1967-12-05

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to seek the approval of the house to revert to motions at 5.30 this afternoon in order that the Prime Minister may make a statement and the party leaders may comment at that time. If this is agreeable I should like to have it made an order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the house will revert to motions at 5.30 this afternoon?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.



REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUBJECT MATTER OF BILL C-186

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in order to clarify the somewhat ambiguous situation which developed in the committee yesterday, with consent I should like to move the following motion seconded by Mr. Nicholson:
That the subject dealt with in Bill C-186 be referred to the standing committee on labour and employment for consideration; provided, however, that despite this motion the said bill shall remain on the order paper as an order for second reading without prejudice to the right to make or proceed with the motion for such second reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Minister of National Health and Welfare have leave to present this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. H. Pit Lessard (Saint-Henri) moved: that the eighth and ninth reports of the standing committee on transport and communications, presented to the house on Thursday, November 30, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr.   Fernand-E. Leblanc@Laurier: for leave to introduce a bill respecting Canadian stamps.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, it is high time that the citizens in our country, English or French speaking, cut the umbilical cord with their mother country and become truly Canadians, in co-operation with other ethnic groups: Unity in diversity.
This bill is a consistent follow-through to Bill No. C-167, first reading of which I moved on October 10, last; the explanations then supplied concerning our search for a clearly Canadian identity apply to this bill.

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South
Cenire): I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There has been no clear explanation as to what this bill intends. The hon. member talks about cutting an umbilical cord, but what does he intend to do in respect of our stamps? I should like to have a clear explanation.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, the explanatory notes of that bill read as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to replace the effigy of the Queen which appears on certain Canadian stamps by the stylized maple leaf which adorns the Canadian flag.


Mr. Churchill:: I object.

December 5. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Contrary minded will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask whether in the course of his comments on the so-called B and B commission report later this afternoon he would include a statement as to what the government proposes to do with the report, and the measures the government proposes to take in connection with the subject matter of the report.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will be making a very short statement this afternoon when the report is tabled. My hon. friend of course realizes, or will realize when he reads the report, that this is a very important, comprehensive document with a great many recommendations. It would be very difficult in the few days since the receipt of the report to give any final verdict on the government's reaction to all those recommendations, but I will indicate the steps that we propose to take to give consideration to the report.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister about the agenda for the federal-provincial conference which is to be held

early in the new year. In view of the fact that the letter of invitation which the Prime Minister sent to the premiers, dated August 15, mentions only a proposed bill of rights, could I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to widen the agenda for the conference so as to deal with some of the problems which were posed by the confederation of tomorrow conference and which still have to be resolved?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In the invitation to the conference it was suggested to the premiers that while we had called this conference to discuss a very important constitutional matter, a federal bill of rights, we would welcome any suggestions the provincial governments might make as to the widening of the agenda, because we did not wish to restrict it in any way. I may have one suggestion to make with regard to that matter this afternoon when I make my statement on the B and B commission report.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether it will be possible to have a copy of the agenda made public prior to the conference; and is it the intention of the government to present a statement setting forth the particular parts of the constitution which may have to be revised in order to give the federal government the necessary powers to develop a viable and expanding economy? I would also ask whether such a statement will be made prior to the conference.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, so far as making public the agenda before the conference meets is concerned, I have no objection whatever to that. I would wish to wait, of course, until we get the views of the provinces as to what they would like included in the agenda. I hope this will be done in ample time for the agenda to be made public before the conference meets. As far as the other part of the question is concerned, I should like to look into the possibility of a statement being made along the lines suggested before the conference opens.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Has there been a decision, or is the question still under discussion, as to the extent to which the conference will be held in public?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No decision has been taken on that point; that will have to be decided by those participating in the conference. I would be very glad to take that up well in advance
December 5, 1967

of the meeting so the greatest possible publicity can be given to this meeting.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister relating to the constitutional conference. Does the Prime Minister have in mind seeking the opinion of the house prior to the conference on any of the questions to be discussed with the provinces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That would depend, of
course, to some extent on the date which is agreed upon. It is conceivable, though I hope it will not happen, that the house may not be sitting on that date. I have suggested to the provinces that the conference might meet in the first week of February; I shall be glad, if parliament is sitting before that-and it may well be sitting before that-to consider the possibility of a day being set aside in the Commons to consider the matters to come before the conference.



APPLICATION TO STAFF OF BILINGUAL BONUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of National Revenue.
Is he studying or considering, at the present time, the feasibility of granting the 7 per cent bonus to all bilingual employees of the Canadian parliament?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: The employees of parliament fall within the purview of the Speaker rather than that of the government of Canada.


David Réal Caouette: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Are parliament employees considered as federal employees or are they not?


Edgar John Benson: The conditions of employment of House of Commons staff are under the direction of the Speaker, as I indicated.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXPO '67



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON GRANTING OF SEVERANCE PAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: I had
intended to direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce; perhaps in his absence I could direct it to the Prime Minister. It is based on a press report that severance pay is being granted to Expo workers. Could I ask whether it is the intention of the government to advise the house as to the reason for these payments, reportedly in the amount of $4.5 million, and what the federal share would be?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would have to look into that matter, and I shall be glad to do so.



MANPOWER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is it the policy of his department to cut off for two weeks at Christmas and the New Year the living allowance paid to those taking adult occupational training courses under government sponsorship at technical institutes across Canada?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already explained the policy of the government to the house.
Those who are assigned to these training courses are, according to our way of thinking, simple workers: they are not people who are going back to school, but workers. They play an essential role in our economy and must therefore be treated like other workers: They must have the same holidays and receive allowances which are in a way comparable to those of other workers.
If courses are given during the holidays, these workers will receive allowances, just like those who work in a factory. If there are no courses, naturally, they will not receive allowances, but they may be eligible for unemployment insurance.

December 5, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In
view of the fact that most of the students taking these courses were formerly unemployed, and since many of them are married and have families, would the government not reconsider its policy so the living allowance could be continued? Otherwise it is going to be a grim Christmas for many of these students across the country.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think it is incumbent on the provinces to organize courses so that the situation described by my hon. friend does not take place.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that the students operating under the old part V program, and in the same courses as students operating under the new part V program, will be paid a subsistence allowance during the holiday period? This is creating a morale problem. Would the minister agree to do something to remove this discrimination?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that there are differences between the two programs. As you know, the previous program No. 5 will be expiring at the beginning of next year, but as long as it has not expired, the conditions will unfortunately be somewhat different, and there is nothing we can do about that.


James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear what the minister said. Did he say they would be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits from the time they were cut off from these grants?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, those who have accumulated enough credits under the Unemployment Insurance Act may be entitled to their unemployment insurance benefits if they do not get retraining allowances.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Georg* Hees (Northumberland):	I
should like to address a question to the Min-
ister of Finance. In view of a statement by the Economic Council of Canada that businessmen are not planning sufficient capital investment during the next five years to keep the economy growing to its full potential, is it the intention of the government to introduce measures in the near future to induce the necessary additional capital investment?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada gave similar information to the finance ministers' meeting recently. We have not yet had an opportunity of discussing with the council the reasons for this, but I can assure the hon. gentleman and the house it will be the intention of the government to promote the maximum amount of business investment and the most prosperous conditions in the country.


Mr. Hees:: Will the minister assure the house that he will report back to the house when he has had an opportunity of carrying on these further discussions, and then outline the intentions of the government in this regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government's policies in all these respects are revealed from time to time. I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to make a special report to the house on this matter.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: I should like to direct this question also to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a survey prepared by top economists with the Royal Bank of Canada, the University of Montreal and two large Canadian industries, which predicts a business recession next year?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, I have not seen this particular prediction. I have seen many on the other side, and I am sure the views of economists on the outlook, as usual, are quite confused.


Mr. G. L. Chalierion (Esquimall-Saanich):: In view of the minister's reply, will the minister now admit he is an economist?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, I would never admit that.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance based on the
December 5, 1967

announcement yesterday by a number of chartered banks of an increase in their prime interest rate. In view of the almost simultaneous announcement of a record level of profits for chartered banks, has the minister made representations to the banks urging that degree of restraint he has urged upon other sectors of the economy such as labour and business ?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: My question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. If the minister has not already done so within the last few hours, in view of the fact that the president and directors of the Cape Breton Development Corporation are having a meeting in Sydney tomorrow can he take the house into his confidence and advise who will be the other two members of the corporation?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the
appointment of Mr. Douglas Fullerton was decided this morning by cabinet. I still have one member to nominate but I am having a bit of trouble because I have to appoint a chairman before I appoint the fifth director of the corporation.


Robert Muir: I thank the minister for his reply, particularly the reference to Mr. Fullerton. When will he be in a position to name the vice president of coal operations and the vice president of industrial development?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I would not like to violate the legislation, which says the vice president is appointed by the president.


Robert Muir: My question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and relates to previous questions about the Cape Breton Development Corporation. May I ask the minister if Mr. Robinson Ord of the Cape Breton Development Corporation has said who shall be the vice presidents of coal operations and industrial development?
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Pepin: I am aware that the president has a number of names he is studying, but I do not think he has yet made a final decision.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the decision be made solely by Mr. Ord or will it be made by the board that the minister was so slow in setting up?



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roger E. Regimbal (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister indicate whether it is the intention of the government to allow a free vote on the divorce bill which is now before the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the divorce bill is a government bill and I think should be treated as such.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is it a fact that all payments to the Canada pension plan are to be increased in the near future?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think that might be a good question for the order paper.



INQUIRY AS TO SIGNING OF INTERNATIONAL GRAINS AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce perhaps I could direct my question to the Prime Minister. According to news reports released yesterday only 32 of the 70 countries eligible to sign the international grains arrangement in Washington have done so. Could the Prime Minister inform the house why the other 38 countries have been reluctant to sign this agreement to date?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should not like the fact that they have not yet signed to be taken as implying that they are reluctant to do so, but I will be glad to look into this question.

December 5, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry WATER RESOURCES



PEMBINA RIVER-RATIFICATION OF AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of external affairs. Before I pose the question I should like to thank him for his courtesy in supplying me with a copy of the report of the International Joint Commission on the Pembina river development. My question in this. Could the minister give the house some idea when the agreement relating to the co-operative development of the Pembina river basin will be ratified by the two governments?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend has indicated, the report has just been received by the two governments from the commission. As far as Canada is concerned we will do our best to give the report the quickest possible attention. I am sure this will also be the attitude taken by the government of the United States. We will then be in a position to give a definitive reply.



INQUIRY CONCERNING APPOINTMENT OF REPLACEMENT TO ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. About ten days ago I asked whether, in view of the fact that one of the members of the royal commission on the status of women had tendered his resignation, it was the intention of the government to appoint a member to replace him. The Minister of Industry informed me that this particular question was still under consideration. Is the Prime Minister now able to give me an answer to the question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not at the moment, Mr. Speaker, but I hope to be able to make an appointment before long because I think it is time the lone male member of the commission had a little company.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence.

Following the statement made by a Canadian general last week to the effect that the army should take up arms to bring to heel the Quebec independentists, could the minister tell us if that is the policy of his department or if that is only the opinion of an individual or if that is meant as a provocation to Quebec nationalism?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The question is out of order.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the answers given by him yesterday in connection with the lay-off of C.P.R. employees in Montreal, Winnipeg and Calgary I wonder whether he could report today that an investigation has been made and, if so, what are the results of the investigation.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, all of the information was referred to the Canadian Pacific Railway, as I undertook to do yesterday. Obviously I have not yet had a reply.


Harold Raymond Ballard: A supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister could indicate whether the regular employees who are laid off will be paid for the statutory holidays that fall within the lay-off period, such as Christmas and New Year's day.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have just indicated that I do not have a reply to that question.



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bud Germa (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister undertake a survey to determine the effects on workers of long term exposure to high concentrations of sulphur dioxide fumes at the International Nickel Company plant in the Sudbury district?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. That is a good question for the order paper.
December 5, 1S87



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinfhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister tell us whether the sugar beet producers may expect their subsidy by Christmas, and what is the amount of this subsidy per ton?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I announced the sugar beet policy the other day in the house.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I wish to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I asked the minister whether the sugar beet producers could expect their subsidy before Christmas. I know the minister made a statement, but my question is quite different from the reply he has just given.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, in my report to the house the other day, I said that the producers could expect to receive their subsidy.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. Is the Canadian government or Air Canada represented at the current meeting of the International Air Transport Association in Manila?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: A supplementary question. Is the Canadian delegation undertaking any initiative toward obtaining a revision of trans-Atlantic air passenger rates so as to correct the rate schedule, which currently discriminates against many Canadian passengers who do not live in either Toronto or Montreal?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.
27053-318}
Inquiries of the Ministry MALTON-DANGER IN APPROACH OVER ISLAND AIRPORT
On the orders of the day:


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Do the new regulations concerning air safety, which the minister announced, prohibit aircraft of Air Canada and other commercial airlines from approaching Mal-ton airport in Toronto in a way that will bring them in low over the island airport, which presents a hazard to such aircraft?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That will be a good question for the order paper, Mr. Speaker.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the matter may be lightly treated by the minister, but it is a matter of urgency, and my question concerns a hazard to human life, possibly even that of the minister. Could he answer the question more precisely now?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what prompted me to say what I said in my last answer. I want the answer to be in precise detail so as not to mislead my hon. friend.



