and is spread across the United States. In reply I say that if it is going to be a subsidiary of a United States company, then I do not want it, in the first place. I think this is an incorporation which should stand on its own two feet. We do not know much about this incorporation. Practically all we have here is a series of names connected with the incorporation. We do not see any guarantees here concerning the shareholders. There is nothing about the company's policy. We do not know what its lending policies will be or what its requirements will be. I have seen the operations of the existing Seaboard Finance Company, and I might ask why it is they have so much
Private Bills
difficulty in keeping their managers. I think it is because their internal policy is somewhat difficult to cope with. It is not because the managers do not like finance companies, because most of them have switched over to other finance companies.
When we are faced with the responsibility of permitting a bill such as this to go through this house, we should have many more details than are included in the four or five clauses we see here. They tell us there will be capital stock of half a million dollars. There is no guarantee to that effect, nor is there a guarantee that the shareholders will be able to provide security in the event that anything should happen such as has happened in the past few weeks.
There is no statement of policy concerning how the people dealing with this company will be dealt with. I would hope that this bill is not for the purpose of sidetracking the law and setting up some sort of a swindling business. Someone might be shocked and say that a company such as Seaboard Finance would not be involved in any swindling but, Mr. Speaker, some time back I ceased to be an ostrich. I have seen some very big people in business, and I know that just because they are big does not mean that they do not swindle. That does not give them absolution from everything. Sometimes there are things which we should look into. I am not saying that is the situation here, but it could be.
The hon. member for Timiskaming mentioned that some finance companies request deposits in respect of a loan to guarantee that the payments will be kept up to date. In the long run this becomes pretty expensive. We do not know what type of loans this company will be dealing with. We do not know what the interest rate will be or on what basis it will be calculated. Will it be at the rate of 2 per cent per month, 24 per cent per year? It may be more than 24 per cent per year. Some companies work it out on the basis of 2 per cent per month. On this basis the person borrowing the money starts to repay it and then at the time of the last payment there is an amount of $40 or $50 remaining. On that last $40 or $50 he pays the same amount of interest he was paying at the first. This works out in the end to a good deal more than 24 per cent.
All these things might be considered as part of business costs. I do not care what you call them; the other person is paying for them. Sometimes they present a wonderful picture. We hear these finance companies say "If you

January 26, 1967
Private Bills
cannot make your payments, come and see us and we will make them for you", or "If you cannot make payments of $150 a month, come and see us and we will help you make them at the rate of $175 a month". What help is that? Sometimes this is a help, but I have seen finance companies which actually swindle and still have the right to operate. They can operate because there are loopholes. If these loopholes could be blocked, then perhaps some of these legalized bandits could be kept out of circulation.
We have had to cope with the problem of the collapse of finance companies. This is something which has an effect on the economy of Canada as a whole. Possibly this happens because when these bills go through the house they do not provide at that time sufficient information. I believe there should be more information contained in this bill. The title tells us it is an act to incorporate Seaboard Finance Company of Canada. I could go out and bring in a bill which stated that I wished to establish a new religious group. Then without any details having been given, the bill could be passed through the house and we would be able to go around the country collecting money for this new religious group.
When a bill such as this comes before the house, we should ask for more information. We should know how the shares are to be issued and the type of guarantees to the shareholders. We might ask where the head office is going to be. I would hope that this is not some kind of a sidetracking effort, but I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that we have had the example of the Prudential Company, which some people mixed up with Prudential of America. Their office was on the eleventh floor of a building on the same street-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the house that the hour for the consideration of private members business has expired.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I have permission to revert to motions in order to make a short statement?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the minister
have the unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



FINANCE


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am given to understand that

due to a faulty translation in a foreign language newspaper in Montreal the Montreal City and District Savings Bank has had an unprecedented withdrawal of deposits during the day. I should like to say that all Canadian banks, including the Montreal City and District Savings Bank, are in a sound financial condition and that there is no doubt regarding their ability to meet all their liabilities.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The house will now resume the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-231, to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof, and to enact other consequential provisions-Mr. Pickersgill- Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Pursuant to an order made earlier this day, I do now leave the chair.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Maurice Rinfret: It is the understanding of the Chair that when the committee rose it was agreed that clause 1 would stand and that we would consider an amendment to clause 74 moved by Mr. Hellyer.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, in considering the amendment that was moved by the Minister of National Defence with the unanimous consent of the committee, I think there are one or two comments which should be made, because in addition to the contentious point with respect to a review that would be made upon application to the railways there is also one other very important part which was also left out of the amendment moved by the Minister of National Defence, and on which there was no contention.
While I certainly do not wish to take a lot of time discussing this bill any further, because we have been through it a number of times, I wonder whether the minister would be willing to accept an amendment to his amendment and include a subclause dealing with a crown representative before the Transport Commission whenever the commission was considering a matter related to the
January 26, 1967

revenues and costs of a railway company under the jurisdiction of parliament. This particular subclause reads:
Where in any proceedings before the commission under this act the matter of the revenues or costs of a railway company under the jurisdiction or parliament is under investigation, any minister of the crown in right of Canada may cause representations to be made thereon to the commission by persons having knowledge or costing principles or matters that appear to such minister to be relevant to the determination or railway revenues and costs.
It seems to me that it would be appropriate to include this wording as subsection 4 of section 470 in clause 74. At present section 470 contains three subsections and I do not think that the fourth subsection as proposed would be in contradiction of them. In fact it would replace the provision in which the Minister of Transport, and I presume the Minister of Finance or even the Minister of Agriculture may have a keen interest, to ensure that the cost formula used could be adequately investigated. There have been far too many cases in the past when the only really competent cost accountants and analysts who appeared before the Board of Transport Commissioners were from the railways. There have been only one or two important exceptions when experts in this field have been brought in to challenge the costing formula and other factors advanced by the railway. The Crowsnest pass rates, and revenues from those rates, are examples that come to my mind. The minister knows that these rates were challenged before the MacPherson Royal Commission and that the provinces of Manitoba and Alberta went to a great deal of effort and expense to challenge the shortfall claimed by the railways out of the Crowsnest pass rate agreement. I do not know exactly how much it cost these two provinces, but I know that it cost them many thousands of dollars because it involved a study which went on for well over a year.
In this study in depth, the word of the railway cost accountants was not taken but in many cases a survey was undertaken on the spot to determine the various factors which were included in the cost of grain. I am sure that the minister will recall that the $17 million shortfall claimed by the railways was changed, even in the opinion of the commission, to something around $2 million. When such a claim is made, not only with regard to the Crowsnest pass rates but with any other statutory or fixed rates, that is rates fixed by the commission, who will challenge the railways? The other day I said in the house that
Transportation
to challenge the railways can be a formidable undertaking, and sometimes a very expensive one which involves hiring counsel and cost analysts and, as it is said in the clause-
-persons having knowledge of costing principles or matters that appear to such minister to be relevant to the determination of railway revenues and costs.
It is far too great an undertaking for a municipality, even for a large one.
It was a little too expensive even for the provinces, considering that it is the responsibility of the federal government to defend the public interest in the examination of such costs. And yet, if the provinces of Manitoba and Alberta had not taken on this responsibility on behalf of their farm sector I suppose that it is fair to suggest that the $17 million shortfall claimed by the railways would have been partially if not totally accepted. I suggest that if the figures of the C.P.R. and of the other railways had not been challenged, and a study which had been conducted with a great deal of effort and at a great expense had not been carried out, the railways' contention would have been far stronger.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
That is all I want to say at this time, Mr. Chairman. There are one or two other things I want to talk about under clause 1 of the bill, but I do not think it would be appropriate to raise them now. I have the amendment ready in both English and French, and if the minister would accept it perhaps I could move it, or perhaps I should move it first.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask the indulgence of the hon. gentleman not to move it at all, but to let me have a copy of it. I have no objection at all to including this provision. Quite the contrary; I would like to have it in clause 74. But I do not think it could very well be related to the amendment moved by the Minister of National Defence. I think it should be in clause 74 generally. The hon. gentleman said he wanted it related, not just to the subject matter of new sections 470 and 471 but to all hearings. This is the way I would like to have it, so we would have a provision that in any hearing of this character this could be done. Certainly, as far as I am concerned I would be very glad to include it. I think it would be an additional safeguard to the treasury and an additional protection to everyone.
As far as I am concerned, I would be very happy to include it in this section. I put it in,

January 26, 1967
Transportation
in the first place, because I thought it was a good idea. If the hon. gentleman would let me have it, I would like a little time to consider it and make a technical assessment of it. I undertake that we will not pass clause 74 before there is an opportunity to deal with it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I agree, Mr. Chairman, and I should like to advise the minister and the members of the committee that there may be a technicality as to where it would best fit into the bill. It does not have to be subsection 4 of new section 470. But I would draw the minister's attention, now that he has the amendment before him, to the fact that the wording is "where in any proceedings before the commission under this act", and so on. It does not say "under this clause" or "under this subclause."


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it might become a new section 472. I do not want it to be related to this specific subject; I want to see the general application of the principle that if at any time there is any reason for this to be done, the representatives of the minister may be there to act on the other side. I think everybody agreed that this was a good idea. But I do not think we want to tie it to this particular amendment.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is fine. So that the other members of the committee will know, the wording is exactly the same as that which was contained in subsection (6) of section 470 of the proposed amendment to clause 74. When the minister has had an opportunity to consider the amendment, if he would advise me I would be glad to move it.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the amendment carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move another amendment to this clause.


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words on clause 74 and new section 471 before indicating whether in my opinion it should pass. There are some parts of new section 471 that I do not like. I am asking for clarification in this regard. For instance, this section states:
-the commission shall undertake a study-
The word "study" is back in there.
[DOT]-of the differences between rates on grain moving for export to ports in British Columbia and rates on grain moving otherwise to such ports, and shall report to the governor in council for such action as he deems desirable or expedient in the public interest.

Almost all the grain that moves into British Columbia comes from Alberta.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I have 6,000 farmers down there who will be watching this clause very closely. It appears to me that this provision is asking the commission to make a study of the Crowsnest pass rates to Vancouver and compare them with the private rates on feed grain for chickens and other things to points in British Columbia that are on the way to Vancouver.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman. If the hon. gentleman would look at it again he would see it says:
-rates on grain moving for export to ports in British Columbia and rates on grain moving otherwise to such ports-
So it is only to the ports. I am sure the hon. gentleman knows that the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture made representations to the committee that the rate on grain for domestic purposes should be the same as the export rate. Unfortunately and regrettably I did not feel I could accept that recommendation out of hand, but I felt they made a quite strong case. All I want the commission to do is study those two things and make any recommendations that seem to be appropriate. That is all. It has nothing whatever to do with anything else.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: One thing it will do is cause the commission to call for figures in connection with the Crowsnest pass rates and make a study of them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We know the figures on both.