APPLICATION BY ITALIAN LINE TO FLY ROME-TORONTO ROUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: I have a
question to address to the Minister of Transport. Has the government received an application from the Italian government for flying rights with respect to the Rome-Toron-to route? If so, what steps does the government plan to take to protect reciprocal Canadian airline rights?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this question cannot be dealt with properly on orders of the day. I can assure my hon. friend that when additional landing rights are granted to foreign carriers in Canada, the rights of Canadian carriers will be protected. We shall make certain that we obtain full benefits from the country that requests additional rights, in exchange for those rights that we give up in this country.


John Alfred Irvine: I was not speaking of landing rights, Mr. Speaker. I was speaking of flying rights. I understand that Alitalia has applied for permission to fly the Rome-Toronto route.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is exactly what I was referring to.

December 5. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the hon. member that this would be a good question to discuss at ten o'clock.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, now that the state of New York has just unveiled a model prototype safety car, the first such safety car built by a public authority with public funds, can the Minister of Transport assure the house that he will establish a close working liaison with the appropriate officials in New York state in order to co-operate in the completion of this venture and to continue the liaison already established by the National Research Council?
reasonable persons. It reflects the needs and the morals of our times.


Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker,
may I put a supplementary question?
Like the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Regimbal) who put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister a while ago, may I suggest that we agree on a free vote on this important matter?


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, all votes are free in the sense that each member must vote; however, in the more restricted sense to which the hon. member is alluding, I am not, for my part, authorized to answer a question like that one.



MANPOWER


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We will want full information with respect to all developments in the field of auto safety, certainly including developments in the state of New York.



CRIMINAL CODE

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENT RESPECTING abortion
On the orders of the day:
Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Last Friday, I inquired about the introduction of the comprehensive bill to amend certain sections of the Criminal Code, and I implied from his answer that this bill would also include a provision concerning abortion. I wonder therefore whether the minister does not feel it may be useful and necessary to introduce a separate bill on abortion?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, the government has undertaken to introduce a legislation designed to bring the Criminal Code up to date with regard to abortion, so as to bring our statutes more in line with our modern society.
The procedure suggested by the hon. member should perhaps be considered, but I do not think it would be the most efficient way of ensuring the adoption of such a measure.
I take this opportunity to assure the hon. members that our bill on abortion is one that, to my mind, should win the favour of all 
On the orders of the day:


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In his speech to the Liberal Association of St. Paul's riding in Toronto, the minister is reported as blaming provincial delays for the marked slow down of the manpower training program. Will the minister take the first opportunity on motions to specify which provincial governments he means, and what delays he claims they are responsible for?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I said in the house at least five or six times what I said in Toronto.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can the minister assure the house that any solution arising out of discussions currently taking place in an attempt to resolve the manpower training crisis among the Sioux Narrows Indians will apply to our Indian citizens in all parts of Canada who are suffering from a similar disability owing to the changes which were introduced into the program by the government last April?
December 5, 1967


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the so called disability of the Indian people was much distorted by earlier reports. A good deal of progress has been made in taking up the slack. We have made it plain to those concerned that if the programs which are offered by the Department of Manpower and Immigration are inadequate, our department will take up the slack in that regard.



SHIPBUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the economic disaster facing one of our oldest industries, the wooden shipbuilding industry of Nova Scotia, which has been hit by a lack of orders and staggering costs, what action does the government plan to alleviate the serious unemployment that is developing in that industry?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: I think the hon. member is well aware that the government has taken action to assist the wooden shipbuilding industry of Nova Scotia. As a matter of fact over $3 million in subsidies will be paid to that province to cover the cost of wooden fishing vessels which will be built during the current fiscal year. It is our intention to continue that subsidy program.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the minister's remarks, but a serious situation is developing. Would he give consideration to calling a meeting with his provincial counterpart to discuss this urgent matter and the best course to follow in order to solve the unemployment problem as soon as possible?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the minister has heard the representation of the hon. member.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would he undertake to convene the
Inquiries of the Ministry standing committee on transport in the Atlantic provinces in the near future, in order that that committee might hear and discuss the problems of those provinces?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, that question has been asked two or three times in the last few days, and it is under consideration. I think at the moment the chairman of the committee is in New York at the United Nations. The committee has much work to do before the end of the present session. I shall be glad to discuss with the chairman the possibility of doing what the hon. member suggests at some time in the future.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister object to such a meeting taking place in the Atlantic provinces?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have no personal objection, but this is a matter for the committee.


Robert Muir: But you have a vice chairman.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: All I can say is that I shall consult with them. That is the limit of my prerogative under the rules.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: My question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Ontario. Could the Minister of Transport indicate to the house what reply he received from the Atlantic area transport commission which studied problems of maritime transportation? A couple of days ago in the house the minister said he would ascertain whether it would be useful for the standing committee on transport and communications to go down to the maritimes and study transport problems down there.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I expect to be meeting with them some time next week, Mr. Speaker, and at that time I shall be in a position to discuss with them my hon. friend's question and several others.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAUSEWAY-INQUIRY AS TO NEXT STEP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: My question is for the Minister of Public Works. Since only 17 shopping days are left before Christmas I wonder if the minister could advise this house and the people of Prince
5044	COMMONS
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill Edward Island whether we may look forward, before Christmas, to a report on the next phase of the construction of the Northumberland strait crossing.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I doubt if the engineering reports will be sufficiently advanced for that gift to be made to the people of Prince Edward Island before Christmas.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister be a bit more specific and advise us when we might expect a report on the redesign or other aspects of the Northumberland strait crossing.


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker. I am happy to say that the engineering work is proceeding very rapidly, but I cannot forecast the time of its completion.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of order. Last night I indicated to members of the house that I would consult with house leaders today as to a suitable order of business. As a result of this consultation I would like to advise the house that as the first order of business today we are calling the committee stage of the C.N.R. bill, to be followed by the second reading and committee stage of the divorce bill.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, November 28, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-151, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system for a period from the 1st day of January, 1967 to the 30th day of June, 1968 and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company-Mr. Chretien (for the Minister of Finance)-Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: When the committee rose on Tuesday, November 28, clause 4 of the bill was under discussion.
[Mr. MacDonald (Prince) .1
DEBATES	December 5, 1967
On clause 4-Issue of securities.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, before this legislation passes I would like to speak about the effects, if any, which the over-all capital expenditures of the C.N.R. are having on freight rates and about the new environment which we are told is developing for the transport industry generally.
I know that one of the dearest dreams of the former president of the C.N.R. was to secure a reorganization of the company's debt, which he told us many times was one of the biggest stumbling blocks to the C.N.R. ever operating in the black. Under the terms of this bill, parliament is being asked to confirm moneys already being spent by the C.N.R., and I would point out that the amount involved is larger than that provided by any similar bill placed before parliament in past years. Since the early 1950's the C.N.R. has engaged in massive capital expenditures, but despite the increase in productivity which they brought about, accompanied by a decrease in the cost of moving freight per ton mile, the position of the company has not really improved.
One may well ask, what is the effect of these capital expenditures on freight costs and why we are being asked to ratify or approve expenditures already made? According to the bill $13 million has been or will be spent before the end of the year on the building of branch lines. Yet only a year or so ago this house spent a long time studying the new transportation act which was designed to create a new environment for the transport industry. One of the purposes of that act was to allow the railroads to abandon branch lines. But under the terms of this bill parliament is now being asked to provide money for the construction of branch lines, particularly in western Canada.
Uneconomic branch lines have a tendency to increase freight rates. Under the terms of this bill the C.N.R. is being provided with money to construct in one location in western Canada a 17-mile branch line which is to run within two or three miles of an existing C.P.R. main line. This just does not add up.
What about the new environment which the transportation commission is supposed to encourage? What have been the results? This is the question which is being asked by many people, particularly those in western Canada. Last October there was a 10 per cent increase in freight rates across the board covering all rates that were not frozen by the previous government. The only result of that increase
December 5, 1967	COMMONS
in freight rates has been that the traffic moved by the C.N.R. has diminished in volume.
The principle involved in this bill, which is to ratify expenditures already made, is putting the cart before the horse. If parliament is to have any authority at all there should be some means of ratifying a capital expenditure bill for the C.N.R. before the C.N.R. has actually undertaken expenditures. Last year parliament spent a long time debating the rationalization of the abandonment of branch lines; yet now it is asked to authorize $13 million to build branch lines. Is this good, efficient government?
The capital expenditure to be authorized by this bill is the largest ever authorized by parliament for the C.N.R. in the past 15 years, yet there is no real reduction in the cost of moving goods by the C.N.R. We realize it takes money to automate and establish an up to date transportation system, but the customer should be getting a return on that money. He should be paying less to move goods by the C.N.R., but the direct opposite has happened. There has been a huge increase in freight rates since the ceiling on them was removed. Freight rates in the mari-times have also increased and many firms are being forced out of business.
Despite all the talk about a new environment for transport, the old theory holds true that the railway freight rate is the minimum rate charged by most forms of transport. It is the rate which the trucking industry applies. In effect it is the floor price for the transportation of goods, and competition does not have any real effect. This is particularly the case in western Canada where the only means of competition is by highway. Yet methods could be found to create a greater competitive spirit in the transportation field.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
We had hoped that this huge capital expenditure of $264 million on behalf of the C.N.R. would bring about a reduction in freight rates, but how can it, since there is no real competition? The C.P.R. and C.N.R. are still setting like freight rates. They are still adopting the theory that if one increases a freight rate 10 per cent then the other will too and that whatever that rate is the trucking rate will come up to it or remain barely below it. So there is no real competition in the transportation industry, particularly in respect of long haul traffic. This is the situation in western Canada and, as we have heard, it is also the situation in the maritimes.
DEBATES	5045
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill
We said that this would be the case with the passage of the transportation bill. We said that competition had not reached the stage where it alone could be the sole principle on which a new rate-making system could be based. We argued against the captive shipper situation. We were disturbed by the attitude of the minister in this regard. How can a captive shipper prove himself to be captive if he has to prove it before the minister as chairman of the board when he said several times that he did not believe there was such a person as a captive shipper? It is fine and dandy to say that all Canadians should get behind the new transportation legislation because if we adopt the principles which were mentioned the other day it will facilitate the movement of goods throughout all Canada. It may facilitate the railways in the movement of goods-
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I think he is engaging now in a debate on transportation policy. May I remind him that we are on clause 4 which relates to issue of securities, application of amounts available and maximum amount of securities.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, are we dealing with clause 3 or clause 4? It seems to me that the last time we considered the bill, clause 3 had not been passed.
The Depuiy Chairman: We are now on
clause 4.


Gilles Grégoire: For sure?


Mr. Chretien:: Clause 3 was passed on November 28.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for reminding me to return to the clause. Because of the failure of the new transportation bill to be effective I was tempted to stray somewhat in my remarks. Since the importance of transportation is such that it is the lifeblood of Canadian industry, particularly in western Canada and the maritimes, one tends to dwell today on the approach taken by the C.N.R. They are not providing what the consumers believe should be required of the system. We are asked here to approve an ever-increasing amount of capital expenditure. Therefore we should like to see a better budgetary system. Rather than finding ourselves in the position of being asked to vote the money after it has
December 5. 1967

C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill been spent we should like to be able to take a look at the projected capital expenditures of the C.N.R. for the next five years so that we would know where they intend to go. We would like to know whether they intend to spend more money on the trucking industry or on hotels or on telecommunications.
We see that in this year they have spent nearly $5 million on the development of their hotel system. I was a member of the transportation committee for many years. We were told by the officials of the C.N.R. that very few of their hotels ever made a profit and that most of them lost money. Therefore we ask whether this huge expenditure is wise. In most cases when we are presented with these figures the money has already been spent and therefore there is not much purpose in questioning it. As parliamentarians who are interested in the field of transportation we should have an opportunity to look at future capital expenditures rather than be placed in the position of having to authorize expenditures which in many cases have already been made.
We would like to see a breakdown of the expenditures. Rather than having an item, "road property, $79,701,000", why should we not have information in respect of how much was spent on the trucking industry? What does this item really mean? Is this where the trucking industry comes in? We would like to know how much is being spent on the trucking industry and how much is to be spent on it next year. I am sure every trucking company in Canada would like to know where the C.N.R. is going in this regard.
I believe that Air Canada should be separate from the C.N.R. It is a large and growing concern. Many people across Canada would like to see greater activity by other lines. A slow, piecemeal approach has been taken with regard to granting Canadian Pacific Airlines landing rights in Canada. I should like to see Air Canada's capital expenditures projected for the next five years so that we could ascertain whether or not this will meet the flying needs of Canadians and whether in the next five years we could perhaps give some of the other air lines the right to serve Canadians. Perhaps they could serve Canadians much more cheaply than Air Canada does. Who knows?
As the representatives of the taxpayers we are not told enough about the C.N.R.'s methods of budgeting and financing. We are not told enough about the position of the C.N.R. in respect of branch line construction, the hotel situation or the future plans in respect
{Mr. Homer (Acadia).]

of Air Canada. We do not know what their air policy really is and for how many years they intend to dominate air traffic without any real competition by which we could gauge whether or not they are running an efficient operation which meets the needs of the consumer.


Mr. Fawcett:: Mr. Chairman, during the interval since Bill No. C-151 received second reading a number of things have occurred which have caused some soul searching on the part of many hon. members in respect of the limited jurisdiction parliament has over the operations and policies of Canadian National Railways. We are asked to authorize the provision of money to meet certain capital expenditures of Canadian National Railways. The sanction of parliament is required in order that the C.N.R. may continue in business. Yet we are placed in an impossible position when the time comes for us to scrutinize the manner in which the money is spent in order to determine whether it is an economic operation and whether we are receiving value for the money we authorize.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra the other night complained that the members of the committee on transportation were placed at a disadvantage in dealing with the C.N.R. owing to the fact that the officials of the C.N.R. when they appeared before the committee came armed with a profusion of statistics to prove any particular case and because of the inability of the members of the committee to acquire the expertise to assess these statistics properly. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, as recorded on page 4820 of Hansard for November 28, said:
It is the problem of acquiring in the committee structure of parliament a little more expertise in our capability to examine crown corporations such as the C.N.R., Air Canada and others.
As a member of the transportation committee whose duty it was to examine the C.N.R. I agree in this instance with the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. I recall the scepticism of other committee members regarding the regressive costing system used by the railways and whether or not this type of costing resulted in a logical conclusion when the operations of the railway were being investigated.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
When we approved Bill C-231 authorizing the establishment of a commission whose
December 5, 1967

duty it is to police and co-ordinate all modes of transportation so that Canada as a whole can be provided with a comprehensive, efficient and economical transportation system, one of our main objectives was to ease many of the restrictions on the railways thus enabling them to compete more efficiently and to take some of the subsidy burden off the backs of the Canadian taxpayers. We have witnessed some of the results of giving the C.N.R. some freedom in respect of rate fixing. The elimination of l.c.l. freight rates resulted in a fantastic increase in the transportation charges for small shipments of commodities. In some cases the increase amounted to close to 100 per cent. Other hon. members have dealt with this matter as well as with the unrealistic increase in the transportation cost to cream shippers in the west. I will not pursue the matter other than to say I have received many complaints from tourist operators regarding the large increase in the cost of moving boats and tourist supplies.
We are now in the process of making money available to a publicly owned transportation system; yet we seem to have a minimum of control over its operational policies. We are completely frustrated when it comes to breaking through the wall of insulation which protects it and prevents us from assessing the logic of rate structure changes and operational practices.
Like the hon. member for Chapleau, who spoke the other night, I too have had representations from unions representing employees who are being laid off in great numbers, many of them in the maintenance of way group, who complain bitterly that there is no justification for most of these lay-offs. The section men and bridge building gangs are responsible for the safe condition of the track and-


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but it seems to me he is relating his remarks to lay-offs that are taking place in respect of C.N.R. personnel throughout Canada. The hon. member should relate his remarks to clause 4 dealing with the issue of securities.


Norman Edward Fawcett: Subclause 2 of clause 4 refers to clause 3, which covers in total the operational costs of the C.N.R. However, if it is still your opinion that I am out of order I will defer my remarks until we take up consideration of clause 1 of the bill.
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill


Mr. Barnett:: I should like to speak on the point of order, Mr. Chairman. I was listening rather carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Acadia and, while I realize that perhaps this is a remonstrance in respect of that hon. member, he certainly covered an area as broad as that covered by the hon. member for Nickel Belt. In view of the fact that you have allowed the hon. member for Nickel Belt to proceed as far as he now has, perhaps it would be in line with the general feeling of the committee that he be allowed to complete his remarks rather than having to wait until we take up clause 1.


Maurice Rinfret: When the hon. member for Acadia was speaking I intervened and asked him to relate his remarks to clause 4. I have now made the same observation in respect of the speech of the hon. member for Nickel Belt. I make this observation for the benefit of future participants in this debate, and I would appreciate it if they would relate their remarks to clause 4.


Norman Edward Fawcett: I will conclude my remarks at this time by stating once again that I do not think parliament is properly able to investigate the operational policies of the C.N.R., and we have observed the results of this. I will defer the balance of my remarks until we deal with clause 1.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to make any observations this afternoon on this clause of the bill. However, I should like to make a few remarks in reference to capital expenditures and the issue of securities. My observations are really an elaboration of a question I asked on orders of the day. Had the answer given by the minister at that time been a little different perhaps I would not have felt it necessary to elucidate the matter now.
It has been brought to my attention by certain individuals who fly aircraft for Air Canada that a very serious traffic hazard exists at the Toronto airport because the routing of aircraft approaching Malton airport brings them over lake Ontario within a few thousand feet of the Toronto island airport. This airport is used by a considerable number of small private aircraft flown by, to put it in the vernacular, "Saturday afternoon pilots." These pilots perhaps lack the same degree of experience possessed by those who pilot Air Canada DC-8's and DC-9's. The information I have received from some Air Canada pilots has been to the effect that it is a miracle that a large Air Canada aircraft
December 5. 1967
5048	COMMONS
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill has not up to now collided with one of these small planes.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I am having some difficulty relating traffic hazards at the airport in Toronto to the subject of the clause we are now considering.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am sorry Your Honour has difficulty in relating my remarks to this clause because they do relate to capital expenditure. It is my feeling that if we can prevent the loss of an $8 million aircraft because of a collision this might have some effect on future capital expenditure. I am sorry Your Honour has difficulty in seeing the relationship. In any event I have just about concluded my remarks.
Like many other members I was very glad to hear that the minister has new air regulations. It is in everybody's interest to avoid the destruction of large capital assets of Air Canada. My understanding is that these large aircraft cost in the neighbourhood of $8 million to $9 million. We must also consider the lives of the people aboard these aircraft. I hope that when these regulations are promulgated they will require proper precautions to be taken in routing aircraft approaching Malton airport so they will not have to fly so close to the Toronto island airport. Those are my observations, which I make in the hope of saving the corporation some money in the future.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I think there is a book which is too high between you and me, which prevents you from seeing me when I rise to speak, because I have risen three times already.
The explanatory note to clause 4 reads as follows:
The amount of $122,000,000 appearing in this subclause is $67,000,000 for Air Canada financing for 1967 and $55,000,000 for interim financing for January 1st to June 30th, 1968.
That means a period of six months.
As for the amount of $67,000,000 for 1967, that means that Air Canada has an actual deficit of $67,000,000 at this time if it is for the year 1967, became we are nearing end of 1967 and we are almost in 1968. That means simply and clearly that Air Canada has been operating with a deficit of $67 million in 1967.
Mr. Chairman, Air Canada spends a lot of money, that is obvious. Air Canada renders very important services to the population,


this we admit. However, as far as expenditures are concerned, I think that it would be possible to improve Air Canada's budget by adding economic lines to those which are not paying enough.
I take an example in my area. For three years I have been asking for an additional flight for Val d'Or and Rouyn, a night flight enabling our businessmen to go to Montreal, transact their business and return home the same day. The Viscount serving our area is nearly aways filled to capacity; therefore, it is a paying business for Air Canada, but they persist in refusing this second flight which would be profitable to them.
Why is nothing done to give that service which would serve our region, be useful to our people, and, at the same time, enable Air Canada to make a profit?
It seems to me that it is a matter that should be studied more closely by the senior officials of the company in order to enable our region to enjoy the services of Air Canada which, as I said, would be a source of profits for that company.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) but his flight of oratory on the air services in his region should be directed instead to a financial matter dealing with the issue of securities, the application of amounts available and the maximum amounts of securities. I do not think this is the proper time to speak of the services of Air Canada and their improvement.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, and you know the great respect I bear you, this is not a flight of oratory, but a request for an extra Air Canada flight to Rouyn-Noranda.
In any case, Mr. Chairman, it is stipulated here that the sum of $67 million is for the financing of Air Canada for 1967. To finance itself, Air Canada must necessarily undertake some operations.
If you want us simply to talk about the sum of $122 million and about the debentures and securities which the government requests or allows those lenders who can lend money to the company, then I have nothing more to add, Mr. Chairman. I will come back with my flight to Rouyn-Noranda on clause 1 of the bill.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall clause 4 carry?
December 5, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	5049


Mr. Smallwood:: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with the finances of Canadian National Railways. We all know that the railroads have spent a great deal of money on new express facilities to carry products across the country. We also know that though we help the railroads to finance these facilities they are discriminating against the producers of cream. They do this although we supply them with capital.
I wonder whether the Minister of Transport would pay attention to the debate for a few minutes and practise his leadership speech at some other time, because this is a very important matter. I will be very brief, if the minister will listen to me.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to my hon. friend. So far he has not said anything that is particularly new or instructive. I do not think he needs to give lectures. This bill is being handled by my colleague but I am available to assist in any way I can and try to be helpful. I do not think it is necessary for my hon. friend to make gratuitous remarks. I am sure he does not wish to do so.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: It is very necessary, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport pay attention to this important matter. All our trouble in this respect started with the commission that was set up by the government. Although, on the one hand we are financing the express move-men of goods across Canada and are helping the railroad by providing capital so they may improve their transportation system, on the other hand we are placing a hardship upon the people of this country. Perhaps the Minister of Transport would come to my assistance in this respect. Our difficulties in this field have increased since the setting up of the new transport commission and since we amended section 369 of the Railway Act.
I am going to give up, Mr. Chairman, because the minister is not paying any attention. It is no use talking any more so I will sit down. They are not interested in this bill.


Gilles Grégoire: 
Maurice Rinfret: Order. I am sorry to have to restrain the enthusiasm of the hon. member for Lapointe, but I fail to see any connection between clause 4, which deals with the C.N.R. financing, and the fact that the hon. member is trying to compare certain C.N.R. rates with those of the trucking industry.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, let me
explain it this way: I am against such borrowings and I will tell you why. It is due to the mismanagement of the C.N.R.
I am giving you an example and in a minute and a half at the most, you will see that it is directely related to the case now under study.
As I was saying, the trucking company charged $9.45 per ton of pulpwood, the same rate as that of the C.N.R. Now, this is where the example becomes striking, Mr. Chairman.
Where the C.N.R. had set a rate of $9.45 per ton-
5050	COMMONS
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill


Maurice Rinfret: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the principle of the bill was passed on motion for second reading. We are now studying the bill in detail, and have reached clause 4 which deals with the financing of the C.N.R.
I do not think-


Gilles Grégoire: In other words, Mr. Chairman, you are telling us to shut up, to stop discussing this bill. That is what you have been doing from the start. If this is what you want, that is, to impose the guillotine, say it right now, and we shall resume our seats.
Just now, I was quoting a case with respect to the matter under study, but you did not allow me to pursue it, you made a ruling before I could prove my point. If you want to impose the guillotine, say it, that is what it looks like.
The hon. member for Villeneuve asked to have the floor, but you said no; another member was recognized. Two Tories, even three, wanted to have the floor, but you ruled this was not in order, and told them not to speak. If you want us to shut up, just say it, and we will take our seats.


Maurice Rinfret: If the hon. member wishes to continue his remarks, he should confine them to clause 4.


Gilles Grégoire: That is precisely what I mean to do, Mr. Chairman. In my opinion, the principle of the bill is not the financing of the company, and loans are not necessary to finance the C.N.R. The principle of the bill is the financing of the C.N.R. In fact, clause 4 stipulates that it is necessary to borrow money to finance the C.N.R., but I say that the C.N.R. should be financed according to the principle of the bill, but not by loans as stipulated in clause 4. I do not see how I could violate the rules of the house by saying this.
If I may be allowed to finish giving my example, you will see that my remarks deal with clause 4, for the principle of the bill- and I continue on the same point of order -says that the C.N.R. must be financed. We approve of the bill in principle, but clause 4 of the bill does not say that the C.N.R. should be financed by its own resources, but by loans.
That is what I object to, Mr. Chairman. I do not object to the principle of the bill, but to the method used to finance the Canadian National Railways. Do you not think then, Mr. Chairman, that I conform to the rules of the house?

DEBATES	December 5, 1987


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I would not like to interrupt the hon. member unduly, Mr. Chairman, but clause 4 provides for the financing of Air Canada through loans by the C.N.R., but there is no mention of the financing of the C.N.R.


Gilles Grégoire: Air Canada is mentioned, Mr. Chairman, at the end of subclause 2, as follows:
*-towards meeting the expenditures authorized by section 3, other than those required by Air Canada.
In fact subclause (2) of clause 4 says:
-shall be applied towards meeting the expenditures authorized by section 3, other than those required by Air Canada.
Now, the expenditures other than those required by Air Canada, are the expenditures of the C.N.R. That is why I believe that section 4 equally applies to the C.N.R.
So, Mr. Chairman, I pursue my argument to explain why I am not so much against the principle of the bill which is the financing of Canadian National Railways as against the principle of financing through borrowings. I say that borrowings would not be necessary if the Canadian National Railways were managed properly and capably.
Mr. Chairman, I summarize my argument, so to speak. I was saying that the trucking concern carried pulpwood from Donnacona to Graveton, New Hampshire at-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but twice I took the liberty of indicating to him that clause 4 is now being considered by the committee, and the hon. member seems to be going into a general discussion of the policy of the Canadian National Railways.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Habel:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to be very lenient with the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), because he is an expert in financial matters, and he has proved it in the past. He sold pens, he went to France to raise funds for the separatist movement. He is an expert in financial matters.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it is a Liberal
who has just spoken. He has not been called to order, indeed not. He is a Liberal. It seems to be customary-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. Would the hon. member for Lapointe kindly refrain from making such remarks.
December 5, 1967	COMMONS
The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel) raised a point of order and made some remarks which are out of order, since he referred to the views of the hon. member for Lapointe in another respect. Still, I beg the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) to comply with standing orders which he knows so well and which he often interprets very well. At this point, the Chair asks him to comply with one of the orders under which whenever the house sits in committee of the whole for examination of a bill, the remarks must bear strictly on the clause under study.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I congratulate you on having reminded the hon. member for Cochrane that his remarks were out of order.
Now, I should like to make a point, Mr. Chairman. I thought I had explained to you at one point why I felt I was complying with standing orders.
At one point, I asked you if that was not correct. You did not answer me, and that is why I carried on.
Mr. Chairman, if you care to hear my argument, clause 4 deals not with financing method of the National Railways and Air Canada. Under clause 4, that method means borrowing. Now, as I said earlier-Mr. Chairman, I notice that you are in consultation with your advisers.
Clause 4-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is requested to make his remarks and to pay no attention to what happens elsewhere in the house. I have called to order some honourable members and they all complied with the ruling of the Chair. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member to come to the point and not to raise points of order and questions of privilege and to deal with clause 4 which is now under consideration.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I accept your offer. I accept your closure and I sit down. If they want to impose it, let us accept it.