Mr.   Kindi@: You know them now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The rates are known. What we are concerned with is the difference between the rates, that is all.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Does the minister know the costs and all the other matters that enter into the Crowsnest pass rates?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has nothing whatever to do with costs.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: The minister does not say that in this section.
January 26, 1967


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. gentleman will look again at the language he will see that it says:
*-shall undertake a study of the differences between rates on grain moving for export to ports in British Columbia and rates on grain moving otherwise to such ports-
It does not say anything about costs. All the commission are supposed to look at is how much is charged, which we know, for export grain and how much is charged for domestic grain, and see whether something should be done to bring about some kind of adjustment between the two.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: You could get over the telephone what you are asking for in this section. If you turn the commission loose in this connection they will make a great study and come up with cost figures and a great many other things in order to substantiate what they find in the way of freight charges for moving grain through the Crowsnest pass, and for moving grain for domestic use. These figures are what we have been talking about for a week. I would not believe the commission with respect to any figures they put forward from a study of a whole bundle of statistics received from the railway companies. These figures would be absolutely null and void so far as the farmers of western Canada are concerned. They would have no confidence in them. If this study is to be confined 100 per cent to the rates, in the one case for shipping feed grains and in the other in respect of the Crowsnest pass rates, we know it is 23 cents or thereabouts under the Crowsnest pass rates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think we are all anxious to make progress this evening. Perhaps I could direct the hon. gentleman's attention to the second part of this section, which says:
-shall report to the governor in council for such action as he deems desirable or expedient in the public interest.
The hon. gentleman is perfectly right; everybody knows what the rate is on domestic grain and on export grain. But the farmers of British Columbia have said they want them to be the same.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
This parliament took steps at this session to provide a subsidy on feed grain. However, even with the subsidy the rates are not exactly the same. This amendment provides for a study, at the request of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and other farmers, of whether it
Transportation
would be appropriate to meet the demands of these farmers. It has nothing to do with the costs of the railways. I do not believe the railways would even need to be asked a question about this. Anything the railways could tell us is already known. What we want the commission to advise upon is the question of public policy, whether there should be a different rate established for domestic grain or whether we should continue to use the feed grain subsidy. It is just that very limited question, as was put admirably by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and the hon. member for Kootenay West. There could not possibly be any effect on the people shipping grain to British Columbia, but might be some effect on the farmers of British Columbia.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just want to tell the hon. member for Macleod that he is under a complete misappprehension. This suggestion was made before the committee by the representatives of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, in an effort to provide grain to feeders in British Columbia, dairymen and poultrymen, at a price similar to the export rate. Grain costs a considerable amount in the interior of British Columbia. The request was decided upon after consultation with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and other agricultural groups, who made no obejction to this suggestion. It is not doing anything to the Crowsnest pass rates or other rates. The request is that the relatively small quantity of grain that is used by grain consumers in British Columbia, in relation to grain consumers in British Columbia, in relation to grain exported, be carried at the export rate instead of at the rates presently charged. The commission is requested to study the matter and report.


Mr.   Kindi@: I am quite familiar with the facts which the hon. member for Kootenay West has given. I am aware also of the representations of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. Let me say that federation, in turn, represents some small fruit farmers and the others in British Columbia. I represent
6,000	wheat farmers and I am protecting the interests of the wheat farmers of Alberta. I do not want anything used as an excuse for studying these rates. We have heard the minister's suggestion that a study be made which would expose certain rates, make them the subject of newspaper comment and a hundred and one other things. We have not any fear from that. What we do not want is to have this matter presented in the press and elsewhere as though someone is paying a subsidy to the grain farmer of Alberta.

January 26, 1967
Transportation


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Before clause 74 carries I wonder if the minister would indicate where he wants the amendment I suggested. Should it be included as subsection 4 after subsection 3 in section 470 or should I move it as an amendment to the proposed section 472?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would mind having it moved as a separate amendment and allowing me to deal with this technical amendment and another amendment which I should like to move. This would give me a little time to get advice as to the best place to put his amendment in the clause.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I would certainly be willing to do that, except if clause 74 carries-


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; perhaps I did not make myself clear. The amendment would be to clause 74. There is no intention to allow clause 74 to carry until the hon. gentleman has a chance to move his amendment. Both my amendments are to clause 74, and later I hope to have advice as to the most appropriate way of dealing with the hon. gentleman's amendment. The amendment presents some technical difficulty, but I am sure we will have it solved in a few moments.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Hellyer) agreed to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like the Minister without Portfolio to move an amendment to clause 74 which would read as follows:
That Bill C-231 be amended
(a)	by striking out lines 35 to 38, inclusive, on page 62 of the bill, as reprinted, and by substituting therefor the following:
"468A.	(1) The reductions in rates that, immediately before the coming into force of Part V of the National Transportation Act, were in force by virtue of section 468 continue in force subject to subsections (2) to (4)."; and
(b)	by striking out line 30 on page 63 of the bill, as reprinted, and by substituting therefor the following:
"that are subject to Order No. 96300 of the"
This does two things. It makes a very slight change in the language which was technically wrong in proposed section 468A, and the number 96300 is a printers' error. The amendment does absolutely nothing else.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: It sounds as though whoever drafted that amendment should decode it before we vote upon it. I realize the minister has said there is nothing contentious in it,

that it just corrects these errors which slipped by him. This is quite normal, but at the same time I think we ought to have a look at that.


Mr. Turner:: I move the amendment.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the amendment carry?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am not objecting to the amendment but, before dealing with the matter, the minister provided an English copy of the amendment stating that lines 35 and 38, on page 62, will be amended. Now, in the French version of the bill, this does not correspond to the same lines and page and, consequently, we find it hard to see what is going on.
I would, therefore, ask the minister to provide us with a French copy of his amendment so that we may know the corresponding lines and page in the French version of the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Unfortunately, I did not catch the first few words the hon. gentleman said. Has the hon. gentleman the French version of the amendment, because I have one here?


Gilles Grégoire: No, I have not.
Amendment (Mr. Turner) agreed to.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment which I would ask the Minister without Portfolio to move.


Mr. Starr:: Which one?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The one from Toronto. There being such great affinity between them I know the hon. member for Acadia would want the Minister without Portfolio from Toronto to move it. Substantially it is the same amendment which was suggested by the hon. member this afternoon with respect to Canada Steamships, and is as follows:
That Bill C-231, an act to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions, be amended by adding at the end of section 469 in clause 74 of the bill, as amended, the following subsection:
Deduction "(6) The commission may, in cal-from normal culating a normal payment under this payment. section in respect of any year, deduct from such payment appropriate amounts for payment to any transportation company that was subject to
January 26, 1967

Order No. 96300 of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada dated November 17th, 1958, and that is not a railway company, and may recommend payment to any such transportation company in respect of such year of an amount based on the position of such transportation company in relation to railway companies under that order."
I think this amendment does exactly what the hon. gentleman wanted to do. It we can do it in this way we will not require further debate on another occasion.


Mr. Gordon:: I so move.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the proposer of the amendment whether he has told the Mercantile Bank of the implications of this amendment?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I repeat that we did not get a French copy of the amendment and I think the minister should make one available to us. Before the amendment carries, I should like to read it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether the translators have had sufficient time yet to prepare a French version. This amendment was concocted this afternoon, and "concocted" is perhaps the right word. I know the Law Clerk is working on it, and if the hon. member would like to have the amendment stood until we can get a translation prepared, I would be quite agreeable.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, could that section stand until we have received a French copy.
I should now like to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) some explanation on the following point: unless I am mistaken, we are dealing here with subsidies for transportation by companies other than railway, but which are directly related to the railway companies.
I have here a table giving the comparative rates in Toronto and in Montreal. These do not include the cost of railway transportation. They are the rates applied for delivery by the railway company trucks in Montreal and Toronto, anywhere within the city of Montreal and likewise in Toronto. We are therefore dealing with the comparative cost of delivering goods from the station in Montreal to any point within the city, and delivery
Transportation
of goods taken at the station in Toronto for delivery anywhere in that city.
Here are the figures. Perhaps the minister can enlighten us in this connection. I am told that in Montreal the minimum charge is $1.39 while in Toronto it is only 89 cents regardless of the parcel involved; that it costs 49 cents per 100 lbs. up to 2,600 lbs., or $12.74 for $2,600 lbs., while in Toronto the rate is 22 cents per 100 lbs., or $5.72 for 2,600 lbs. Therefore, a difference exists between Montreal and Toronto, though the same work is involved. In Toronto, it costs $5.72; in Montreal, $12.74, and this merely to truck goods from a freight car to a point within the city limits, as is the case in Toronto. When 16,000 lbs. or more are involved, we note that the rate is 27 cents in Montreal and 22 cents in Toronto.
Therefore, different rates are charged for exactly the same work. Why is this? I should like to know. Do the subsidies granted Toronto allow customers there to be charged 22 cents while those granted Montreal make it necessary to ask for 49 cents for 100 lbs.? If so, changes should be made in the present amendment. True, I naturally do not know all the relevant details, but at first glance and according to the figures we have been given, the handling costs of goods between the freight or express unloading yards and the consignees within the limits of these cities is higher in Montreal than in Toronto, although in both cases the rate is charged by the C.N.R. There must surely be a reason for this, and I would ask the hon. minister to inform us why handling costs are higher in Montreal than in Toronto when labour costs are the same.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take any exception to the fact that the question that the hon. gentleman asked has not very much relation to this very narrow amendment moved by the Minister without Portfolio from Toronto. However, if it is at all possible to get the information to answer his question, I undertake to get it before we complete clause 1. If that is not possible I would be glad to give it on third reading. I know the question has been listened to most carefully and I hope to be able to get the information.


Gilles Grégoire: On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, I thought this could be directly related and I was waiting to make my remarks on clause 1 of the bill. But I did feel that under the amendment I have here, in English at

January 26, 1967
Transportation
least, this was consistent with the remarks I just made, and that is why I raised the problem at this time, since it deals precisely with the payments made by the Transportation Commission for the shipping by transportation companies which are not railway companies proper but are connected with them. This is necessarily the case in cities such as Toronto and Montreal with regard to the unloading of freight for delivery to the consignees.
Under the circumstances, I thought therefore that the matter was fully consistent with the amendment moved by the Minister of Transport.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: The amendment before the committee to subclause 469 of clause 74 has the effect only of making a provision to pay to a transportation company which is not a railway company-this applies to one company only, the Canada Steamship Lines-a certain proportion of the transitional payments made in respect of the freight rate freeze to the railway companies. This has nothing to do with any other company. What the hon. gentleman talks about would be more appropriate on clause 1 than on clause 74.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy with the explanation of the Minister of Transport on the point I have raised. I would now ask the minister to enlighten me, as he suggested, on clause 1.
The minister mentions that this is done for one company only, that is the Canada Steamship Lines, which makes deliveries along the St. Lawrence river ports. I am now asking him whether regular payments are provided for this company operating coastal shipping along the St. Lawrence river ports as far as the north and the south shores of the St. Lawrence and if other companies, transport companies or private coastal shippers doing the same kind of work below Quebec toward the north or the south shores, may also benefit from the same payments and be informed, in some way or other, of the grants that are being given.
I am informed that such shipping companies, in most cases owned by the captains or by people who operate their own sail boats, or their ship, are also in need of such subsidies and I wonder if the minister could

tell us how such people can find out about this in order to benefit from such grants as the Canada Steamship Lines has been receiving?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I can explain that easily, sir. The Canada Steamship Lines had its rates frozen by the order referred to in this clause at the same time as the freight rate freeze was applied to the railways in 1958. The other companies the hon. gentleman referred to were not affected by the freeze. Practically all those companies in the lower St. Lawrence received greater or lesser subsidies from the treasury for maintaining their services. The basis is entirely different. Moreover, these payments to be made to the Canada Steamship Lines are like the payments to the railway companies: they are to be phased out. They will be reduced over a period which will not be as long as the one applied to the railway companies. It is done this way because the company needs a certain amount of time, just as the railway companies do, to adapt itself to the new law. That is the sole purpose for doing this.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister whether he does not think that the wording of the amendment toward the end is vague-perhaps because it was concocted in a hurry. What exactly does it mean when you say that the payment to any such transportation company shall be-
-in respect of such year of an amount based on the position of such transportation company in relation to railway companies under that order.
What kind of position is that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would have said, if I may use an adjective which the hon. gentleman will realize is very specific indeed, the relative position.