Mr. Duquet:: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the hon. member for Lapointe be called to order and that he withdraw what he said. There are limits to insults to the Chair, and I ask that the hon. member for Lapointe withdraw his remarks.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, my participation in this debate will be confined to one point.
DEBATES	5051
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill Earlier in the day I asked the Minister of Transport whether he would give his blessing to a proposal that the standing committee on transportation should go to the maritimes, giving the people of that area an opportunity to bring their problems before the committee and air their views. I think we would be prepared to terminate the debate at this point if the minister would give an indication that he is in accord with this proposal.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have been thinking about this suggestion and it does seem to me to be a very reasonable proposition. I have taken the liberty of discussing it with other members of parliament including two of our own members from the maritime provinces, the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough and the hon. member for Westmorland, who agree that it would be desirable to have the committee visit the maritime provinces some time at its convenience in order to learn at first hand from the people of that area the problems they face and any solutions they may wish to put forward.
I think there is some advantage in this procedure in that it would enable members from all parts of Canada to familiarize themselves with the problems on the ground and to get not only the data but the "feel" of the situation and then to evaluate the position for themselves. In these circumstances I believe I can give the idea my complete blessing. I shall be glad to discuss it with the chairman of the committee when he returns and to suggest he might take it up with the committee in the hope that satisfactory arrangements can be made to go down there in the not too distant future.


Mr. Coates:: Is it also the intention to refer the study which was carried out on transportation in the Atlantic provinces to the committee in order that the committee may have a basis for its considerations when it does go to the maritimes for public hearings?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Perhaps I could take that specific question under advisement. Certainly the subject matter is the same and it might well be that the hon. member's idea is an acceptable one. I should like to reserve judgment on it at the moment until I have had a chance to think about it. Certainly that would be the object of the visit, to study the problems of transportation. I can see no reason why they would not want to consider as much material as is available.
December 5, 1967
5052	COMMONS
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill [DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Bower:: Would the minister undertake to use his good offices to see that this committee visits the west end of Nova Scotia during the course of their investigation of the deplorable state of transportation there and the costs arising therefrom? I mention specifically a meeting in Yarmouth which is the terminus of two railroads operating to the end of that tenuous line of transport that we have.


Mr. Stewart:: Will the minister of highways for Nova Scotia be a witness?


Mr. McCleave:: Would the minister be prepared to meet some maritime bodies in the meantime before the Visit of the committee to Atlantic Canada? I know there are groups in Halifax who are very much disturbed about the l.c.l. situation, port traffic and the like who would like to have a meeting publicly or privately with the minister. Can he assure us he would be willing to set aside a reasonable time within the next few months to meet with these groups at their request?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In view of the fact my hon. friend has given me as much leeway as he has I must be gracious and say, yes, I would be glad to consider a meeting. The first meeting, of course, is planned with the premiers of the maritime provinces, and I think an announcement will be made on that very soon. We will probably be meeting within a few days.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, when I see members rising and asking the minister to visit various parts of Canada I am impelled to ask him to inspect the Kettle Valley railway line as well and discuss this problem. I did not rise primarily for that purpose but I hope he will give it consideration.
As we have reached the more tranquil waters of this debate, I rise to discuss clause 4.1 should like to read the explanatory note:
The amount of $122 million appearing in this subclause is $67 million for Air Canada financing for 1967 and $55 million for interim financing for January 1st to June 30th, 1968.
My question is this, and I seek the information because the public may be misinformed by this explanation. I have been informed that the balance sheet of Canadian Pacific Airlines does not show any such need for capital. Will the minister explain to


the house if this capital expenditure is occasioned by the type of service Air Canada gives generally to remote areas that are not now served by Canadian Pacific Airlines?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the question put by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), this amount of $122 million, divided into two parts, namely $67 million for 1967 and $55 million for 1968, does not represent losses but only capital expenditures on the part of the Company. If we have provided for an amount of $55 million for 1968, it is on account of certain commitments Air Canada had to take in order to buy equipment which will be delivered in 1968.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Minister may make loans to the national company.
Mr. Keays:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take advantage of the opportunity while we are on clause 6 which authorizes the minister to make loans to the national company, to issue an invitation to the transport committee to visit another part of the Atlantic region known as the Gaspe peninsula, which is also covered by the Maritimes Freight Rates Act. As the minister knows, we in that area also have problems. We often ask if it is in the interest of all Canadians for the minister to make loans to the national transportation company without taking into account the welfare of all those Canadians who live outside of the thickly populated areas.
Perhaps I might be allowed one minute to prove my point. Our people are being deprived of express and l.c.l. freight privileges. Our farmers are being deprived of the right to import baby chicks from Ontario firms. All these things, of course, are to the disadvantage of great groups of Canadians. These farmers can no longer import baby chicks from Ontario because the Canadian National refuses to carry them. If there were any other modes of transport I could understand the position taken by Canadian National. However, these chicks cannot be shipped by air or by sea and they cannot be transported by any existing trucking system. The
December 5, 1967

number of days they would have to go unfed would mean they would not be alive when they arrived.
When we are debating the authority of the minister to make these loans I am of the opinion we must also recall the fact that the policy of the Department of Transport is to subsidize the national transportation company whenever necessary if it is operating in areas which are uneconomic. However, I have to object that the minister is able to make these loans available to the national transportation company unless consideration is given to the fact that there are Canadians living in other parts of the country who are suffering at the hands of the transportation system which is being paid for by the taxpayers of Canada.
I feel, therefore, that serious consideration should be given to the ill effects of this policy of Canadian National Railways, especially since the company cannot come up with any answers as to how we are going to get products into our area which are necessary for the subsistence of the people. If Canadian National is losing money, if it wants guaranteed payments from the government of Canada, then possibly the company could ask for less if it would come to the people of these regions and change some of the existing regulations concerning ownership risk, applied rates and so on. The company could at least make available to these people those products which they wish to import from other parts of the country and of which they are being deprived. I am still waiting for the answer which the Minister of Transport was going to elicit from Canadian National Railways.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
On clause 9-Minister may place amounts at disposal o/ company.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think the point I raised about clause 4 will be suitable as regards clause 9 where it is said, and I quote:
-the Minister of Finance, upon application by the National Company approved by the Minister of Transport, may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, place at the disposal of the National Company such amounts as may be required to enable the National Company to meet all such charges.
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill
The word "charges" here, Mr. Chairman, refers to operation expenses.
The point I wish to make to the minister is that the Canadian National Railways, if it were managed differently, would not have to seek loans from the minister to cover operating cost deficits.
To this effect, I should like to quote an example which shows why the C.N.R. incurs operating cost deficits and why the minister, before approving any such loans, should request from the executive a review of their management practices?
I should like, at this time, to give an example of poor management, a specific, very typical case which shows clearly the reasons and causes for the operating cost deficits incurred by the C.N.R.
If the minister asked C.N.R. executives to alter their present management practices, he would not have to lend them money to cover operating costs.
So, I give an example, Mr. Chairman-or rather, I shall start all over again.
On November 23, 1966, an eastern townships trucking concern started to carry pulp-wood between Donnacona, Quebec, and Graveton, New Hampshire. The shipper in this case is Domtar Company Limited. The rate of the trucking concern was $9.45 per
2.000	pounds based on a minimum load of
40.000	pounds, which was the published railroad rate. This phrase should be emphasized: $9.45 per 2,000 pounds was the published railroad rate. At the beginning, two trips a week were made by the trucking concern and, later on, the shipper asked for five trips a week. At this point, it becomes serious. On January 31,	1967, the Domtar Company
advised the trucking concern that the Canadian National Railways had reduced their own rates to $7.35 per ton. The new rates thus represented a reduction of $2.10 per ton, or 22.2 per cent.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I have listened patiently to the example given by the hon. member, but he is now discussing rates and if he reads clause 9 attentively, he will realize that there is no question of rates at all.


Gilles Grégoire: I have finished giving my example, Mr. Chairman.
I do not wish to speak about freight rates, but I just want to say this: In 1967, with the
December 5, 1967

C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill 22.2 per cent reduction ol rates by the C.N.R.-and this is what I am trying to say, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. Minister of Transport-when everything is going up, including salaries and consequently operating costs, how could the C.N.R. not end up with a deficit in their operating costs, if they lower their rates when their operating costs are going up?
It is just because the C.N.R. are lowering their rates when their operating costs are increasing that they inevitably show a deficit in their operating costs. Then they turn around and, as they are allowed to by clause 9, they go to the Minister of Finance and say: "Our operating expenses show a deficit; lend us some money under the provisions ol clause 9". Mr. Chairman, do you see how well my example is suited to clause 9? The operating expenses of the Canadian National Railways show a deficit, and the company wants to borrow money from the minister. Why do their operating expenses show a deficit? Because the Canadian National Railways have lowered their rates. Before the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) begins to lend money, as he is authorized to do under clause 9, in order to cover the deficit in the operating expenses of the Canadian National Railways, he should say to the directors of the company: "Stop lowering your rates, and your operating expenses will not show a deficit".


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I do not want the hon. member to think that I am trying to muzzle him, but this question of loans to the C.N.R. is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, not that of the Minister of Transport. There is no point in comparing rates, and this consideration should not be included in our study of clause 9, which has no relation to rates.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it is not the rates aspect that I should like to express here. I want to deal with the first two lines of clause 9 and I quote:
(1) Where, at any time before the 1st day of July, 1968, the available revenues of the National System are not sufficient to pay all the operating ... charges-
That is the point. Of course, the available revenues of the C.N.R. are not sufficient to pay the operating charges. This is what I say, Mr. Chairman, and this is the point I want to make. The available revenues of the C.N.R.
[Mr. Grfigoire.l
cannot be sufficient to pay all the operating expenses. Why? Operating costs are very high and the Canadian National Railways reduce the rates. No doubt that cheaper rates cannot provide enough revenues to pay all operating costs.
What I say is in order, Mr. Chairman; I ask the minister to reverse his policy and, instead of lending money to the Canadian National, tell the directors, for instance: You, of the Canadian National Railways, see to it that your operating costs are paid through your revenues and if you want enough revenue to meet your operating costs, stop reducing your rates.
Mr. Chairman, the argument I advance is all the more founded that trucking companies can do so with profit, thanks to the previous rates of the Canadian National, while the latter reduce their rates, and then, as clause 9 says, the revenues available to the National Railways are not sufficient to pay all operating charges.
I object to that clause section, which each time revenues are not available to discharge operating costs, enables the minister to grant loans to the directors of the C.N.R. in order to pay the operating costs.
If they reduce their rates from $7.50 to $5, then the minister would still be compelled to grant them loans to enable them to meet their operating costs.
If the C.N.R. would reduce their rates to $1 per ton, the deficit would be even larger and the minister would have to grant them more substantial loans to enable them to meet their operating costs. It is as simple as that.
If, instead of making loans, as provided in clause 9, the minister told the C.N.R. management: stop cutting your rates so that your revenue will cover your operating costs, then, and still under clause 9, he would no longer have to make those loans.
Mr. Chairman, that is clear, that comes directly under clause 9. That is the example I had in mind and I think it is quite relevant. If we want the Minister of Transport, or the Minister of Finance at the suggestion of the Minister of Transport, to stop asking that the government be allowed to borrow to make loans to the C.N.R., then all they have to do is tell the C.N.R. management: Operate under normal rates, and if you do not want to do it, the trucking industry is ready to do it, because it has done it already.
It is about time, Mr. Chairman, that this scandal should stop, a scandal such as the one shown in clause 9, because under the
December 5, 1967

terms of this clause, it is said: that where, at any time, the available revenues are not sufficient to pay all the operating charges of the National System as and when due, the minister may place at the disposal of the National Company such amounts as may be required to enable the National Company to meet all such charges.
Under these circumstances, it is not difficult to do business, because it is the Minister of Finance that lends the money. While the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport are acting in this manner, under clause 9, the National System is forcing into bankruptcy the trucking companies, because it is assured, in case of a deficit, that the Minister of Finance will lend the required amount of money.
Mr. Chairman, clause 9 does not make any sense and I strongly object to it. I would rather like clause 9 to be replaced by something along these lines: If the revenues of the Canadian National Railways do not meet operating expenses, the C.N.R. should be forbidden to lower their rates. I am not suggesting they should raise their rates, but what I am saying is they should be forbidden to lower these rates, in order to favour a large company such as Domtar, which carries our lumber to the United States. Those who will benefit directly from the loans of the hon. Minister of Finance are the pulp and paper companies in the United States, since the loans aim to reduce the rates, thus enabling the American companies to buy our lumber at a lower price.
Mr. Chairman, we might as well pay the Americans for the lumber they buy from us. This is what is happening under that clause. We are paying the Americans for the lumber they buy from us, under that clause. In addition, it contributes to ruin our trucking companies. That is why I am against that clause.
I feel that the example I gave shows readily that clause 9 is inconsistent. I came across it, as I said ealier, in the magazine of the Quebec trucking business entitled: Transport routier du Quebec, septembre 1967. If the Minister of Transport wants other examples in that connection, he only has to inquire of the leaders of the Quebec Trucking Association and of the Canadian Trucking Association to satisfy himself that the C.N.R. is not being operated in a reasonable and rational manner.
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill
9 (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Cantelon:: Mr. Chairman, since, from my understanding of this clause, parliament is to provide money for Canadian National Railways should they overspend their allotments, revenues or grants-call them what you will-for the year, I submit a clear case can be made to show that the railways and Air Canada ought to be refinanced. The huge debt structure which they bear ought to be removed in order that they may operate on a more realistic financial base. Bill C-231 attempted to introduce more realistic financing concepts for the railways. Under that bill the railways were not required to be refinanced. An attempt was made to allow the railways to increase revenues to the point where there would be no need for them to borrow money.
I do not think that Bill C-231 by itself will enable the railways to operate on a financially sound basis. If the railways are not to borrow from the government every year-incidentally, I notice that this year the figure involved is approximately $264 million while last year it was approximately $190 million and the year before about $155 million-it will be necessary for great changes to be made. The greatest changes must be in railway equipment. The railways must take advantage of technological progress. They need new types of cars and new types of trains similar to the new train that is to come into operation on the Toronto-Montreal run. Nevertheless, whether such steps will enable the railways to save enough money so as to make it unnecessary for them to borrow is a matter of doubt. Costs will probably be reduced, but I submit we are not making full use of new equipment in order to lower railway operating costs and thus eliminate the necessity for borrowing.
The most important task we face is to find in the near future some way in which the railways may be refinanced in order that their heavy debt burden may be removed. I am disturbed by reports, and they are more than reports, that the railways intend to operate at a profit by increasing rates to the extent that areas of the country far removed from central Canada will find it difficult to produce economically. I notice that l.c.l. rates have gone up. The railways tried to increase rates in the maritimes. Large increases have come into effect in my area of the country. In fact, I feel that these large increases are loading on the post office-
5056	COMMONS
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member ought to confine his remarks to the clause that is being considered. On other occasions the Chair has prevented other hon. members from talking about rates, because they are not pertinent to the clause we are talking about. I know that the hon. gentleman will wish to co-operate.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I hope to do that. I was saying that a way ought to be found to prevent this borrowing on the part of the railways. My point was, and I will close on this note, that this work of the railways is, I feel, loaded on the post office. Certainly that is true for my area. If the post office can carry this business at a profit, then I think the railways should be able to carry it at a profit too. If the post office is not handling it at a profit, then the losses are being deducted from the railways and loaded on to the post office.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, this time I should like to speak to clause 9 (2), because I feel it is almost useless, or at least the first part of it, since it says:
All amounts placed at the disposal of the National Company pursuant to subsection (1) shall be reimbursed to the Minister of Finance from the annual revenues of the national system in so far as such revenues are sufficient,-
Now, Mr. Chairman, the C.N.R. always has deficits, it has never enough revenues. Why is this mentioned then? We know its revenues are not high enough and that its operations always show a deficit. I have been here in the house for ten years and the C.N.R. has always been in the red. Why then put in a clause such as this, when we know there is going to be a deficit? Is this being added to bluff us?
It says that if the C.N.R. has any surplus, they will pay us back. But they never have any surplus. Why then add this? Can the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) tell me why this is being added? Why add that if there is any surplus the C.N.R. will repay to the government? Not only will there not be any reimbursement, but as the bill says here, and I quote:
.-and any insufficiency shall he provided for by subsequent deficit appropriation by parliament.
Not only will revenues be unsufficient to repay the loan, but the government will also have to vote other moneys to cover the C.N.R. deficits.
[Mr. Cantelon.l
DEBATES	December 5, 1967
So, Mr. Chairman, is not this subclause superfluous? It seems the Member of the Administration, the former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, would like to reply to that.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the objection raised by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), I should like to stress that clause 9 authorizes the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to grant provisional loans to the C.N.R. if they run short of cash during their operations
I should also point out to him that, with respect to clause 9, in the 1967 budget, the Minister of Finance had to lend only $15 million to the C.N.R. on a provisional basis. At the end of the year, if the directors cannot repay this amount, special appropriations will have to be voted. However, that is a budgetary system which allows the Minister of Finance to make temporary loans. If there is a deficit at the end of the year, the act provides the method by which it must be covered.


Gilles Grégoire: This confirms what I say. This is called a temporary loan which will be repaid if there is a surplus. But there is no surplus. Stop trying to make us believe there was.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: A surplus in the operating budget of the C.N.R. is not always impossible.


Gilles Grégoire: That is in the realm of possibility, Mr. Chairman, but everyone will laugh, especially when they examine the results of the last few years and see deficits of about $24 million. The deficit was $33 million in 1965, $38 million in 1964, $43 million in 1963, and $48 million in 1962. Mr. Chairman, one can go back further and there is always a deficit. But we are told: It is possible that there may be surpluses. We should not be taken for simple-minded people. These temporary loans are permanent loans which will be voted a second time, to be cancelled. The directors of the National Railways will not have to refund the money. It is a deficit for the year. The Minister of Finance, or rather the Member of the Administration-I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, perhaps he will one day become the Minister of Finance, just as it is possible that the Canadian National Railways will pay their debts some day-the minister says that is possible.
In any event, I think that subclause 2 of clause 9 simply means that the Canadian National Railways will refund the money if
December 5, 1967

it shows a surplus. I think it is mere window-dressing, and I am ready to state that the Member of the Administration will become minister of finance rather than say the Canadian National Railways will ever refund these debts. So, let us consider them as permanent, or rather let us say to the directors of the Canadian National Railways to stop reducing their rates because they compete dishonestly with the trucking companies which pay taxes whereas the Canadian National Railways asks us loans all the time.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The only remark I would like to make, Mr. Chairman-
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to associate myself with those who expressed fear with regard to the threat that subsidies represent for the private trucking industry.
Repeatedly, during the last few years, many trucking associations have expressed their opposition to those increasing annual subsidies granted to the Canadian National, often at the expense of the trucking industry. The Trucking Association of Quebec especially expressed its disapproval through various briefs presented to the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) and to his predecessors. It seems that no consideration has ever been given to the serious concern shown in a purely administrative manner, by private industry. Many people contend that such government competition with private enterprise could cause their enterprise to disappear.
I think that the remarks made to that effect certainly require the minister who, by the way, comes from Quebec where the problem seems more acute than elsewhere, to assume responsibility for specifying the government's intentions in that respect.
Will the government continue to abuse its monetary power to the detriment of private industry by granting subsidies to cover the deficits incurred by a crown corporation which is getting to be too great a competitor for the private trucking industry, to enable it to operate at a profit, a thing which is, of course, absolutely basic for private enterprise?
I think I am in complete agreement with the thinking and the spirit of the Conservative party, which has always favoured the emancipation and the development of private enterprise. But how can we maintain that
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill we are helping private enterprise if, at the same time, we are making profits impossible because the government, by its financing and its subsidies, becomes precisely a direct competitor of private enterprise and, particularly, of the trucking industry?
I think that the minister has a great responsibility in that field, because it should not be forgotten that truck owners, in short, the whole private transportation industry, are taxpayers. They pay taxes, direct and indirect on materials and equipment they use. Private enterprise pays a staff to manage their business and all that is possible only if the trucking industry can make profits.
But when the government, which bought private transportation companies, to form another government organization-
The Assisiant Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. member commits the same error as some of this colleagues: He makes a comparison between the trucking industry and the railways, and clause 9 does not deal at all with the trucking industry. Therefore, such a comparison is out of order.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I think that is quite in order because it is a matter of giving the C.N.R. full power to finance itself out of the revenue of the government, and that liquidity or increase in capital comes in direct competition with the trucking industry. And that is the principle I am defending now. In fact, I am not drawing a parallel, I am not studying two different situations but rather the influence that such a borrowing facility for a crown corporation can have on the private trucking industry.
Mr. Chairman, we could discuss that matter for hours and for days, but I have the impression that we cannot do anything about it because it has become a habit, on the part of the government, to increase the funds available to the C.N.R. and to disregard those who have made serious representations to the government and to the Minister of Transport about the serious consequences that this policy can have on their enterprise.
And I think the responsibility rests upon the minister to give the trucking companies the assurance that the ease with which the Canadian National Company gets credits in order to make up for its deficits, will not be harmful to them.
I think the minister should first of all give an answer to that as I have other questions to ask him.
5058	COMMONS
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I should like to give an answer to the hon. member.
I wish to point out to him first of all, that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) said earlier that the Canadian National had never had an operation surplus. Well should he examine the budget or the Canadian National's annual report for the years 1955 and 1956, he will And out that that body actually had a surplus.
As my hon. friend from Ste. Marie (Mr. Valade), who mentioned that the philosophy of the party he represents does not favour deficits as regards operations of the Canadian National, I wish to point out to him that during the years the Conservatives were in power, the deficits of the Canadian National Company were the highest of all in the history of this crown corporation. As a matter of fact, the deficits amounted to 62 and 64 million dollars whereas the one forecast for next year is of $15,000,000. Moreover, according to the new policy on the part of the federal government, we want deficits to be completely eliminated.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. The hon. minister is completely out of order.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, if we paid for deficits when we were in power, it was for deficits accumulated by the previous Liberal administration that had made so many mistakes in the-


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. The hon. member should not follow the example of previous speakers.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for indicating that I should not follow the example set by previous speakers, by the minister, and it is exactly what I do not want to do. I would not want the minister to be allowed to perpetuate in the field of administration a policy that has shown itself to be harmful to the trucking industry.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I know that my intervention cannot change anything, Mr. Chairman, as we are all aware of it. However, I ask the minister to be a little more serious in his approach to the problem and to realize how much the private trucking industry is concerned about the C.N.R.'s possibility of competing with it thanks to public funds.
That is my objection, Mr. Chairman, and I think the minister should explain to us why the government persists in granting subsidies to a crown corporation which never makes

DEBATES	December 5, 1967
a profit, but which is forever experiencing deficits.
It is stated that it will probably make a surplus one day. The government, and more especially, the minister, should tell us whether we must expect surpluses at a given time. If the government gave us the assurance that this situation will stabilize itself in the near future, I think private enterprise could adapt its policies accordingly, but until then, I think the minister should tell us frankly whether his government or the department he runs will simply continue to cover deficits indefinitely at the expense of the private trucking industry. Here, I speak on behalf of those who have already submitted briefs asking the government to concern itself with their problems.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 10-Amounts at disposal of Air Canada.
Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Vegreville was speaking a few days ago on an earlier clause in this bill I stated that when we reached clause 10 I would have some questions to ask the Minister of Transport, and I want to ask them now. My intention some days ago to pose these questions has been heightened by the remarks made in the house last Thursday night by the Minister of Finance.
When I first saw Bill No. C-151 I knew that it had to pass. I think I know enough about business to understand the necessity for it. However, clause 10 bothers me. To have the financing of Trans-Canada Air Lines-Air Canada, before some hon. members get excited about about my calling it Trans-Canada Air Lines-incorporated in the C.N.R. bill seems a little interesting, although I know they have been handling the express business for some time.
Clause 10(2) of the bill reads as follows:
(2) All amounts placed at the disposal of Air Canada pursuant to subsection (1) shall be reimbursed to the Minister of Finance from the annual revenues of Air Canada in so far as such revenues are sufficient, and any insufficiency shall be provided for by subsequent deficit appropriation by parliament.
This evidently is anticipating a deficit position in respect of T.C.A. I have read their annual reports for many years and in my opinion it is a well administered organization. In recent years, however, T.C.A. has been
December 5, 1967	COMMONS
faced with competition from a privately chartered company, Canadian Pacific Airlines. I have been interested in Canadian Pacific Airlines since long before its formation. I knew Punch Dickens and Grant McConachie personally when they were bush pilots flying out of Edmonton. Their record in connection with aviation is a credit to them and to the country as a whole. Grant McConachie, of course, was one of those who made Canadian Pacific Airlines what it is today.
A former government granted a charter to Canadian Pacific Airlines and it began to fly across the country with very limited stops. It seemed that with the limited stops granted to C.P.A., T.C.A. was still in a position to declare a profit. Whether that profit came from their overseas flights to Europe, from their Caribbean flights to the south seas or from their domestic flights to points between St. John's, Newfoundland and Victoria, B.C. is a moot question.
I should like to ask some questions on this score. On November 30 the Minister of Finance speaking in the house told us about the dire straits in which the country finds itself. As recorded on page 4904 of Hansard he said:
Another demand upon our funds is Air Canada. It is having to expand rapidly its fleet of aircraft and its various ground installations in order to meet the growing traffic demands on it.
I would be interested to know what the growing demands are. Are they on the Atlantic flights, on the continental flights, on the short haul flights or on the Caribbean flights? Then the minister went on to say:
The Minister of Transport and I recognize that it will be necessary to exercise restraint on what the government lends to Air Canada in future years, requiring that company to seek sources of capital funds other than the government.
When I heard the Minister of Finance make that statement in the house last Thursday night, I was sitting here and I wondered whether Air Canada would be forced to finance on the basis of equipment loans as some railways in the United States have been doing for many years; that is, the equipment they use is the property of various financial organizations which have advanced them funds on capital account.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I know that this bill brings to mind many problems in respect of transportation, but I have a great deal of difficulty in relating the remarks the hon. member is making
DEBATES	5059
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill now to clause 10. This is a clause to allow the Minister of Finance to place at the disposal of Air Canada such amounts as may be required, and so on. Actually it has nothing to do with the transportation problem.