David Lewis: The relative position of what or to what? Do you not have to say?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Some of the subsidy being paid to the railway companies is in respect of the freeze applied in 1958. The last one was in respect of a specific wage adjustment in 1964. What is meant by this language is that the other transportation company, which is not a railway company, can only participate in those subsidies which have relationship to its service, and not in those that do not have that relationship.
January 26, 1967


David Lewis: I will not argue with the minister. His advisers do better than I can, perhaps, in knowing what is meant. When you have language saying "based on the position of such transportation company in relation to railway companies," that might be based on its financial position, on the amount of cargo it carries or on a dozen different kinds of positions. Would not the minister and his advisers be wiser to say exactly what it is they want to have relativity about?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman must realize that that was precisely why I took the cowardly course of saying that we should make provision for that later in the supplementary estimates. The hon. member for Acadia seemed to think it would be unfair and prejudicial to the company, which has always been treated in respect of certain of these things in the same way the railway companies are treated, to leave them in doubt about this matter. A certain mathematical determination is required to be made in another clause by the Minister of Finance. The word "position" is not perfect, perhaps. Perhaps if we could find a better word it might be suggested to hon. gentlemen in another place, and they might make a substantial amendment that we might be able to concur in later.


David Lewis: I am not in a concocting mood. I thought I would bring this to the minister's attention.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. gentleman. It is not the first time he has been of help in this debate.


An hon. Member:: Watch out.
Amendment (Mr. Gordon) agreed to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Medicine Hat has an amendment, which I should be quite happy to have him move and which is quite satisfactory to me.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The amendment is as follows. Clause 471 is to be amended by adding the following section immediately after it. The amendment would then be section 472, and it reads:
Crown	Where In any proceedings before the
Representa- Commission under this Act the matter tive.	of the revenues or costs of a railway
company under the jurisdiction of Parliament is under investigation, any Minister of the Crown in right of Canada may cause representations to
Transportation
be made thereon to the Commission by persons having knowledge of costing principles or matters that appear to such Minister to be relevant to the determination of railway revenues and costs.
Mr. Chairman, I sent you a copy of this, but there are technical changes in the numbering. May I therefore send you another copy. I have copies also with the French translation included under the English wording. I shall have something to say after you read the amendment.
I move therefore:
That Clause 74 be amended by adding the following thereto as Clause 472:
Crown	Where in any proceedings before
Representa- the Commission under this Act the tive.	matter of the revenues or costs of a
railway company under the jurisdiction of Parliament is under investigation, any Minister of the Crown in right of Canada may cause representations to be made thereon to the Commission by persons having knowledge of costing principles or matters that appear to such Minister to be relevant to the determination of railway revenues and costs."
Mr. Chairman, the numbers may have to be changed. That can be done on another copy I shall send you.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I do not wish to say much more about this amendment now that the minister has accepted it. But I believe it to be an important inclusion in the bill, insasmuch as the public interest will now be looked after by the federal government when matters of this kind are under investigation, particularly in hearings before the Transport Commission. I would therefore commend it to all members of the committee.
Amendment (Mr. Olson) agreed to.


Mr. Pascoe:: I have not been present during the whole of the discussion, so this subject may already have been dealt with. But clause 74 refers to the cessation of the bridge subsidy. Has this been dealt with, or is it in order to speak on it for a while?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it is fair to say it has been dealt with. The committee did accept an amendment of a purely technical nature, but that does not preclude the hon. member from speaking on the matter.


James Ernest Pascoe: I thank the minister. I believe the bridge subsidy at present amounts to about $7 millions a year to offset the cost of the long haul across northern Ontario around the lakes. This $7 millions a year-and I wish to take two or three minutes to put this on

January 26, 1967
Transportation
record-has been of particular benefit to the prairies. I recall that it was brought out at hearings of the committee that this bridge subsidy had a considerable effect on reducing the cost of farm machinery. As the minister knows, it gives the manufacturer on the prairies an opportunity to compete with manufacturers in the east. This subsidy, as I have said, has been of great value to the prairies and I should like the minister to explain just what is happening with regard to its cancellation. The whole of this $7 million is being removed. Does this mean that the railways will have to raise their rates, or get more business in order to offset this loss?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The best way for me to
explain what is happening would be to read from the bill itself. If the hon. gentleman would look at 468A (2) he would see that it says:
The commission shall, one year after the coming into force of Part V of the National Transportation Act, authorize such increases in the rates to which subsection (1) applies as in the opinion of the commission would, if put wholly into effect, yield the Canadian National Railway Company, combined, three million dollars, approximately, of additional annual revenues.
Then subsection 3 says the same thing for the following year, only it is two million dollars instead of three million dollars, and for the following year it is another two million dollars. Then, at the end of the three years, it expires. This conforms precisely to the request made by the government of Saskatchewan.


James Ernest Pascoe: Thank you. I just thought I should like to have this put on record, because this bridge subsidy means a great deal to the prairies.
Clause 74 as amended agreed to.


Maurice Rinfret: We are now on
clause 1.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
On clause 1-National Transportation Policy


Mr. Rynard:: We have been talking for the most part about transportation over long distances and the abandonment of rail lines. I think we should take a look at the growth of Canada, the increase in its population, and realise that in the year 2,000 it will have a population of between 40 million and 50 million people.
I wish to speak about an area which I know, though the circumstances there are duplicated in many places across the country. I

will take the province of Ontario, a province with a population of six millions which in the year 2,000 will have grown to approximately 12 million people. About one third of the people who live in Canada live today in the province of Ontario. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that about half the people included in that one third live within approximately 100 miles of the city of Toronto. This is a congested area at the present time. In rough figures, a million people go to work, and return, morning and night in Toronto, and in the 100 mile area. The highways which they travel are already overcrowded and the point has been reached at which it is almost impossible technically, and certainly unwise economically, to take more land for through-ways and super highways.
It must also be borne in mind that this is a popular tourist area. This part of Ontario projects so far south in the direction of the United States that the southern part of the province lies south of the northernmost point of the state of California. This means we probably have more American tourists than does any other part of Canada. We cannot cut these people off. Most of them come by car, and we need their dollars to help our balance of payments. So this is the position we are in: We find people going to work, one or two in a car, over highways which are already congested. Thousands of individual cars are travelling into a crowded area when their occupants could be carried more efficiently by train, or other rapid transit. Roughly a million people travel to and from work in this area. One railway line would carry a lot of them into the heart of the city or industrial area, and would eliminate parking problems.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
We are facing a serious problem in air pollution. It takes a motorist in Toronto about an hour to get from downtown to the city limits in the rush hour. He could travel 60 miles in the country in the same length of time, burning approximately the same amount of gas. This is an indication of the amount of pollution and congestion in that area and indicates the need for a rapid transit system.
No railway line in Ontario should be abandoned, and I feel this also applies to many other industrial areas of Canada. In the near future we shall have to rebuild some of the abandoned lines in order to move people to and from work. It is penny wise and pound foolish to abandon railways in a province like
January 26, 1967

Ontario. If certain lines that have been abandoned were in existence today we would be using them to capacity. One line which ran north from Toronto up to Lake Simcoe was abandoned, and had it not been it would remove today a lot of the traffic congestion on the highways.
Slum areas are costing a lot of public money in industrial areas. These sprawling suburban areas are getting completely out of control due to the population explosion. If the trend continues throughout the country, 5 per cent of our population will be living in the rural areas and the other 95 per cent in cities and manufacturing centres. Yet in the great society which we talk about it is estimated that 15 per cent to 20 per cent of the population should live outside the cities.
We shall have to build new towns miles away from cities. I envisage towns like the city of Canberra in Australia, a beautiful city. Those who have visited it know it has no industry. It is the site of the parliament buildings and is a clean, wholesome area in which to live.
I do not believe we have enough railway lines at present in Ontario. We need all that we have, not only to carry freight but to carry people. Commuter trains will be a major factor in transportation, very shortly. Our new towns must be built in locations where land is cheaper, water sources plentiful and air pollution at a minimum. We must start planning for them now, and they must include proper recreational facilities because workers are going to be enjoying more and more leisure time.
The congested areas of the industrial complex of Toronto, which holds roughly 3 million people, needs a rapid transit system. Its problems are duplicated in a minor way in other cities across Canada. Good transportation is necessary so that people can live outside cities in clean, pleasant surroundings in which they can bring up their children. We should be planning now.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Chairman, I would draw the attention of the committee to the study which is being made on certain transport rates in the Atlantic area. In reply to one of my questions a few days ago, the Minister of Transport said that this study would be completed in March, and it is my hope that in 1968 legislation will be presented to this house which will be important and advantageous to the Atlantic area.
As hon. members know, transportation is the lifeline of the Atlantic area. It is most
Transportation
important to my province of Nova Scotia, and particularly to my county of Pictou in their efforts to attract secondary industries, and in fact several secondary industries have been established in Pictou during the last few years. During this debate at least two members asked me whether this bill was important. They told me it was not important to their part of the country, and I believe they represent a certain area in Ontario. I replied that it was most important to my province and to the whole Atlantic area.
The question of port parity for Halifax, Saint John and throughout the maritimes has been adequately dealt with by my two colleagues from Halifax and the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. As a result, the minister awakened from a deep sleep and early this week submitted an amendment to this legislation which meets part of our wishes, but does not go all the way. As a result, we shall be watching this legislation to see its effects on the maritime area.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
At the moment I am concerned about two applications made by the C.N.R. during the last few weeks for the closing of two stations in my constituency, and the removal of the agents from those stations. This is the first move by the C.N.R. to push the thin edge of the wedge into the economy of that area. The two stations are River John and Merigomish. It occurs to me that the C.N.R. might have waited until the present legislation had been completed. Instead of that, these applications were made. This is particularly important to the River John area. The reason for this is that about three years ago an application was made to cut out a part of what is known as the short line in my constituency which runs from Oxford Junction to the town of Stel-larton by omitting the trackage from Tatamagouche in the area of my hon. friend from Colchester-Hants to Scotsburn in the county of Pictou. This, in other words as we might say down east, would have taken the guts out of the short line. Undoubtedly this move to close the River John station and to take the agent from there is a first move to reinforce the application which will be forthcoming by the Canadian National Railways.
It is my belief that no hearing on these applications should be heard until the present legislation is passed and the new act comes into effect. Suggestions have been made that the new act has nothing to do with the closing of stations or the removal of agents. There is one section in this new legislation, to which

January 26. 1967
Transportation
my friend, the hon. member for Wellington-Huron referred the other day, section 314C, which reads in part as follows:
In determining whether an uneconomic branch line or any segment thereof should be abandoned-
And then it continues on from there. I believe the new criteria set out in this new bill, C-231, should be the basis for any hearings in respect of the proposed closing of these two stations in my constituency. So far as the River John area is concerned, I have pointed out why the Canadian National Railways has made this move. May I say that I can see no reason for federal agencies such as the Atlantic Development Board and the area development agency of the Department of Industry attempting to assist areas like mine

which they are doing-when with these applications the railways will be allowed to move out of the area. The railways must remain in areas like these. The station in the village of Merigomish is on the main line through Cape Breton. I do not intend to go into the detail of what the Canadian National Railways has included in its application. That will be dealt with when the Board of Transport Commissioners sends its inspector to the area.
I hope to be present at the hearings so that I may be able to help the county council of Pictou, which is fighting to keep these stations, put forward the case. These stations are very important to small villages such as these. Again may I say that I am disappointed that the Canadian National Railways made this move instead of waiting until the present legislation has been passed. Undoubtedly the people from the various other areas as well as from Merigomish and River John, the inhabitants of that area, the county council and myself will be fighting against any closings.
As I already have pointed out, the railway is important to these areas. It is their lifeblood. These stations should not be closed. May I repeat to the minister that we will be looking forward to the report in respect of the study concerning the Atlantic area. We hope it will come in in March or at least early in this year. We hope also that legislation will be forthcoming which will prove that the maritimes are not forgotten. We also trust that any legislation which is brought forward will justify this action which is being taken now.
We do not wish to be discriminated against. We should like to have those rights which are truly ours. We will be watching for the new legislation to amend the Maritime Freight