Mr, Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to disagree with the Chair but I am trying to point out how Air Canada will get in the position where it needs to get finances from the Minister of Finance. If its traffic is being cut in the throat it is not going to have the revenue to finance itself and is therefore going to have to ask the Minister of Finance to advance the money it needs. I am talking about the effect on Air Canada traffic as the result of direct competition from the privately chartered Canadian Pacific Airlines. I thought I was very relevant. I thought I was referring to clause 10 of Bill No. C-151. In the quotations I am making from the remarks of the Minister of Finance last Thursday he referred directly to the Minister of Transport. How more relevant can I be? I am sorry, sir, but I thought I was relevant and I believe I am.


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member has asked how relevant he can be. He can actually be relevant to clause 10 which deals with the permission the Minister of Finance is seeking in order to help Air Canada if it has a deficit at the end of the year.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, my comments are leading to this question: What will the deficit of Air Canada be as a result of the increasing competition offered by Canadian Pacific Airlines? Once we know what the possible deficit may be we will know exactly how much funds will need to be advanced to Air Canada which it is supposed to reimburse to the Minister of Finance from its annual revenues in so far as such revenues are sufficient and, any insufficiency shall be provided for by subsequent deficit appropriation by parliament. I am asking what effect the transcontinental flights of Canadian Pacific Airlines, when they were limited, had on the passenger traffic that was available to Trans-Canada Air Lines. Being more specific I should like to ask what effect has been apparent in respect of the across Canada revenue or passenger miles of T.C.A. as a result of the authority granted to the private
December 5, 1967

C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill corporation to land at a number of intermediate stops. It is all well and good for the Minister of Finance to say:
Another demand upon our funds is Air Canada. It is having to expand rapidly its fleet of aircraft and its various ground installations in order to meet the growing traffic demands on it.
Is it having to expand its fleet of aircraft because its traffic is increasing within Canada or is it increasing its fleet of aircraft to fly across the Atlantic or down to the Caribbean islands served by Air Canada?
My interest in this matter is deep because if the traffic of Air Canada is affected by the operations of a privately chartered competitor within Canada it may be placed in a deficit position. I believe we are entitled to some kind of statement concerning what has been the experience of Air Canada on the lines where it has had competition from a private company. I find this situation interesting in view of the fact that the government corporation is having to meet increased private competition which did not exist until the charter was granted and increased when a number of intermediate stops were authorized.
In the field of television and radio we have the government competing with the private broadcasting business. What they believe in doing in one area they do not do in the other.
I would like to know the figures which are available. I hope I will not be given the 1967 figures which have been greatly inflated because of the increased traffic as a result of Expo. Since Expo ceased we have been able to obtain seats on airplanes in Canada without waiting three or four weeks. The information I should like is the over-all passenger traffic T.C.A. handled during, say, 1966 and 1965, broken down into the three divisions: (a) within Canada (b) trans-Atlantic and (c) to the Caribbean.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. The hon. member is talking about the operations of Air Canada. If I may be permitted to do so, I should like to draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that we are dealing with a clause which would give the Minister of Finance permission to make available such amounts as may be required to enable Air Canada to meet its charges and the manner in which these loans will be paid back. I should like to ask the hon. member to cooperate with the Chair. I am sure he will be glad to come back to the clause which is under study at this time.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, it is impossible for me to come back to the clause because I never left it. I have asked my questions and now may I have the answers?
0	(5:00 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this clause is to advance moneys to the corporation during that period of the year when they operate at a deficit. Their business is highly seasonal and during part of the year they operate on a deficit. This is subsequently overcome by higher revenues during the summer period when trans-oceanic traffic is higher and traffic on domestic routes is higher. Consequently during the course of the year the money is repaid to the Receiver General of Canada.
No deficit is anticipated by the air line and at the present time it is operating at a very small profit. To say exactly what effect competition has had on the air line is almost impossible. Air Canada would give you its impression as to what has happened to their revenues as a result of competition, Canadian Pacific Air Lines might give you a different point of view and an independent arbiter might give you a third position. This is very difficult to outline, but I think one can say with safety that all of the available facilities were taxed to the limit of their capability and even beyond in meeting the traffic available during the last season. In so far as the future is concerned, and this might inspire confidence that there will be enough business available for both air lines in the years ahead, there will be a phenomenal increase in traffic available, something of the order of 600 per cent in ten years. With that kind of growth it should be possible for both air lines to expand considerably, and presumably profitably.
In so far as the main sources of profitable operation for Air Canada are concerned, and
1	am not an expert in these fields, I understand that basically they operate their North Atlantic routes at a very sizeable profit. This is used to compensate for losses on some of the shorter domestic runs. I believe this is a correct assessment of the position.
I suppose the introduction of competition has had some effect, but the over-all revenue position is not something I am in a position to outline exactly. There are a lot of people who think a little bit of opposition is very healthy, both on international and domestic routes, and that it helps to keep air lines on their toes in providing the kind of services to which the travelling public is entitled.
December 5, 19G7


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister of Transport for his remarks. I also believe that competition is a good thing, but I do not like to see it authorized by the government against a government owned authority if that authority is placed in a deficit position and has to come to the government for funds to carry on.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There is no indication that this is the case, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 1-Short title.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before this bill is adopted, I should like to comment on it in general.
Under Bill No. C-151, we are asked to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system. I should say, Mr. Chairman, that I am not quite satisfied as to how investment funds are being spent or allocated throughout Canada.
Before getting into this area, however, and since reference is also made to operational funds, there is one question I would like to ask from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), to which he may reply when I am through talking.
I would like to ask him whether there is any truth about the removal in the C.N.R. Public Relations Branch, of the French Services, which included a manager, Mr. Gra-velle, a secretary, Miss Tanguay, and a public relations assistant, Mr. Baillargeon, whose offices were locate on the 16th floor of the C.N.R. headquarters. If the answer is yes, I think we should ask ourselves some questions.
Now, the last time the bill was up for consideration, I asked the minister who was sponsoring the bill at that time, that is the minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) to tell me how much money was spent in each region and in each province of Canada. The minister could not then give me the data by province but he gave it to me by region and told me that the region of the St. Lawrence is considered today as the region of the province of Quebec. I note that out of a total budget of $96,956,300 in capital expenditures by the Canadian National Railways in 1967, there was earmarked for the St. Lawrence region
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill only $12,839,000 or one-twelfth, or approximately 10 or 15 per cent of total expedi-tures, whereas Quebec represents 28.4 per cent of the population of the country as a whole. How is it that less is being spent in one region than in another? How is it that less is being received concerning such an important factor of economic development as communications.
I also have on hand the second report of the Board of Transport Commissioners of Canada for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1966, that is last year for which mention is made of expenditures by the Department of Transport for protection at level crossings for the years from 1909 to 1966.
For instance, one column shows the percentage of population by province. Quebec, is shown as having 28.90 per cent of the population of Canada, the total amount spent by the Railway Grade Crossing Fund as well as the Canadian National Railways is equivalent to
14.89	per cent, while Ontario, with 34.69 per cent of the Canadian population, has benefited by expenditures amounting to 52.21 per cent of the total amount.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: I see that the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) is beaming all over; he is pleased that 34.69 per cent of Canadians benefit from 52.21 per cent of the investments. I admit that he should be happy about it, because Ontario is his province. But on the other hand, with the broad-mindedness that I credit him with he will also admit that Quebec, with 28.90 per cent of the total population, cannot be satisfied with only a share of
14.89	per cent of investment expenditures. If the hon. member for York-Humber or any other hon. member from Ontario were in my place, he would say the same thing: that Quebec did not by far get its share, and that in fact it hardly got half of it.
I asked the same question in 1962, and in 1963 in the house, and the figures were exactly the same, nothing has changed. We are told: Things are shaping up, it will change.
But a quick look at the French Hansard on page 7885, of 1963, at the bottom of the right column, is enough to realize that those figures are exactly the same as those which I have just quoted, and that nothing has changed. They say: It will change. For three years now figures have been quoted and it has not changed yet. I have the reports before me to prove it.
December 5, 1967

C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill Mr. Chairman, that information is official, for it is published by the Queen's Printer-in my opinion there is nothing more official than that-and it states that 28.90 per cent of the people have benefited by only 14.89 per cent of the capital expenditure of the Board of Transport Commissioners taken from the Railway Grade Crossing Fund and by the Canadian National Railways, for the protection of drivers.
I have given two examples, Mr. Chairman, but there are many more. I wonder why the federal government discriminates in this way against the province of Quebec? And since we are speaking of transportation, Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw something else to the attention of the Minister of Transport. We are talking here about investments for the Canadian National Railways and Air Canada.
Obviously, the Canadian National Railways are also responsible for the operation of certain ferry services.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I should like today to deal with a subject in which I am particularly interested, winter navigation on the St. Lawrence. The bill before us makes no provision for capital expenditures for this means of transport while some are provided for the Canadian National Railways and for Air Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to put the facts before the Minister of Transport. He has not been very long in his job so he may not have had the opportunity to find out of what is happening to winter navigation on the St. Lawrence, but I think that today, with a pamphlet by a professor of geography at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales of Montreal-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: -who holds a doctorate from the University of Paris, Michel Brochu, geographer, we have here all the data required to state that the Minister of Transport could do much more at no additional cost whatever. It is simply a matter of ordering the icebreakers to work. At the present time, they have orders not to work. However, the men are paid the same way, their meals are paid for, they are getting their wages, the icebreakers are operative-
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must advise the hon. member for Lapointe that he is now 

dealing with the Department of Transport whereas the matter before the committee is a financial bill respecting the C.N.R. May I suggest to the hon. member that he confine his remarks to the bill before the committee and particularly to clause 1.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think that you are right, and, I accept your ruling. In fact, I made the remarks I wanted to make on clause 1.
First, I wanted to ask the Minister of Transport-maybe it would be better to repeat the question-whether it is a fact that the Canadian National's French service of public relations has been abolished.
I would also like to ask him why there is so much difference in the capital expenditures made in other provinces as compared to those made in Quebec. How is it that Quebec never receives its share of the aggregate capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have no knowledge on that subject, Mr. Chairman, but I would be surprised if that were true. With respect to capital expenditures, it is impossible in our country to average out at all times the expenditures of all departments and all corporations. This would be ridiculous. My hon. friend might examine the expenditures in some other departments where he would find that Quebec's expenditures are far greater than the national average. He might compare the expenditures of that province with those of Ontario or Manitoba, for example.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Or Halifax.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: So there are compensating factors here which one must take into account. If the hon. member would look at the picture in perspective I think he would come to the conclusion that the province of Quebec does quite well, on average, and has in the past with the excellent leadership that has been given on its behalf throughout the years, even before my hon. friend was a member of this house, and at the present time by the government members who so ably support the demands of that province.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: What about money for icebreaking, while we are on the subject?
December 5, 1967	COMMONS


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, precisely, it is because-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, precisely, I shall tell the Minister of Transport that it is because we have considered the reports from every department and every crown agency that we say that there is only one field where Quebec receives more than its share, when it comes to federal government expenditures, and it is that of unemployment insurance, because we have more unemployed. In the other departments, we are always in a deficit position.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Will the hon. member sit down, please.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Kick him out.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Again I must advise the hon. member that he is going beyond the confines of the bill before the committee.
I would again point out to him that this is a financial bill respecting the C.N.R. and not one dealing with the actual operation of the C.N.R.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling. I was only trying to correct the general information the Minister of Transport gave us and which, I thought, was erroneous. In fact, I think I have corrected it and I challenge the minister to bring us, at any time, precise figures on that; he will then see that his information is incorrect.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refute the objection of the hon. member for Lapointe.
I feel it would only be fair to recall that the federal government spent huge amounts recently to help the Quebec government to improve its highway system in the Gaspe peninsula where the construction of a railroad had been planned. However, it was considered that a railroad would not be economical and, to compensate for that loss, the federal government transferred to the province of Quebec several millions of dollars to help develop that region, as a replacement for the capital expenditures the C.N.R. had planned.
DEBATES	5063
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill


Gilles Grégoire: How much?


Norman Edward Fawcett: Mr. Chairman, when I spoke very briefly on clause 6 earlier this afternoon I tried to indicate the inability of parliamentarians to really get to the bottom of the financial situation of Canadian National Railways because of a lack of expertise in our transport committee. I also said that because of this inability there seems to be a complete lack of control over the operational policies of Canadian National Railways.
At that time I was at the point of mentioning that the hon. member for Chapleau had said he had received representations from unions representing employees of the C.N.R. who are being laid off in great numbers. Like the hon. member for Chapleau, I have received representations from these people and particularly from the maintenance of way employees, the section men and the bridge building gangs who are primarily responsible for keeping the tracks in good condition for the operation of the trains.
A reduction in these gangs means there are insufficient men available to repair the track when a portion is found to be unsafe owing to a rock fall or possibly a wash-out. With reduced gangs these people find it increasingly difficult to inspect the condition of the track properly, let alone make the repairs and adjustments necessary to maintain the track in a safe condition. Here I would refer to the problem of shimming the track or keeping the track in line. This is particularly important during the spring and fall months when the frost-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I must advise him that he is dealing with the operations of Canadian National Railways and the bill before the committee deals with the financing of the C.N.R. I hope the hon. member for Nickel Belt will confine his remarks to the bill before the committee.


Mr. Knowles:: I wonder whether I might point out two things, Mr. Chairman. First may I call to Your Honour's attention that on previous clauses, when I think members were straying from the precise clauses before us, there was a good deal of discussion about the operations of Canadian National Railways. The hon. member for Nickel Belt made one attempt to deal with those operations in so far as they affect the finances of the
5064	COMMONS
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill company. He accepted the ruling of the Chair to wait until an appropriate clause was before the committee. I suggest that clause 1 is the place where we can have a general debate if it is related to the bill itself.
The other point I would draw to Your Honour's attention is that this till, the general clause of which we are now discussing, has to do with the provision of money for Canadian National Railways. Surely, when parliament is being asked to provide money for the C.N.R., we can ask questions about the way in which that money is being spent and about the results as far as employees are concerned. I appeal to Your Honour to recognize the difference between what my hon. friend is now trying to discuss, namely, what is happening to the employees of the C.N.R, and remarks we heard a while ago which did not relate to the C.N.R. at all.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: The Chair recognizes the argument which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has made. I am sure that in turn he will recognize too the difficulty which faces the Chair in keeping the committee within the bounds of the bill before us. If the hon. member for Nickel Belt is making his remarks by way of an example, they would be acceptable to the Chair. As a basis for a whole speech, however, they would be outside the confines of this bill. Maybe we could allow the hon. member for Nickel Belt to proceed.


Norman Edward Fawcett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The point I wish to make is that we in parliament have no means of assessing precisely the situation within the C.N.R. At the same time we see the company laying off employees and taking other steps which are detrimental not only to its workers but to the economy of the nation as a whole. If we are to be asked to pick up the tab Whenever the company does not make sufficient profit to cover the cost of its operations, my remarks should, I contend, be considered as relevant. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me at least an opportunity to attempt to continue.
I Was dealing with representations which have been made by spokesmen for the unions affected by the lay-offs, anti I should like to put on record a portion of a letter I received the other day from a representative of the maintenance of way employees union. I shall quote a few paragraphs because they express

DEBATES	December 5, 1967
an opinion which I certainly support wholeheartedly and they express it just as well as I could.
I am sure you will agree this reduction is not caused by any lack of work, in fact the situation is becoming intolerable for our people, who must attempt to maintain the higher standards of track maintenance required by ever-increasing speed and weight of traffic, with fewer and fewer men.
Recently members of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Locomotive Fireman and Engine-men and Locomotive Engineers on the Ontario Northland Railway brought rail operations to a standstill by a 24 hour sick strike; the chief complaint centered around unsafe operating conditions brought on by worsening track and roadbed conditions.
Mechanical equipment in major work programs reduces manpower requirements but the basic every-day problems of track maintenance, inspection and patrol are still performed more economically by hand tools and for this reason any lengthening of sections and reduction of forces is entirely unjustified.
Further on in the letter the writer says:
As grievance chairman, I write the following to express our opposition to such lay-offs.
On September 2, 1966, we were forced back to work by an act of parliament, to be laid off less than one year after. Men with 43 years of faithful service are laid off. It now seems clear that the railroad has not kept the development of human relations on the railroad in pace with the development of productions technology.
On one hand, the workers' purpose should be to strive to carry out honestly and well all agreements freely made without violence, disorder or outrage upon employers which might imperil the economic soundness of a concern and bring about hardships for both employers and workers.
Employers, on the other hand, should treat workers as free people, as co-partners in ownership, profits and management and thus avoid extremes of both the left and right. Those not possessed of considerable wealth, in short, the workers, are more defenceless against poverty and injustice than employers, hence an employer should never tax his work people beyond their strength. His great and principal obligation is to give to everyone that which is just.
I may say I subscribe to these observations. Another factor which is causing great concern to these employees is the fear that many of those who have been laid off will not be re-engaged, that more and more of their work will be done by so-called floating gangs made up primarily of men who do not have seniority or service rights or the protection of a union contract.
Lay-offs in other departments are more understandable than in the case of maintenance of way workers, though I do not wish to play down the fact that these other layoffs are also of a most serious nature. Car-loadings are down, it is true, and traffic in
December 5, 1967

general has slackened off to a great extent, though to what extent this can be attributed to the increase in tariffs ie a debatable question. How can we find out when we lack the expertise to get to the bottom of the question? I submit that the case of the maintenance of way employees-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Again I must advise the hon. member that the Chair is finding some difficulty in relating the remarks he is now making to the bill before us which deals with a financial provision for the C.N.R.


Norman Edward Fawcett: With all deference to you, sir, I shall have to repeat what I said earlier. When the company has to receive financial assistance from parliament in order that it can continue to operate, surely its operational policy should be capable of discussion in this chamber. I should like to draw attention to other lay-offs-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Pursuant to an order of the house made earlier this day and in order that the house may revert to motions, shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Starr: I wonder whether the hon. member who has just been speaking could indicate how much longer he intends to take. Possibly we could pass the bill before us at this point before any statements are made.


Mr. Peters:: No.


Norman Edward Fawcett: That would depend on how much I am in order. It would take about ten minutes.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies in English and in French of the first report, volume 1 as it is called, and a very important report of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. The recommendations in this report, which are of far reaching significance, deal with the status of the two official languages of Canada. The report was made available to the government late last week and has already been the subject of consideration by the cabinet. The government has established machinery which will ensure
Bilingualism and Biculturalism that all the recommendations of the report are given serious and urgent appraisal so that the government may be in a position to make its views known without undue delay and to take whatever action is required.
I wish to state immediately, Mr. Speaker, what I have already said before more than once, that the government fully endorses the principle of French speaking and English speaking linguistic and cultural equality that forms the core of and is so clearly defined in this report. The report includes 14 recommendations, six of which deal with matters that are primarily for consideration by provincial governments; three would involve joint consideration and, if agreed, joint action by the federal and provincial governments; two are recommendations for constitutional amendment, while the remaining three lie within the jurisdiction of the federal government.
It is the intention of the government to deal as quickly as possible with those matters in this report which fall within its constitutional jurisdiction. The recommendations, of course, are also of the utmost importance and interest to provincial governments and copies of the report are being made available to each of those governments. I am suggesting also to the provinces that a discussion of matters in the report should be included in the agenda of the forthcoming federal-provincial constitutional conference which is to be held early next year. I hope that discussion with and consideration by the provinces will lead to agreement concerning all matters that involve their participation or require a constitutional amendment.
Since the royal commission was appointed in 1963 the matters which were outlined in its terms of reference have been under increasing examination within the country, and this has led to a greater understanding of the problems involved and of the necessity to work co-operatively to find solutions for them, as I am sure we can do. Since the commission was established the federal government has taken a number of important steps, some of which have a bearing on the recommendations in this particular report. For some time, for instance, policies have been in operation to promote bilingualism in the public service of Canada. The federal government has also initiated, in co-operation with the governments of Ontario and Quebec, a study of the necessary steps which should be taken co-operatively among the three governments and in consultation with the
December 5. 1967

Bilingualism and Biculturalism municipalities concerned to develop a truly national capital area extending on both sides of the Ottawa river. The government will be announcing in due course other steps which relate to the recommendations in this report.
In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the house that the report and its implications are being studied most carefully, as its importance demands. I am sure that all provincial governments will want to give this report the same careful attention. I should like to thank the members of the commission, Mr. Speaker, for this further evidence of the responsible and constructive approach they are making to the various and important matters entrusted to them for examination and report. They are exploring and clarifying problems, fundamental problems, of Canadian unity, diversity and federalism in the circumstances of today. By doing so they are giving invaluable assistance to all those who are searching in a sincere and positive way for solutions to these problems. Such solutions, based on unity in diversity, of equality and partnership, are essential to Canadian development, indeed to Canadian survival. They must, they will be found, Mr. Speaker, so that Canada can live and grow and provide a good life for all its people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister leave to table the documents referred to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, this is the first of several volumes of the report of the commission. I, of course, have not been able to consider the report in any detail nor to confer with my colleagues in connection with it. There are, nevertheless, some things I should like to say at this time. This report deals almost entirely with the subject of language. I would express the hope that while we would not delay consideration in order to wait for additional volumes, nevertheless every effort should be made to make available the remaining volumes of the work of the commission as rapidly as possible so that we will have the whole picture before us.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has indicated, a number of the recommendations contained in this volume are within the jurisdiction of the provinces, especially those relating to education and consequently could not be implemented by this parliament. I should like to make the point, sir, that whether recommendations come within the jurisdiction of this parliament or within the


jurisdiction of the provinces, they clearly relate to problems which are of concern to the country as a whole. They relate to the health and future of confederation, the future of our country.
It seems to me, therefore, that this parliament and the government, indeed all the national political parties, must be prepared to provide leadership in connection with these problems in all jurisdictions. The report, of course, deals with a subject which provides problems for a great many members of the house. I want to emphasize, however, that it certainly will not be our desire to attempt to derive partisan advantage from matters arising out of the report. We are, after all, dealing with the future of our country which I think is probably in some danger. We must have the determination and the courage to do what is required to be done and to do it without undue delay. I am optimistic, myself. While it is obvious, I think, that dissatisfaction has escalated in recent years, the degree of understanding and willingness to recognize these problems and deal with them has also escalated. We have seen the Estates General meet recently. One may question to what extent it was representative, but it gave the impression of consisting of serious people engaged in serious discussion.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, there is another side of the picture, and this was illustrated about the same time by the conference that took place in Toronto called on provincial initiative, indeed, on the initiative of the premier of Ontario. I hope I will not be accused of being partisan about the matter-I am saying this sincerely-when I point out that we have cause to be grateful that this conference did take place at that time, as it might have been rather depressing to Canadians generally to have only the picture that was being created by the Estates General. I think the premier of Ontario contributed an important public service, and I must say that I derive some pride and satisfaction as well from the role that was played by the premier of Nova Scotia.
In referring to the provincial initiative in calling this conference in Toronto I want to be understood as not criticizing the government in this connection. The fact that these provincial representatives spent three or four days together dealing with the provincial aspects of this problem was probably the right thing to do. I expressed the hope that the federal government would be represented
December 5, 1967	COMMONS
by ministers, but only as observers, and I emphasize I am not being critical in this regard.
However, Mr. Speaker, I do suggest that we must all be prepared to participate and to offer leadership, both members of the government and the other parties in the house. I hope we approach this report in this spirit. From what I have seen so far I do not think there is too much in the recommendations that will startle the people of Canada. I say this because of the discussions that have taken place over recent years and the movement that I think has taken place in terms of opinion. Some may even wonder why it took the commission so long to produce these recommendations. But the fact that this opinion has been expressed is itself an indication of the extent to which public opinion has changed, because I think that a few years ago these recommendations would certainly have been considered rather startling.
I would like to suggest that in regard to methods of procedure it might be appropriate for the Prime Minister to consult with the working committee of premiers that has been established. I do not suggest this method should be pursued exclusively but it is one method of proceeding.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should simply like to say that while I do not think I am inclined to be melodramatic, and I hope I am not inclined to oversimplification, I believe that the future of the country is to a considerable extent in our hands. I think we are going to be put to the test and I hope we will not be found wanting. The members of the party that I have the honour to lead will certainly wish to study this report carefully. We will do so with a sense of urgency and with a full awareness of the grave importance of the matters that are being discussed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, while I have not had an opportunity of reading this report I nevertheless welcome it as an important contribution to a very fundamental problem. I think one of the things that impresses one as one glances over the summary is that the report is the unanimous opinion of all the commissioners. It is true that two of the commissioners have written personal addenda, but all of them have supported the main recommendations of this first report. I think that in itself is encouraging.
When the commission issued its preliminary report it warned us that there was a crisis in Canada. Events in this regard have
DEBATES	5067
Bilingualism and Biculturalism certainly vindicated their views. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, events in this country are moving so quickly that we are in danger of having events overtake us. If it is still true that to govern is to foresee, then certainly the thing we have to fear most is that we fail to keep abreast of the whole problem of Canadian confederation.
In this first report, which deals only with official languages, the commission has dealt with what is probably the most fundamental problem of biculturalism and bilingualism. I believe we ought to extend our congratulations to the commission on this report. Those who upon first glancing at it may think that the recommendations are somewhat radical must at the same time realize that startling and radical recommendations and actions may be necessary if we are to hold this country together and if Canadian confederation is to survive.
I was very glad to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) say that he intends to ask the premiers of the provinces to put the subject matter of this report on the agenda for the forthcoming federal-provincial conference which is to be held early in the new year. I feel certain that the premiers of the provinces will agree, because if one may judge by the spirit which prevailed at the Confederation of Tomorrow conference the premiers of the provinces of Canada are concerned, as we in this parliament are concerned, about the preservation of confederation.
However, Mr. Speaker, I think this report has to be viewed in a wider context. The commission's terms of reference dealt only with the matter of bilingualism and biculturalism, but it seems to me that the conference to be held early in the new year must begin to tackle the wider problem of Canadian confederation. Since the commission will not be dealing with that subject there is no need to wait for further reports before proceeding with a discussion between federal and provincial governments of the matter.
It seems to me that there are two goals which we in this parliament irrespective of party are striving to seek. The first is to establish between the English speaking and French speaking communities of Canada equality of status and equality of opportunity. It is sometimes said that what the French speaking Canadians want is to feel at home in every part of Canada. I think they want even more than that. I think they want to feel that they will have a share in the economic and social progress of this country and
December 5, 1967

Bilingualism and Biculturalism that they will be able to participate in their own language and within the framework of their own culture. I think that is the first goal we must set. We must work out ways and means by which these two cultural and linguistic communities can go together down the road of history co-operating on an equal basis and with equal opportunities.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The second goal which I think we in this parliament must set for ourselves is at the same time to build a strong and viable sovereign nation. We want Canada to be a country which has the necessary powers to promote full employment and an ever-increasing standard of living. In the process, therefore, of any constitutional changes which take place we want to make sure that we do not diminish the powers of the federal government, that we give to the federal government the necessary authority to promote economic growth and expansion and, what is more, Mr. Speaker, that we have a federal government strong enough to eliminate regional disparities, which can do more than anything else to destroy national unity. This may mean some redistribution of constitutional powers-this matter can be discussed with the provinces-if we are to deal adequately with such problems as housing, manpower training, pollution and the marketing of farm products. It may even mean that where the French speaking community in Canada feels its rights may be infringed on, special arrangements may have to be made with the province of Quebec.
The report which the Prime Minister has tabled is part of a continuing dialogue. I am convinced that with vision and good will on the part of all concerned we need not fear for the future. We need only fear apathy and delay. I hope that in the course of the next few months, at the federal-provincial conference and in parliament, we will apply ourselves to the task of strengthening confederation and at the same time bringing about happy and friendly relations between the two great founding races that make up Canada.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is very important, and I think that we should start by congratulating the members of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission for the objectivity with which they have done their work. They have performed their task well all across Canada.