Rates Act, or whatever changes are to come before parliament. When this is brought forward we will examine it most closely.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks to make on this transportation bill. This is the first time since the debate started three weeks ago that I have taken the floor. I did not do so when the various clauses were studied in order to keep my remarks when clause 1 would come up, at which time we could then discuss the bill as a whole.
Mr. Chairman, a while ago I gave figures on the differences in the rates used in the Toronto area and in the city of Montreal. I should like to add a few more, which rates will illustrate somewhat the point I wish to discuss.
For instance, I have here the rates which apply to the transport of wheat, oats, grain and grain products shipped from various parts of the country to Montreal, Halifax, Saint John and Newfoundland. From Fort William and Port Arthur in Ontario to Halifax, a distance of 1694 miles, the rate is 54 cents per hundredweight, from the same points to Saint John, 1463 miles, 54 cents and to other points in Newfoundland; by ship from Halifax or Saint John, 54 cents per hundredweight. In other words, the rate is the same as that which applies to shipments being sent to Halifax.
On the other hand, when shipments are made from Fort William or Port Arthur, to Montreal, a distance of 995 miles, the rate increases to 66 cents per hundredweight. So there is a difference in the rates.
When it starts, for instance, from Sarnia, Toronto, Midland, Walkerville for shipment to Halifax, a distance of 1150 miles, the rate is 26 cents per hundredweight. From the same points to Saint John, New Brunswick, a distance of 1274 miles, the rate is 25 cents per hundredweight, the same as for Newfoundland.
However, if you ship something from Sarnia, Toronto, Walkerville to Montreal, a distance of only 530 miles, then the cost is almost twice as much, namely 48 cents per hundredweight.
Mr. Chairman, we do not object to that. I see no objection to there being such gaps or to subsidies being made to allow those products to reach the maritimes for one must not forget that the maritime provinces are poorer and that they need assistance. We are prepared to accept that, but I quoted these cases
January 26, 1967

Transportation
in order to give another example of discrimination which we are not prepared to accept.
When the government uses the taxes of all the citizens of the country to enable residents of Halifax, of Newfoundland, of New Brunswick or of any maritime province, to pay only half of what the citizens of Montreal or Quebec pay for transport, we are ready to accept that state of affairs, because we consider that the maritimes need help.
It is clear from the figures just quoted by me that the cost is lower in the maritimes for any delivery from points in western Canada or Ontario than what it costs us in Montreal or Quebec.
But it is wrong, inconsistent, irrational and unfair discrimination when after December 12 of every year, ship captains are told, as happened this year in the case of Russian ships reaching the port of Montreal: You have no right to load grain in Montreal. This was reported to me by Canadian and foreign ship captains whom I met in the past week. They are told: You have no right to load grain or wheat in Montreal. If you wish to return to Europe with grain or wheat, get to the port of Halifax in ballast where you can load grain before returning to Europe.
While the Canadian government is paying for the transportation of wheat by railroad from Montreal to Halifax, the ships reach Halifax empty to take in freight there.
But that is not all: the same ship captains will tell you: What stupid things happen in Canada. While the grain elevators are full in Montreal, we are told to reach Halifax in ballast and take in freight there. At present, the average waiting period for ships is six days. The ships reach Halifax empty, while there is still wheat and grain in Montreal. They are empty when they leave Montreal for Halifax. Then they stay there idle for six days, waiting for the grain to reach Halifax from Montreal. And since the shipments are slow in getting to Halifax, the ships have to wait.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Transport will agree that it is irrational, illogical. If ships are ready for loading in Halifax, the grain should get there in time. If others are without freight in Montreal, they should be allowed to load there instead of wasting time and money to get to Halifax and wait there before crossing over to Europe. This is a ridiculous system.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to hear what the hon. Minister of Transport has to say on some more figures I am going to quote.
Subsidies are granted for all sorts of commodities. For instance, commercial lumber, timber, boards, studs, plywood, etc., are moved in full carloads from British Columbia to Montreal-an average of 2900 miles-at $1.43 per hundredweight whereas full carloads of our Quebec lumber make the Abitibi-Montreal trip-an average of 500 miles

at 43 cents per hundredweight which is twice the cost of bringing western lumber in to Montreal.
Why does it cost twice as much to move lumber from Abitibi to Montreal as it does from British Columbia?
Here sitting next to me is the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) who is aware of the fact that in the eastern townships, Princeville, Beauce, Plessisville, etc., where maple sugar is one of the main resources, this product is shipped at a cost of $1.10 per hundredweight every 340 miles. Why this double standard? Why these special rates?
Mr. Chairman, these rates and subsidies are presently determined by certain individuals who are in a position to make arbitrary decisions in favour of certain parts of the country at the expense of other areas.
These regulations, these rates are published only in English, as the minister knows. The special rates and the subsidies are not published in French but only in English. I have copies of them here, identified by codes known to those who want to use them: CR 200, CF67, CG 130, CG 180, CG 223, E 140 and CRA 6, those are codes to recognize the special rates benefiting all other areas of Canada but not Quebec. In Quebec, we pay full price.
Well, Mr. Chairman, due to such rate differential, the transport of merchandise from British Columbia to Montreal weighing the same as merchandise from Abitibi for delivery in Montreal would cost less. Our maple sugar, a source of wealth for the Eastern townships, does not benefit from any subsidies. Elsewhere, though, subsidies are granted.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) should answer this: Why are ships forbidden to load a cargo of wheat or grain in the port of Montreal? Why must they go to Halifax empty and wait there five or six days before loading wheat because none is available?
Can the Minister of Transport reply to this? The ship captains themselves gave me the information.

January 26, 1967
Transportation
And to speak of bilingualism to the Minister of Transport: When ships sail into the gulf they are forced to communicate by radio with the first station on the way into the country, the one situated at Cap-aux-Meules, in the Magdalen Islands. Well, not a word of French is to be had on this radio station. And the same goes for most other radio stations along the St. Lawrence seaway.
The minister should also inquire about that.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is another point. I know my friend, the hon. member for Sherbrooke also wishes to mention it. The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) has referred to it today. Someone is trying to have us pass this bill in haste. In Quebec, the premier objects to that. He is ready to table the letters, but he is waiting for the federal government's permission.
Well, we know implicitly that the premier of Quebec is ready to table the letters. The premier replied as follows to a question from the leader of the opposition in the Quebec legislature: We are ready to table the documents but we are waiting for an answer from the Prime Minister in Ottawa.
Therefore, we want that correspondence. I think the minister is ready to table the correspondence, but I believe he should do so before the passing of this bill, so that we may all be able to know about these objections- and to see whether they are vaild or not.
That problem must be settled before we come to the third reading stage, even before the passing of clause 1 of the bill. I hope the minister will rush the necessary information. I hope he will have relevant remarks to make and that he will give us his opinion in this regard.
The members from Montreal and other areas in the province of Quebec are saying that we imagine we are the only ones to speak on their behalf. In this connection, I will say this: The leader of the opposition in Quebec, who is a member of the Liberal party, and the premier of the province, are of one mind in protesting against the intrusion on the part of the federal government upon a field of provincial jurisdiction. Mr. Chairman, I will not labour the point, merely in order to give them an opportunity to express their view. I am going to give them an opportunity to be the first ones to speak about it, so that they will not be able to accuse me of taking their place. If I have done so on some other occasions, it was because they were not doing it. But now, I am going to let them express

their opinion. They will not be able to make the same accusation in this connection.
Mr. Chairman, I meant to call the attention of the Minister of Transport on one point and I want to give my colleagues in the Liberal party an opportunity to point out something else to him. Once they have dealt with that, I will express my opinion concerning the intrusion of the federal government upon a field of provincial jurisdiction.


Mr. Macaluso:: Mr. Chairman, I would be quite remiss if before the passing of the bill I did not express, as chairman of the standing committee on transport and communications, my appreciation to members of the committee. As was stated in the report which was filed by the committee, this committee, in hearing the briefs of all the witnesses and considering all the amendments which were presented, held some 33 meetings, heard evidence from some 73 witnesses and received and considered 36 briefs from corporations and individuals who are interested in Bill C-231. In total, since the commencement of this session the committee has held some 72 meetings on all aspects of transportation and communications. I believe that perhaps this is the greatest number of meetings held by any committee in the history of any parliament of Canada.
I as chairman of that committee wish to express my appreciation to all the members of the committee for their diligence in attending the meetings, many of which the press apparently did not consider interesting or newsworthy, although in fact this committee dealt with what is perhaps tlie most important piece of legislation with which this country will have to deal for a good many years.
The committee has given an example of what can be done by members of parliament serving on standing committees of the house.
I do not wish to single out any particular members, but again I feel I would be remiss in my duty if I did not express particular appreciation to three members of that committee who attended its meetings every day and who were very diligent in their work. I am referring to the hon. members for Moose Mountain, Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and Kindersley. I think that these three members should be singled out for their efforts. I am not trying to take away from the work of the other members from all parties in the house,
January 26, 1967

but I do feel that all members of the committee will understand why I have singled out these three members of the committee.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I think all members of the committee were deeply appreciative of the attendance of the Minister of Transport at our meetings. It helped us expedite consideration of the briefs and the passage of the bill through committee. When the minister was not able to attend a committee meeting, the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George, was there. This was of great assistance to the standing committee and perhaps should be an example followed by other ministers.
I would be remiss if I did not convey the thanks of the committee to the deputy minister of transport and the officials who were present at our meetings. The deputy minister and his officials were of great help to the minister. They were available at every meeting to assist hon. members with regard to questions that they asked, and in preparing amendments and summaries of briefs for the assistance of members of the committee. They helped in preparing in a very informative and summary manner amendments that were considered in relation to Bill C-231, which was of great assistance to the members of the committee in their work. On behalf of all members of the committee I want to thank the deputy minister and the officials of the Department of Transport for the work they did in assisting us in our consideration of this bill.
Members from all sides of the house were co-operative in considering a bill of vital importance to the national interest, a bill that had been talked about for many years and which was the subject of at least two royal commissions, the Turgeon commission and the MacPherson commission. Our meetings showed that the members were knowledgeable in this subject, had done their homework and had read and considered all the briefs presented to the committee. They also showed they were knowledgeable in the questioning of the witnesses who appeared before the committee. They showed that they knew what they were talking about. I would suggest that on many occasions the witnesses were somewhat surprised at the questions asked by the members of the committee, and were at times taken aback in answering some of them, because I believe the committee members showed that sometimes they knew more than the witness about the subject in question.
Transportation
All the briefs were carefully considered. I want to thank the Minister of Transport and the government in this respect, because it showed that the department and the minister were not inflexible in receiving suggestions from those who presented briefs. I think all members will agree with me that a great many amendments put forward in committee were made as a result of briefs presented by individuals, provincial governments and companies that appeared before the committee. I believe this helped many of us in our consideration of the bill and showed us the importance of inflexibility in regard to a bill that was in the national interest, and would mean that once and for all Canada would have a national transportation policy.
I also believe our experience in the committee showed up some of the weaknesses of the standing committee structure. Our committee retained an eminent economist, Dr. Armstrong, who had worked on the MacPherson royal commission. Perhaps other committees, and especially those dealing with important legislation, should be allowed to obtain the expertise of counsel and economists in order to deal more effectively with these matters. Committees should have available expert counsel and economists who are knowledgeable in the subject with which they are dealing. This would help our committees a great deal.
I would also like to thank the vice-chairman of the committee who, when the chairman was not able to attend on a few occasions, took his place at the meetings. I think all members of the committee deserve a vote of thanks from the house as a whole for the diligent work they performed in consideration of this bill and the briefs presented to us. I think we now have a very good base from which to move forward as far as a transportation policy is concerned. I will not take up the time of the committee to deal with the different aspects of transportation. Many hon. members of this house have done so already. I just want again to express my deep appreciation to all members of the committee for the courtesy they showed me and for the very kind words many of them had for me.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. member a question? I realize that we are pressed for time. I also realize that the hon. member could not deal with everybody, but does he not think he should mention those great speeches made out west by the hon. member for Mercier on behalf of Expo?

January 26, 1967
Transportation


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mercier has been making a great many speeches out west about transportation, but since they have nothing to do with the national transportation bill which is before us at the moment, I will leave that matter to a later date.


Mr. Souiham:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the members of the committee for this opportunity to avail myself of a few moments of the committee's time in the discussion on clause 1 of Bill No. C-231, an act to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada. The hon. member for Hamilton West has put the committee in a very good mood and has named so many of the hard working members of the standing committee. I wish to thank him personally for his kind reference to myself, the hon. member for Moose Jaw, the hon. member for Kindersley and other hon. members whom he mentioned. But in making this passing reference we should not overlook the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Hamilton West himself.
As the hon. member pointed out, this bill was one of the most important, most contentious and contained some of the biggest problems, I think, of any bill ever presented to a committee of the house. His guidance and perseverance, together with the assistance of the vice-chairman, I believe went a long way in facilitating the progress we had already made in passing the bill.
The hon. member overlooked other very capable members besides members of his own party, who also made contributions to the work of the committee. I think I should single out for particular mention the hon. member for Acadia. I feel that he is a man who has spent more time on and done more research into the problems of transportation, and has made, I believe, a greater contribution toward the passage of this bill, than any other individual in the house.
In saying that, we should not forget the chairman of our group, the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, the hon. member for Pictou, the hon. member for Wellington-Huron and, of course, the minister himself. It was appreciated by the members of the committee that, although he had problems in dealing with much of the testimony presented to the committee, the minister was on the job day after day doing everything he could to assist us in carrying out a proper study toward the development of this bill. It was

because of the co-operation of the minister that many contentious points were made capable of solution, and it was helpful when he agreed to accept amendments made by the members. In this way we were able to make the progress we did.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, there is the usual "but". Personally I feel, as a member from western Canada, that this is not yet a good bill. After all, we have been working on a piecemeal basis on transportation legislation since back in 1898. We have been bringing forward and developing certain modes of transportation and have developed, as I say, a sort of piecemeal type of program in Canada. Naturally, it is very difficult to take one encompassing piece of legislation such as Bill No. C-231 and expect it to bring us up to date completely, and be a perfect product in the end result. I think evidence of this fact is what transpired during the course of our committee study. In the committee something like 50 or 60 amendments were put forward by witnesses. We had to contend with those. The fact that there were so many amendments is evidence that it was not a good bill to start with.
I have not been able to keep track of the number of amendments placed before this committee of the whole. They have all been important; they have all been well debated. There is an indication that many more amendments may be introduced before this bill comes finally to the point of what I think is necessary in order to achieve a modern system of transportation in Canada.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I am disturbed about the complete transfer of principle or concept from the old transport board to the new commission, so far as rate setting is concerned. It would appear as though the minister was rather cosy with the railroads in drafting this legislation. I have heard remarks to this effect. In fact, I am just wondering whether the minister, instead of aspiring to the Senate some time in the future, may be thinking of becoming president of the Canadian National.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe all modes of transport have received adequate debate or consideration in this bill. I am thinking of transport by air. Here is a developing mode of transport that has grown up, almost like Topsy, in recent years. I believe the competitive principle should be applied to this mode of transport rather than to rail rates.
January 2S, 1967



There is also the St. Lawrence seaway in connection with which problems are developing. Yesterday the hon. member tor Acadia mentioned the problem of seaway tolls. The people of western Canada, as captive shippers, are very dependent upon the seaway and shippers through the great lakes, I do not believe this aspect has been fully covered in our discussion.
The section of the bill dealing with pipe lines is another important aspect. This important mode of transport, although covered in the bill, is still subject to many limitations. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare brought to the attention of hon. members the inadequacies in this legislation in so far as pipe lines are concerned. As members of the committee know, this man has spent a lifetime in the oil industry and knows something about the transportation of this particular commodity. In fact I believe he mentioned he had a chance to look at something like 15 or 16 bills related to pipe line transport in other countries.
One of my colleagues says that this man helped to build 15 or 16 pipe lines. If we had had the time, here was an opportunity to explore the knowledge he had, and possibly have developed a better bill thereby. When we did criticize various aspects of the bill, I do not believe it was necessary for the minister to hide behind the fact the Conservative party had set up the MacPherson royal commission in the first place. I know on various occasions this hint was thrown out by the minister, that after all the Conservatives set up a commission which made certain recommendations, and therefore they must be good. This does not necessarily follow, Mr. Chairman. The government does not have to adopt any of the recommendations if they do not desire to do so. Many of these recommendations were worthy of consideration and we did consider them. When I say I am not satisfied with the bill, I think it is a wrong concept to take the lid off and allow the railways to set rates as high as the traffic will bear. This is what we have done in this piece of legislation.
I was naturally happy to see section 329 of clause 50 voted down by the committee. This directly preserved the farmer's Magna Carta of 1897 on rates affecting the movement of grain or the Crowsnest pass rates as they are called. Had the minister's amendment to clause 94 been allowed it would have been, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, like putting a weasel in a chicken coop, or the first chink in the armour, or hole in the 23033-779
Transportation
dike. The supposition now that the Crowsnest pass rates cost the railways $2 million is inaccurate in this day and age. This estimate is based on cost accounting practices that were questionable in the first place, and in the second place, the figures were based on traffic back in 1950 to 1960.
Members of the committee and people at large in this country, particularly those in western Canada, realize the vast changes in economic growth since 1960. These changes have been reflected in the movement of grain. This year we have produced something like 800 million bushels of grain in the three prairie provinces. If we include flax, oats, barley and corn, the total volume would reach something like 1,200 million bushels. Then, the discovery of vast deposits of potash in Saskatchewan since the time of the MacPherson royal commission has greatly enhanced the economy of the railways. I believe therefore we have been basing some of this legislation on figures which were outdated.
I do not believe the change in concept to allow rates in Canada to be set by competition will work well in a country of such vast geographic proportions. If we compare Canada to the United States, we find we have a somewhat greater geographic area. The United States has a population of something like 200 million people. So as a result you would feel that this concept of setting rates by competition would work much better there. As the members of the committee and the minister know, from the testimony we heard, the United States set rates in all fields of transportation by regulation. This principle applies also to other countries of the commonwealth. Here we have a young country with one of the greatest geographic areas in the world, sparsely populated, trying to use a concept which I do not believe will work too effectively.
We should have listened to the evidence given by Professors Borts and Williams, to which reference has been made by other members of the committee. I feel these were the two top expert witnesses who were brought in on behalf of the Government of Manitoba to testify from their knowledge and experience in transportation as to what they would suggest could be done to improve this bill. Of course their suggestion was that we completely reverse the concept and regulate rates.
Now, having said that, Mr. Chairman, I should like to conclude my remarks by making one or two short references to rail line

January 26, 1967
Transportation
abandonment. I have often spoken in the house on this subject. As I pointed out on several occasions, I had a sad experience in representing an area which had a rail line abandonment of the greatest magnitude of any place in western Canada, some 122 miles. When this application was before the Board of Transport Commissioners, I did a lot of research into the problem and know something about the sociological and economic disruptions created by rail line abandonment.
I do not want to pursue the subject any further than to say I am a little concerned about the principle that has been adopted temporarily by the government under the guidance of the Minister of Transport. I refer to the freeze on rail line abandonments until 1975. It seems to me that 1975 is now too far away. I am afraid we are going to be opening another kettle of fish at that time. I believe there should have been more effort to bring the rationalization principle into effect, so there would be no necessity for opening this subject again. In the meantime we are going to be faced with a series of applications for the abandonment of short lines which will come before the new commission which is set up.
I am disappointed that the minister did not see fit to include in this legislation a principle which I have advocated on numerous occasions. I refer to the fact that if a line is to be abandoned after proper study, there should be a freeze on the abandonment order for five years. This would give businesses, farmers and municipalities adjacent to that line a chance to liquidate their businesses, provide roads to replace the railroads, give the farmers a chance to remove their permit books to other areas and so make the necessary readjustments when the line has been taken out. However, we may still have a chance to see that principle incorporated at a later date.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
We have done our best to produce a good bill. I am not trying to discredit anybody in saying this because I think we have done our best. However, I still feel that the bill falls far short of what is necessary to provide a good transportation policy. For example we should have incorporated in the bill a clause to the effect that the government in five or six years time should review the legislation and iron out any anomalies or bugs which might have become apparent by then. Had this been done, Mr. Chairman, even though criticism has been directed toward the bill we would have left ourselves .in the position where the

people of Canada would be able to say that the government had co-operated with the opposition to come up with the best possible bill, and I think the people would be well satisfied. We have a right to be a little critical of the bill, and in concluding my remarks I express the hope that the legislation works out better than I think it will at the present time.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I ask the committee to rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again later this day.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is that agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 6(2) I move:
That the house continue to sit after ten o'clock p.m. this day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
(Translation)


Gilles Grégoire: Until what time are we going to sit?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, this motion is not debatable.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask the house leader, until what time?


George James McIlraith: Until we complete this bill, except for third reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It appears to the Chair that there is some objection taken, Therefore, may I read the first part of standing order 6(2):
A motion that the house continue to sit after the hour specified in section (1) may be made at any time without notice. If any member objects to the motion, Mr. Speaker shall request those members who object to rise in their places, and if ten or more members then rise, the question shall not be put on the motion.
Are there objections to the motion?
And fewer than ten members having risen:
January 26, 1967


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I read
further from standing order 6 (2):
If no member objects or if fewer than ten members rise in their places, the motion shall be deemed to be carried.
The Chair rules the motion be carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-231, to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof, and to enact other consequential provisions-Mr. Pickers-gill-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-National transportation policy.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few concluding remards on clause 1 before we pass committee stage of this large and complex bill. I should like to endorse the remarks made by the chairman of the committee on transportation and communications, the hon. member for Hamilton West, with regard to the expressions of appreciation of the minister and deputy minister, the officials of the department and a number of members of the committee. The meetings were far longer, and the committee dealt with a far more complex matter than any standing committee of this house has had for a long time. This does not take anything away from the excellent work other committees are doing at this time, but I am convinced that this bill of more complex nature than any other being considered at this time.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, and without any reservations as to those expressions of appreciation, I would also raise a word of caution regarding the application of this bill and its effects. I know the minister is aware that when this bill is in full force and effect there will be a very significant increase in freight rates. There will also be a very significant increase in the amount of revenue obtained by the railways from those freight rates. I say that because in many areas there will have to be a substitution of higher revenue from freight rates for the subsidies which have been paid by the federal government, which in the current fiscal year amount to about $110 million.
I agree that this will be done gradually, but in addition to subsituting for these subsidies 23033-7791
Transportation
revenue from freight rates equivalent to those now being paid, there is also a rather significant increase in cost to the railways which will have to be met out of the same revenue derived from freight rates.
For example, we all know that in August and September, 1966 this parliament ordered the railway workers back to work, and at the same time guaranteed to them not less than an 18 per cent increase in wages spread over three years. We also know that mediation has been going on as a result of this order of parliament and one recommendation has been that the increase which is to be spread over this three-year period should be as much as 24 per cent.
I am not suggesting that any of these railway workers are receiving too much compared with wages paid for comparable jobs in other industries, but I do say we have to face the fact that an enormous increase in revenue will be required to be raised from freight rates not only to compensate for the loss of subsidies but also to meet increasing costs.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I hope that the commission will be ever diligent as it applies these new provisions, to make sure that each rate and each category of freight will bear a fair share of increases. In the past it appears to have been too easy for the railways to apply the increases to those categories and shippers captive to the railways. There has not been a comparable increase in rates in areas where there has been effective competition from motor transport, air freight carriers or shipment by water.
Though we introduce a new concept, that railways shall be competitive and find almost all their revenues from competing in the marketplace, as a substitute for subsidies, we must remember that the captive shipper still needs the protection of political action by the parliament of Canada.
Throughout the debate on the bill members from various areas of this country have said they were not quite satisfied with the terminology, with the wording in various clauses. They have asked the minister from time to time what certain things mean; if there appeared to be ambiguity or misunderstanding in language, they asked how that could be applied to transportation. The minister has given assurances of what is intended. Time after time we accepted from the minister his assurances of what parts of the bill are intended to do, and we accepted those assurances despite the interpretation which may be

January 26, 1967
Transportation
given to some clauses by others. I admonish the minister again, if I may, to live up to these assurances, that this act may be an improvement in the transportation of Canada rather than a detriment to certain areas, regions, industries or economic sectors.
In conclusion I wish to say to the minister, to the chairman of the committee, and to all members of that committee that we hope the fruits of our labours, if I may call it that -because this labour has been going on for a long time-will in fact mean an improvement and benefit for Canada. We hope we shall gain knowledge from our experience of applying this bill in the first few months, so that when we come back in the next session, or the session after that based on the experience we have gained we may make the amendments necessary to make transportation a real asset to Canada from one end to the other.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I realize that in the circumstances the minister is most anxious to conclude the study of his bill after all he has had to go through in this house in the last three weeks but, to make him feel better, I can assure him that my remarks will be brief.
I noticed a little earlier that the time had come for congratulations; on both sides words of appreciation were said about this one and that one. I think that something would be missing if someone did not rise at a given moment to stress, to underline the infinite patience shown by the minister during the debate. Sometimes we had the impression-we who followed the debate as objectively as possible-that he was drowning the opposition under a wave of politeness, so eager was he to listen to suggestions and even to ask for them.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I will be happy with a few short remarks to say that, in my opinion, the debate was quite instructive, from my own standpoint. Personally, I learned a lot about the economic activities of that area called the Crowsnest pass and the Pacific coast. I heard more about the Crowsnest pass in the last three weeks that in my whole life before; that name which to me was only a rather abstract geographic point takes on today a meaning full of possibilities for the future of our country. I wish therefore to thank my colleagues for what they taught me.
In my few remaining remarks, perhaps I might reply to some statements made by my

colleague the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). Of course, I am not expected to agree with him always. I would not like hon. members to think that I hate him; on the contrary, I am among those who do not wish the sinner to die, but to repent and be saved.
Therefore, knowing that the hon. member for Lapointe is intelligent and that he has an impressive gift of speech and unusually quick reactions, I believe we should charitably seize every opportunity to try to keep him in the right path because, talented as he is, he could be of service to the country instead of trying to harm it as he has been doing for some time. It is in this spirit, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to draw attention to some of the things he said.
Tonight he said things which impressed me and which would have, normally, done so. Besides, when I listen to the hon. member for Lapointe, I must say that I am very attentive because, occasionally, he says sensible things. He enjoys periods of lucidity, but not necessarily when he chooses to describe the members who represent Montreal, as he did recently. Then, he reminds me of the man who went to see an optician and asked him: "Can you make me a pair of glasses so that I can read"? The optician took pains and made him something a little special but the man came back a week later and said: "But I cannot read with your glasses". After a rather long study of the situation, the optician found out that the man could not read.
There are things that the hon. member for Lapointe cannot read, because he looks at them in a light which is different from everybody else's. However, as we wish him no harm, instead of following the advice of the evil spirits who suggested to ignore him, I think that, charitably, we should apply ourselves to bringing him back on the right track.
Mr. Chairman, some members who are listening to me are anxious to see how I will conclude. I was surprised a moment ago to see the member for Lapointe shaking the minister violently, hoping that tomorrow's newspapers will mention the fact that the member for Lapointe reminded the Minister of Transport that he was committing a heresy by encroaching upon a field where constitutionally the federal government should not interfere. He evidently missed the definite answer given by the minister around 5.45 this afternoon. 1 was impressed to see how categorical the minister was. He was expressing the viewpoint of the Prime Minister (Mr. January 26, 1967

Pearson); he said so himself. But on that matter, my opinion is not very unlike that of the member for Lapointe. I simply blame him once again for not being often enough in the house.
However, I will say to the minister that there is obviously confusion in the minds, since we see that even lawyers, who should be experts in legal and constitutional matters, are not agreeing on that; in fact, lawyers of all political affiliations are upholding divergent opinions concerning the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of an act. For instance, the leader of the opposition and the head of the government in Quebec are two lawyers who maintain that this is not constitutional while in the federal government, lawyers are advising the minister to say that it is constitutional. But we have to come to a conclusion for the guidance of the public in search of the truth.
I would like to suggest to the minister to develop the comments he made in the house and the answer he gave and prepare in his usual masterful fashion which we admire, a press release where he could line up all the arguments proving that he is right, and let them be known throughout Canada. This would put an end to ambiguity and misunderstanding, and prevent certain circles from brandishing scarecrows, to frighten the people who eventually imagine that Ottawa is a bogyman who tries continually, year after year, to infringe provincial rights.
When this is true, it should be blamed; when not, persons who are solicitous of the truth should not do so.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Therefore, I repeat that the minister should clarify the situation in an unqualified statement spread across the country, so that people may know whether or not it is constitutional.
Like those who are constructively trying to find more practical solutions, it seemed to me that the minister was right when he said that we were legislating on interprovincial and international transport; that field comes under federal jurisdiction. That strikes me as being true, because I went through the bill once more to find if it were in any way dealing with provincial transport and I could not find anything of the sort, except, of course, that provincial transport companies wishing to go from one province to another or to the United States will have to comply with this legislation. I think this matter warrants
Transportation
the federal government's intervention, because the existing mess had to be tidied up, what with different legislation and procedures from one province to another.
Personally, I was impressed by the minister's answer, but some Canadians may not have read it or may not have had the opportunity to consider it; he should make his opinion widely known, complete it, support it with arguments, and even send a French copy to the hon. member for Lapointe as well as to the leader of the opposition and the Quebec premier who seem to be people of good will.
The hon. member for Lapointe-no, I am not judging anybody, I leave that up to Providence-mentioned things which nevertheless seemed justified. He said, for instance, that the first short-wave station with which ships entering the St. Lawrence can communicate answers in English only; well, it is inconceivable that this should happen in the province of Quebec.
And that reminds me; we have this problem in our control towers at Montreal. Not at Quebec city, however, where both English and French are spoken. I am speaking of incoming planes. Unfortunately, most of the answers are given in English at Montreal. I speak from personal experience. I travel by plane once in a while. However, I feel bilingual personnel is essential. I agree with the hon. member for Lapointe here, because there you have pilots of all nationalities, speaking various languages.
I was also impressed when he quoted figures emphasizing rate differentials from one city to another. This should prove to the hon. member for Lapointe that I am no fanatic; I am giving him the credit he deserves.
I will not deny what I cannot prove, but I did check on one of his statements. A few days ago, the hon. member for Lapointe had told me: "Russian ships come into Montreal, unload their cargo and are not allowed to take on a load of grain for the return trip. They are told to head for Halifax, where they have to wait a few days". I told him at the time: "This does not seem logical. If it is true, then something must be done."
I went to see those who know what they are talking about. We have grain elevators too, you know. We also have people in the grain business. There are some in Montreal too. Well, I got my information from these people. I was given what I feel is a plausible explanation, which I am giving to the house. Hon. members may check on it if they so desire.

January 26, 1967
Transportation
I was told that the grain coming from western Canada and from the great lakes area, comes to Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec city mostly by ship during the navigation season. A very small percentage of the grain production is shipped by rail, it seems.
Early in winter, before the season closes, elevators are filled in Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec city in order to serve consumers in those three areas.
Therefore, from the economic point of view, it would not be wise to let Russian or other foreign ships take aboard our winter supplies which would force us to bring in our own supplies by rail, which would cost more. Another possibility would be to have our livestock tighten their belts. Therefore, this regulation was made, so that foreign ships would not come and get our winter supplies. We need them for ourselves and our silos; our elevators are not large enough to provide for local consumption as well as for exports. Therefore they are being told; Go get some in Halifax. In Halifax, shipping goes on the year round. It seems the elevators there are larger, local consumption is not as heavy and that it is less expensive to send the Lakers over there to get unloaded directly rather than to send them to Montreal and Trois-Rivieres and have them take freight there and be sent to the Atlantic coast.
That was the explanation I got and I think it plausible. Another reason I have to find it plausible is that in checking and doublechecking I got the same answer.
And this proves that we can easily hear about things, in this house, that seem to us fantastic and astounding and that may create a scandal the following day in the newspapers. I am wondering whether in the long run, by dint of crying wolf, we are not thus creating a feeling of mistrust among the people. We could normally influence the public if we were careful to cry wolf only when the wolf is really at the door and to cry fire when the fire is really burning.
Again, I am not in a position to question the other assertions made by the hon. member for Lapointe. If the figures he mentioned are correct, well, I am saying to the minister it is about time to take care of that situation and to remedy that injustice, should it exist.
But once again, I would like us to have an opportunity to check the statements of the hon. member for Lapointe before blaming anybody. If he is right, the situation should be coped with.

On the other hand, if an irresponsible accusation comes out of the blue, as in the case of the ship captains who are being required to go to Halifax with empty ships, I say that the bad impression created among the people should be corrected.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this house does not ever bring forth perfect bills. The one which we have considered was a difficult one and the debate was protracted.
I feel this discussion has been constructive on the whole and I believe it is valuable piece of legislation, though imperfect. There will certainly be some people who will complain about it, after some experience. But, I presume that parliament will have the privilege of reviewing this legislation every year in order to improve it and amend it so that it will meet the needs of all Canadians.
There are two other things I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman. They have already been mentioned, but I believe they will never be emphasized enough. First, there is the matter of railway and steamship companies that do not pay taxes to municipalities, as everyone does, and of the grants which the federal government must pay in lieu of the taxes those companies should pay. But it is alleged that the Queen must not normally be taxed; that is going a bit too far because I cannot see what the C.N.R. has to do with the Queen, but let us say it is acceptable. Nonetheless, I would say that the subsidies paid by the federal government to the municipalities are, in most cases, inadequate and determined unilaterally.
I suggest that consultations should be held with bodies representing municipalities, such as the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities which has a very active and very capable committee, since the chairman of its harbours committee has recently been appointed member of the National Harbours Board. I refer to the former mayor of Halifax and a former member of this house, Mr. John Lloyd. The federation has a harbours committee which is actively engaged in all matters concerning towns where there is a port and I think the government should get in touch with this committee to determine the fair and reasonable amounts that municipalities should receive in subsidies. I say that in most cases, they are insufficient and do not cover the services rendered by the municipalities to the national harbours.
January 26, 1967



[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Another thing I mentioned briefly in my last remarks and which I should like to emphasize because it is probably more important than it would seem on first sight-and I know that all members of this house who have sat on city councils will support what I am suggesting. I claim that it is unfair to require municipalities to pay a share of the cost of tunnels or overpasses that are required to eliminate level crossings. I think the cost of those things should be paid for by the federal government and by the company concerned.
I say the municipalities cannot afford to meet those costs, those capital expenditures and that it is unfair to force them to do it. I mention this to the minister so that instructions may be given to the transport commission whose responsibilities, I assume, will include making such recommendations.
No one will deny that Canadian municipalities are in an alarming financial situation; they lack the resources of the provincal and federal governments to fulfil their responsibilities to their residents. Tax sharing arrangements are being delayed for all sorts of reasons, good or bad, while the municipalities are faced with most difficult problems. Those should not be increased by requiring them to pay sums in excess of their means because, in their own jurisdiction, city councillors are often blamed by the voters, the citizens, for failing to eliminate fast enough level crossings within their territory.
Mr. Chairman, I conclude by repeating another thing, and through repetition, its importance perhaps will finally sink in. Several of my colleagues have said that in this day and age, transportation is extremely important for the country's economy and that in the years to come, we shall have to provide especially for an extensive development of air transport. I say to the minister that a special effort should be made in order to fully anticipate the needs of private aviation if it is to develop normally.
When I speak of private aviation, I do not mean mere amateurs who fly for an hour or two around the town where they live on Sunday morning, but of a sector which is developing very rapidly, that is, private airlines which operate their own planes and American companies which come to Canada with their own planes. I think an overall plan should be designed, particularly with regard to the construction of a greater number of primary, secondary and tertiary landing strips to
Transportation
encourage development in this sector of the industry.
There are other sectors which I shall not deal with so as not to prolong the debate. I should like the minister to remember the essential part of my recommendation, which is that a subcommittee of this Canadian Transport Commission, perhaps, could be instructed to make a complete study of the needs of private aviation in Canada, in view of the developments which we may expect within the next 10 or 15 years.
Mr. Chairman, to show that I am objective and do not suffer from a chronic allergy, I invite the hon. Minister of Transport to inquire into the accusations made by the hon. member for Lapointe who said that there are tariff differences. I suggest that the minister take steps to remedy the situation, because these differences will produce cases of injustice which can easily be exploited by those who want to make capital out of national disunity.


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Chairman, when some of the clauses dealing with air transportation were being discussed it was suggested that anyone wishing to speak on that topic should wait until clause 1 was called again for discussion. Before proceeding further, on behalf of our party I would like to express our appreciation to the hon. member for Medicine Hat for his contribution to the deliberation of the standing committee, and in this debate. He was our main spokesman throughout the debate and we appreciate the effort he made.
The first few words of clause 1 read:
It is hereby declared that an economic and efficient transportation system making the best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest total cost is essential.
I am sure I am not the only Canadian who is a bit concerned about the possibility of this ever being more than a pious hope and wishful thinking. I read a week or two ago that Air Canada had committed itself to the purchase of supersonic aircraft. It has plans to purchase four of the Anglo French Concorde and six of the American supersonic aircraft that are now in the planning stage. I expect there are a variety of reasons why Air Canada is going ahead with these plans, but I would like to draw the attention of the committee and of the new Transport Commission to an article which appeared in Harper's Magazine in July, 1966, entitled "The Case against the Supersonic Transport" by John E. Gibson.

January 26, 1967
Transportation
In it Mr. Gibson refers to the problems that have arisen in North American transport as a result of over-enthusiasm for the railroad when it was a new method of transport, and when it was revolutionary. I am sure that many of the hours of debate we have had in this session on transport resulted because of mistakes that were made when the railway was a new, experimental, untried form of transportation, and that we are paying now for over-optimism at that time. Yet we seem about to repeat the cycle when it comes to supersonic aircraft.
The article that I have mentioned lists some of the technical difficulties that are involved in this new form of aircraft. They are truly formidable. In speaking of the Concorde the writer says that in essence it will be obsolete before it leaves the drafting table. He also writes of the possible dangers to passengers. These planes will fly at much greater heights than we are accustomed to, and Mr. Gibson gives this startling warning:
At 70,000 feet, the proposed cruising altitude of the SST, there will be no need of oxygen masks if cabin pressure is lost. The reason is that the human body undergoes explosive decompression, the blood boils, and death occurs within several seconds. This happens whether or not one wears an oxygen mask. The only safeguard is an astronaut type pressure suit.
Designers feel that the safest sort of supersonic aircraft would have no windows, yet the aircraft which Air Canada proposes to purchase will have windows. The article goes on to mention a great many other things, such as the eroding effect of rain at supersonic speeds and so on.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
The real problems, however, are not in that area. Having discussed this, he goes on to say that the real problem of supersonic transport is that it cannot make money. Yet Air Canada, which is a crown corporation, is going into a field in which money cannot be made. This means that we will have to pay for it through taxation on higher prices, but it will be paid for and paid for many times. With the announcement of the proposed purchases we have also had the beginning of a program to condition the public of Canada to the acceptance of this. Already we have been told that a premium rate will be paid for this type of transport. Already we have been told that the operating costs will be 50 per cent higher than they are in respect of the conventional subsonic transport with which we are now familiar.
We might wonder why a crown corporation has gone so far as to commit itself in this

way. To those people who are wondering why, I would recommend to them a series of lectures which have been given in the last two months by the economist John Kenneth Galbraith which have been published in the Listener. These lectures were given over the B.B.C. He talks about modem technology having destroyed the market, and because the market has been destroyed it becomes essential for government or the great corporations to replace the market and in effect, to guarantee a market. This can be done by the advertising industry using its persuasive means to create a market, or it can be done by a government subsidy.
In the case of the supersonic transport it would seem that the government of Canada, through its crown corporation Air Canada, is guaranteeing a market for one of the most expensive experiments ever undertaken. In its development the Concorde already has cost $1,500 million, and it is not yet in the air. I am sure the cost of the American plane will be even higher than that. Although we in Canada no longer have the kind of aircraft industry which could venture into this sort of an experiment, none the less we will be subsidizing these two experiments, one from Europe and the other outside our border in North America.
I would question whether the Canadian public is prepared to subsidize this type of transport to the extent necessary, because not only will the cost of each airplane be involved, which will be in the vicinity of $40 million, and the operating costs, but also of course there is the cost of the drastic alterations, which have to be made in the runways, in the flight patterns, in the safety precautions and in a host of other areas, if this type of transport is to be used at all.
One might wonder about the reason for this. I expect Air Canada and perhaps the government of Canada have realized there no longer is any free market in the aircraft industry; otherwise what would be the reason for agreeing in advance, when neither of them has been flown, to purchase four Concordes and six American planes? Why not wait to see whether they are feasible at all? Here we have a very fine example of a market being guaranteed. No opportunity is being given for anything like a competitive trial between the two planes, nor even a competitive trial between the supersonic and the subsonic.
One would expect that there would be no advantage in gaining an hour or two in a flight across the Atlantic if more and more
January 26, 1967

time is involved in getting to the airport. It seems to me that it is unwise for a nation with a population such as ours and a country as small as ours to become involved in an experiment such as this. When there is a need for development in other areas in our own country, such as education and research, I do not think we should commit so much of our economic effort to bringing our air line into the supersonic category. I know that these days this is one of the methods employed to buy international prestige; but I doubt really whether Canadians are prepared or should be prepared to pay that price for international prestige. I expect, however, that we will do this, because it will be treated as an inevitability. I expect that Air Canada is above and beyond the reach of any transport board which would be set up as a result of this legislation, because aircraft corporations, not only in Canada but in all countries, seem to be able to put themselves well out of the reach of democratic government.
If there is a need to subsidize technology I believe we should see that it is subsidized in areas which would be more truly productive for the benefit of mankind. Perhaps we should use whatever influence we have left in the United Nations in an effort to get together with the nations in a discussion as to the advisability of continuing this race for higher speeds at increasingly diminishing returns forever and ever.
This is all I have to say in respect of transport, Mr. Chairman, but I do feel that unless there is a close and careful examination made of the future of air transport, and the costs and problems involved in the course on which this nation has embarked, clause 1 of Bill C-231 will be wishful thinking indeed.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, it seems that this long debate on Bill C-231 is finally coming to an end. We now are on clause 1, and since this is the clause for which I have been waiting, I have a few remarks I should like to make. First of all, I think this debate has proven the value of the committees system. I do not think any bill has ever had a more careful scrutiny. At least this would seem to be the case now, when we are at the end of a long and arduous debate and see the gentlemanly way in which hon. members treat each other. I must say, however, that this whole proposition of putting all of Canada's transport under one omnibus committee leaves some doubt in my mind as to whether any committee could handle this onerous task. I would go further and say that any minister 23033-780
Transportation
charged with the responsibility of overseeing the work of such a committee would have his hands full. Therefore I should like to suggest to the minister, and through him to the government, that they give very careful consideration to dividing the responsibility of the Minister of Transport, if not into two complete ministries at least to the point of establishing the position of an associate minister for air.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)
As the last speaker has pointed out today, air is taking a more prominent place than ever before in the economic affairs of Canada and of the whole world.
It seems to me that if we are to keep in pace with the jet age we need the full time of a minister who would answer all those questions with regard to air transport and, in the very near future, space control, as well as questions on the research and development which is required if we are not to have chaos in the air industry. Certainly the minister who is responsible for co-ordinating our railroad, pipe line and water transport will have more than his hands full. It may be that in the future we may not have as capable a minister as we have at present who, when all is said, has given a great deal of energy and thought to these matters. I cannot say that I have always agreed with his conclusions but his energy is certainly beyond argument.
To be specific on two matters, let me remind the house that we have been told by the ministry over and over again that our Crowsnest freight rates will be protected and honoured and that indeed this commission, when it is in full operation, will attack Canada's transportation problems with vision. We must have the courage and vision to see the greater Canada which must emerge, and this will mean connecting the railway lines which have not been linked in the past. We must have the courage to build and anticipate the tonnage which will travel over the new railway lines.
I join other members of the house in saying that, whether or not it is wishful thinking, we hope that the new experiment in co-ordinating Canada's transportation system will bear the fruit that all of us sincerely anticipate.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief. I merely wish to deal with some views expressed by the minister this afternoon with regard to a question I put at the start of the sitting.

January 26, 1967
Transportation
First of all, I shall remind the minister that on September 6, in this house, while he was making some remarks on the proposed resolution, I concluded my remarks as follows:
How will the provincial government react to <his resumption, by the federal government, of (ome authority in the field of interprovincial highway traffic?
I put that question to the minister, and I suggested to him, on that and other occasions, that he should consult or get in touch with the Quebec provincial government, which is rightly concerned about certain initiatives of the central government.
I notice that since September 6-I know that the minister is very busy-he probably did not have the opportunity or did not want to take the initiative to contact the Quebec government. And what I was expecting finally burst out.
Today's newspapers report, as pointed out by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), that the Quebec legislature, Premier Daniel Johnson and the leader of the opposition, Mr. Jean Lesage, agreed on that matter. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) looked surprised a little earlier that two lawyers could agree on an important point.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, yesterday in the Quebec legislative assembly, the premier and the leader of the official opposition agreed to protest to the central government about Bill No. C-231 on transportation.
The Minister of Transport answered, towards the end of the afternoon, that he had discussed the matter with the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and that he intended to table tomorrow the correspondence exchanged between the federal government, the central government, and the Quebec government about the matter. The Quebec premier and the Quebec leader of the opposition were not the only ones who protested. In fact, a few weeks ago we read reports in the press according to which the provincial minister of highways, Mr. Lizotte, protested vehemently against certain tendencies revealed in Bill C-231.
This evening, we are asked to sit until the bill reaches third reading. This is absolutely illogical. In conscience, Mr. Chairman, we should be able to read the correspondence to find out on what criteria the Quebec government based its protests and, also, to study the replies given by the federal authorities to the Quebec government with regard to the controversy about Bill C-231.

That is why I would rather we did not vote this evening, we did not agree to third reading, prior to having had the opportunity to-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I may interrupt the hon. gentleman. There is no intention whatever to ask the house to accept third reading of the bill tonight. All we are doing is trying to complete the committee stage. In fact I do not think that under the rules we could pass the bill tonight even if we wanted to because, as I hardly need to say, there have been a number of amendments and when that is the case it is against the rules to have third reading unless there is unanimous consent to it. So the hon. gentleman does not need to worry; this bill cannot possibly be passed tonight. All we are asking is to conclude the committee stage of the bill.
With regard to the other point raised by the hon. gentleman, what I said was that I did not think we should rely upon what we read in the newspapers, but that I would do my best to see that an approach is made to the premier of Quebec to find out whether he would be agreeable to our tabling this correspondence. Of course I have not had much time this evening to do it myself and I do not know whether anyone in the Prime Minister's office has had a chance to do it either, because it was rather late in the day.
If the premier is agreeable, it will be made available. If he is not, I do not think it would be very courteous to do so. However I can assure the hon. gentleman that if that request has not already been made, it will be made the first thing in the morning. If the story which I read in Le Devoir this morning is correct, I see no reason why we should expect any reluctance on the part of the premier to agree. However I think we owe him the courtesy to ask him and not just to take for granted what we read in the newspapers.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, thank the minister for the two assurances he has just given us. And that is why I shall conclude my remarks this evening, even if I have to come back to them tomorrow on the motion for third reading. First, there is the assurance that we will not be asked for unanimous consent to proceed with third reading this evening, and, second, that the minister will do everything in his power to get in touch tomorrow morning with the responsible people in the Quebec government. I sincerely
January 26, 1967



hope that tomorrow afternoon, at the beginning of the sitting, we will have a statement in that connection.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: January 26. 1967
Transportation
those ranging all the way down to cities with a much smaller population status, which are denied some of the access routes to the United States which would be of tremendous benefit to their economic future. These are some of the things that I suggest need the attention of the minister and government, even though a great many aspects of our transportation life in this country, our transportation milieu, are covered in the mammoth bill we have been considering. Research and expertise in transportation in general must be developed and made available to our government, minister and future ministers of transport. But the most pressing requirement of all is the one I mentioned first, namely the need for the development and encouragement of our regional air carriers to the extent that they can be elevated into a healthy economic position in this country, to the extent that they can begin to play a healthy, contributory role in our over-all transportation picture and to the extent that they can feed and stimulate the national air lines operating across this country.
I make that final plea to the minister in closing my remarks on this particular phase of the debate. It is to be hoped that these particular oversights and omissions from what otherwise is a far reaching and most exhaustive piece of legislation will be rectified by legislation in these areas that the minister will be planning to introduce shortly in the house.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to say a few words so as not to delay the discussion unduly. I know that many members of the house staff have to stay late and I do not want to keep them too long.
Mr. Chairman, I quoted earlier figures and statistics which the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) seemed to question, if not to reject entirely. I have nothing to take up in his remarks and I leave it to those who will read them to judge.
The Minister of Transport, with his usual courtesy, told me that the proper officials were not available this evening to provide answers and information. I am not asking for them this evening, because I know and admit that the minister cannot, of course, memorize all the railway and transportation rates. I am also aware that the minister cannot require all his departmental officials to stay in the galleries in case a member asked for some
(Mr. Sherman.]
information of interest or known by such or such official. I also know that the minister is entirely justified in asking us to wait until tomorrow for his answers. That is why I am not pressing for an answer this evening. I am not asking for a reply tonight, but I want an answer tomorrow, if possible, or before the bill is finally passed.
I think that if the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres had listened to my speech, not to criticize or question it, but if he had only listened as I gave it, with the figures I quoted, he would not have said: It might seem striking, but if true, we dare not rise against it, otherwise it would be like the figures of the member for Lapointe.
I will say to the member for Trois-Rivieres that in the five years I have been sitting in the house, I have often quoted figures. I have also quoted statistics, not only in the house but elsewhere and no one has ever claimed that I had quoted false figures.
Never. And I challenge the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres to prove the contrary. To set the record straight, I can give the hon. Minister of Transport the figures I quoted, so as to substantiate the fact that I said 74 cents and not 71 cents, as given in Hansard. I have here the exact figures I quoted, and I am willing to submit them to the minister.
As to the constitutional aspect of the bill and the discussions which could arise, I would like to point out to the hon. minister that I said earlier I did not wish to make any comments tonight, nor any other time until we have seen the correspondence between the Quebec and Ottawa authorities. I mentioned this a while ago and I can repeat that I am not going to make any comments whatsoever before I see those letters.
The hon. minister says that they will be tabled; I would also like to have his assurance that the bill will not pass third reading before we find out whether or not this correspondence will be tabled. Obviously, if the Quebec government refuses to have them tabled, we cannot insist any longer. But if Quebec does accept, I hope the minister will not come and tell us: "We will have third reading tomorrow and the correspondence will be tabled in three or four days". In my opinion, this would not be honest. Moreover, I feel that-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member would permit me to interrupt him to say that since the hon. member for Sherbrooke spoke I
January 26, 1967

have received a note informing me that a request went out late this afternoon to the premier of Quebec for permission. I was not satisfied with that, because the request may have been by telegram or something of that sort. I said I hoped it would be followed by a telephone call first thing in the morning. I am doing everything I possibly can. There is nothing we want to hide and I do not think there is anything the premier of Quebec wants to hide. It is just getting the matter understood between us.


Eric Alfred Winkler: He was not here to hear that. [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: I was here, and the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) knows it, when the minister said it a moment ago.


Eric Alfred Winkler: If you were, you would not have asked that question.


Gilles Grégoire: But the minister never gave the assurance to the house that we would not go on to third reading until the letters were tabled, if they are to be tabled. The only assurance the minister gave-


Eric Alfred Winkler: I rise on a question of privilege now, Mr. Chairman. Seldom do I rise in support of the minister, but I think the hon. member will agree with me that the minister has gone as far as he can.


Gilles Grégoire: That does not mean anything, in fact, because the only assurance-


Eric Alfred Winkler: I rise again on a question of privilege. I believe we have all agreed to this. In addition, I believe the hon. member has, in essence, agreed with me. All I can say about him is either he was not here or he is quite as irresponsible as his colleagues from Quebec stated earlier this week.


Gilles Grégoire: I am asking the minister to go as far as this: if the letters are to be tabled in the house, providing Quebec agrees, let us wait until they are tabled before the bill is read the third time. If the Quebec government refuses, then of course the bill can be given third reading. But if the Quebec government gives its answer Monday instead of
Transportation
tomorrow and agrees to the tabling of the letters, then let us wait until Monday for the third reading. That is my plea to the minister.
At this time, the only assurance that we have from the minister is that there would be no third reading tonight, that is the only assurance-


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I will ignore the remarks of the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler). I will tell him only that his insults do not make a dent in the indifference I feel toward him. In fact, my indifference is complete.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we are asking the Minister of Transport to give us that assurance because it might be several days before we get an answer from the Quebec government. But if we are to get the letters, they should be tabled before consideration of the bill on third reading.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that the minister-I know he will do his utmost to secure the letters-could give us the assurance that before proceeding to third reading we will know at least whether or not the Quebec government is willing to table those letters. It seems to me that such assurance could be readily given because, according to the newspapers at least, the premier of Quebec is alleged to have said that he was willing to table the letters but was waiting for permission from the government in Ottawa. If both are waiting for each other's permission, something might be done to speed things up.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, as regards the constitutionality of the bill and the violations of the constitution, we think it preferable to wait for third reading to discuss that. The minister tells us that it is a question of procedure. He says: I cannot give you an answer tonight, since my officials are not here. As for the letters, we cannot table them tonight as we have not yet received Quebec's consent. And he is asking us to pass clause 1 and to wait for third reading to discuss this problem.
I am asking the minister if he is willing to give us, on third reading, as much latitude to discuss that problem as we would have if we were dealing with it on clause 1. Is the minister ready to grant us the same latitude to discuss it on third reading that we would be allowed through parliamentary procedure if

January 26, 1967
Transportation
we dealt with it while examining clause 1 of the bill? That is what I am asking the minister. I wonder whether he could give us an answer immediately, a favourable answer.


Eric Alfred Winkler: As I leave the house, all I can say is the hon. member is the only tail I know that can wag two dogs.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, could the minister answer my question?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is clause 1 agreed to?
[DOT] (11:10 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: I am sorry, sir, I see that the minister does not wish to answer my question. He cannot be forced to answer, but it is clear that we would have more latitude to discuss such problems in committee, on clause 1, than on third reading because on the motion for third reading our possibilities are very limited, under parliamentary procedure. In fact according to the rules, we have more chance, upon consideration of clause 1 of a bill, to get information and to obtain answers to our questions, which is not the case on the motion for third reading.
Therefore, I believe the minister is in fact, now using the motion moved a while ago to try and preclude us from debating those problems with all due latitude. I believe the minister is using the rules to limit our possibility of debate on that matter by forcing us to debate it on third reading instead of on clause 1 in committee of the whole house.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I inform the house that there is a problem of mechanics which arises here. As hon. members know, when the house gives permission for the third reading of a bill which has been amended, that does not carry with it authority to reprint the bill as it comes out of committee of the whole. This is a particularly complex bill. There have been many amendments and it would, I am sure, be of some assistance to the members if they had a reprint of the bill as it came out of committee of the whole. It will

be necessary for the house to give this authority, and on behalf of Mr. Speaker I ask for it now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask what the business is for tomorrow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, when my hon. friend from Hamilton West called out "next sitting of the house" with respect to third reading he was correctly interpreting the mind of the house leader. It is proposed to move the third reading of this bill tomorrow as the first item of government business. I hope at that time to be able to satisfy the exigence of the hon. gentleman, but that will depend on persons other than myself. However, I will do my best both as to statistics and as to the correspondence. Meanwhile perhaps the hon. gentleman might read the Privy Council decision of 1954 for the rest of the night, when I think he will have the answers to all his questions.
When the third reading is completed-and I intend to spend most of the night in prayer that it will be completed-it is proposed to take item No. 84 on today's order paper, which is second reading of an act to revise and consolidate the Interpretation Act and amendments thereto. I would think that this would be an emotional exercise for the house.
The next item would be item 62, a bill having to do with the Canadian Film Development Corporation; then item No. 83, an act respecting an immigration appeal board. Then there is a little bill having to do with armed forces visiting Canada from other countries. I am told that-


Thomas Miller Bell: -it is an innocuous bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member is being helpful. Then there is a resolution, item No. 116 on today's order paper, respecting the Small Businesses Loans Act which has to be extended. Finally we will take item 120 having to do with postal services. If all of these items are completed, the government reserves the right to take practically any other item on the order paper; but I think there is an understanding that there are one or two items that will not be proceeded with after five o'clock.
January 26, 1967


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should point out to hon. members that when the motion to extend the sittings was made this evening no time of termination was mentioned. Standing order 6(2) under which that motion was made states:
An extended sitting under the provisions of this section, unless a closing time has been specified, shall not be terminated except by the adoption of a motion to adjourn and Mr. Speaker shall not
Business of the House deem that a motion to adjourn the house has been made by virtue of the operation of any other Standing Order.
At this time I would accept a motion to adjourn.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I move that this house do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11.16 p.m.

Friday, January 27, 1967