The Prime Minister said a moment ago:
The report includes fourteen recommendations, of which six deal with matters that are primarily for consideration by provincial governments: three would involve joint consideration and, if agreed, joint action by the federal and provincial governments, two are recommendations for constitutional amendment, while the remaining three lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, that commission will certainly have proved useful to the population as a whole and, regardless of any political partisanship, we must admit that the Canadian Prime Minister is the one responsible for such understanding throughout Canada


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: -in every part of Canada, indeed, as has never been seen in the past. Even when Canada had a French-speaking Prime Minister, French Canadians were less understood than they are now with the present Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, he sure heard some abusive language from people in his own party and also from other political groups in Canada. However, I think he has remained a Canadian in every sense of the word and he still wants Canadians to understand and get along with each other.
Mr. Speaker, recently a provincial conference was held in Toronto and we should congratulate now, I think, the initiator of that conference, Premier Robarts, who invited all premiers, from all provinces of Canada, to discuss the Canadian constitution and to consider the part French Canadians should have in the good operation of our country or in the administration of Canadian affairs.
On map No. 1, which shows the distribution of population by province, I note that in several other Canadian provinces there are French-speaking minorities practically as numerous as the English-speaking minority in Quebec.
I have said over and over, Mr. Speaker, and I will say it again this afternoon: We wish that every Canadian province would treat the French-speaking minority within their boundaries as we, in Quebec, treat the English-speaking minority within our boundaries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Then we shall have taken the first step toward greater understanding.
December 5, 1967

In Quebec, Mr. Speaker, we have not been compelled more elsewhere to learn a second language; we wanted to, and we are proud today to have learned the other Canadian official language, the English language. We are happy to learn it, and I do not see why teaching French should be denied in the other provinces.
On the other hand, Premier Robarts of Ontario is now taking steps so that French might be taught in the first year.
In Manitoba, the same thing is coming; in New Brunswick, I believe Premier Robi-chaud is thinking of this possibility.
In the western provinces, they are possibly so far removed from the problems, we know here in Ottawa that it is somewhat more difficult to have these views recognized but I think that, objectively, at the recent Toronto conference, while the federal government was standing aside, the premiers had the opportunity to express their inner thoughts.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
I believe that the present premier of the province of Quebec (Mr. Johnson), has thrown light on the problem and has convinced most of the premiers of the urgency of considering this basic question of the teaching of French in their own province, where he said that in Quebec this year, 75,000 young French Canadians will arrive on the labour market and will want to earn their living in their own language, just as English-speaking people also like to earn their livelihood in their own language. These rights should be equal throughout Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister stated further-and that is true:
Since the commission was established, the federal government has taken a number of important steps-
We see now these steps.
-some of which have a bearing on the recom-mandations in this particular report. For some time, for instance, policies have been in operation to promote bilingualism in the public service of Canada.
In fact, English-speaking officials are now learning French and French-speaking officials are learning English.
If a law or rule passed by the government provides for a 7 per cent bonus to be given to Canadian civil servants who are bilingual, we insist that this law or this attitude concerning bilingualism in the public service be extended to the employees of the House of Commons who, I believe, are also government employees and civil servants. Those
Bilingualism and Biculturalism who work in the two languages should receive this 7 per cent bonus.
I will continue now to quote the right hon. Prime Minister:
The federal government has also initiated, in co-operation with the governments of Ontario and Quebec, a study of the necessary steps which should be taken co-operatively among the three governments and in consultation with the municipalities concerned to develop a truly national capital area extending on both sides of the Ottawa river.
While the Prime Minister was being questioned on television the other night, he said that the establishment of a national capital or of a federal district would be a pilot project for the whole of Canada, showing both west and east that it is possible in an area, in a province and in the country-even though an English Canadian cannot be turned into a French Canadian or a French Canadian into an English Canadian-to make two good Canadians out of these two elements or with the two official languages.
Mr. Speaker, this is not putting aside those who speak a language other than French and English, specifically the Ukrainians, the Poles, the Italians, the Germans, who are in Canada in large numbers, these people are considered Canadians just as we are. We consider them as true and good Canadians and they have the advantage of speaking one or the other of the two official languages. They also have the advantage of keeping their own culture, whether it is German, Italian, French, Yugoslavian, it is immaterial. "Diversity in unity." That is what the Prime Minister said a while ago and that is what the Ralliement creditiste endorses unreservedly for the whole of Canada.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, we have listened with interest to the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) this afternoon on the tabling of the first report of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism.
At the time the commission was appointed many questions were asked. For instance, many Canadians wondered whether the appointment of such a commission would contribute to unity and harmony in Canada or whether it would be an additional divisive factor. Others wondered whether there would be an impartial inquiry into the questions within the commission's terms of reference or whether it had been appointed to do a selling job on a course to which the government was
5070	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion already committed. In addition, the question was asked whether there was any real justification for the expenditure of the vast sums of public money which, even in the very earliest stages, it was evident would be required. Another question raised at the time of the appointment of the commission was whether any consideration would be given to the one third of the population of Canada who are neither English nor French speaking.
I suggest these are the questions that will be uppermost in the minds of Canadians in general when they have the opportunity to consider the report that has just been tabled. Of course it is impossible to grasp the full significance of the report without a very careful analysis of it. Indications are that its recommendations will be very far reaching, but on other occasions we will have opportunities to deal with them in some detail.
I agree with the suggestion that it will be necessary for us to receive all the reports of the commission before we are able to understand in a really broad sense the objectives which the commission has in mind. I trust that the remaining reports will not be too long delayed.
The implementation of many of the recommendations will be dependent not so much on constitutional change but on the co-operation of the provinces concerned. The Prime Minister has indicated that there are a number of recommendations, I believe six, which come almost entirely within provincial jurisdiction and others come under shared jurisdiction. I suggest that any attempt to infringe on provincial prerogatives in this connection or to exercise undue pressure or coercion could have very serious and unfortunate results. May I also suggest that any changes in the linguistic or cultural nature of Canada which may result from the implementation of any or all of these recommendations must not be used to promote undesirable changes in our political and constitutional structure.
I am sure the report will be studied very carefully in every part of Canada. We trust that our country will be able to move forward unitedly to achieve the destiny which is desirable and possible for us.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be

DEBATES	December 5, 1967
raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), Immigration-inquiry on the schedule of arrivals of immigrants; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), The Prime Minister-statement of Minister of Transport reflecting government policy with respect to Viet Nam; the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden), Old Age Security-centennial bonus-senior citizens.
The house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-16, to incorporate Cabri Pipe Lines Ltd.-Mr. Jorgenson-Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Maurice Rinfret: Shall clause 1 carry?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am interested in the number of pipe line bills that we have been getting, particularly in the wording detailing their purposes. I think it is safe to say that we are unduly cautious about passing pipe line bills for the simple reason that the companies involved are never clear as to what they want and what they are going to do. This is a bill that falls into that category.
I do not know whether it is wise for us to have a number of small international or interprovincial companies constructing pipe lines over short distances such as in the present case. The length of the pipe line is to be 20 miles, but it will cross an interprovincial boundary. From reading the questions asked during the committee proceedings on this bill I understand that incorporation of this pipe line company could have taken place in several other ways. The pipe line is to run from a particular well to a delivery point in the Lloydminster area where I assume the product it carries will be used. I also assume that initially the product will be gas which will be used in the immediate area. If this were so, there would certainly be no opposition to the incorporation of this company. It would be a supplier moving its product to a restricted market in a given area. But that is not what the bill seeks.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
I have read the remarks of the sponsor. I have read the remarks made by the parliamentary agent and by the counsel for this
December 5, 1967

corporation. This is not what they say the bill is for. I should like to quote some of the evidence which was given before the committee on transport and communications on November 28, 1967. This evidence is not necessarily the same as the evidence given before the committee of the other place in respect of this company. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace said:
Sir, you said that you were asking for more powers-
More powers than were outlined in the simple explanation originally given.
-because it would be an interprovincial pipe line. I notice in clause 6 that you are also asking for powers for international pipe lines.
This was the answer:


Mr.   Cressey@: Yes; the international feature has been included because it is very difficult to predict where the markets of the future will be and consequently it has been a standard custom in the case of pipe line companies to loop them both interprovincially and/or internationally.
If this is really what this company wants to do, it should have said so in the first place. It is quite true that it may have a number of wells and may expand, but it is my contention that if it wants to do that it should be willing to come back and obtain an amendment. The company told the committee that what is involved is a simple pipe line 20 miles in length. I suppose the situation is like that when a person is asking for an increase in salary. He asks for ten times as much as he expects to get. In this case the company is asking for an international charter to transport gas 20 miles. I should like to read further from the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee:


Mr. Allmand:: Did you also ask for permission to transport gas as liquids and solids?


Mr.   Cressey@: Right.


William Warren Allmand: And also for processing, refining, treating, etc., which is more than just a pipe line.


Mr.   Cressey@: That is right.


William Warren Allmand: You want all-embracing powers for this company to transport liquids, solids and gases; to process; and to ship to the United States; and so forth.


Mr.   Cressey@: Yes, that is correct.


William Warren Allmand: Do you know if the company has any plans to expand in this way?


Mr.   Cressey@: We certainly would like to, but we have no fixed plan in this regard at this time. However, to operate a pipe line system, it is necessary to have certain additional capacities; for example, if a producing well gets a high gasoil ratio, or vice versa you automatically move from the transportation of a gas to the transportation of a liquid.
Private Bills
I think this raises a problem. I know there are many lawyers in this house. They may think that the other place has hit on the best format for bringing these companies into existence. They may be right, but I believe it is an imposition on hon. members when someone comes before parliament asking for this type of incorporation and then says that what is involved is a 20 mile four inch gas line.
There are not very many communities in Ontario which do not have a line with a capacity four or five times that size. This is a four inch gas pipe line and yet they are asking for authority for a facility to handle a refinery or an international transportation line. The potential they are asking for is similar to the capitalization. They are asking for $4 million. I do not think it will be necessary to raise $4 million.
They really have not told us who they are. The lawyer told us that he is a Canadian who acts for a number of gas companies. I suppose a lawyer could also say that he is connected with a dozen murderers, but this does not necessarily connect him with the crimes. This is the only person who appeared to speak for the company. A number of companies were mentioned. It was stated that the president of Cabri is Mr. Stanley Milner of Edmonton, who is president of Chieftain Development Company Limited, and that he is very active in the west and prominent in other related companies including Blue Crown Petroleums Limited and Lloydminster Gas Company Limited.
Although it was not mentioned, I presume that one of these companies is doing the drilling and has the well. They indicate that one company will be used for the purpose of supplying the gas. I presume that this will be Lloydminster Gas Company Limited. It seems to me that we are getting all cluttered up with these little companies. Here we have a person who incorporates a company to do a certain type of business such as delivering gas. He sets up at least two companies and then a third. One will do the drilling, another will handle the distribution and the third, an international and interprovincial company with federal incorporation, will handle the transportation. He asks for a capitalization of $4 million. While this company probably is a bona fide company and is probably making a bona fide request, I believe that if members will look at the evidence that was given they will find that the company is asking for things which it probably does not want. I suggest that if this is the situation it should not have this type of incorporation.

December 5, 1967
Private Bills
I agree that in the past we have caused many of these companies problems and they may think that if they can get the kitchen sink they will be better off, because if they failed to ask for it they would have to come back again. After reading the answers of this lawyer 1 would suggest that he did not tell us all he knows. It was only after members of the committee questioned him that he provided the interesting information on these matters.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
It may be that the company is asking for authority to construct 20 miles of four inch pipeline to look after an expansion in business in the future, but this does not mean the company will go into the business of refining. I do not know how many refineries there are in western Canada but I understand the number is limited because of cost. Why should a small gas company with one well spend half a billion dollars to build a refinery and associated facilities in order to make this an economically feasible development? I do not think this company needs one red cent to incorporate. I imagine Mr. Milner will just dig into another company pocket to provide the money for this operation.
I do not understand why these people seeking federal incorporation do not go for the whole shooting match and then do everything under the one company name. During the committee meetings one hon. member asked several questions of Mr. Cressey. He said:
First of all, Mr. Cressey, I am rather intrigued by the name. Why did you call it Cabri Pipe Lines? The only Cabri I know is quite a long distance away from Lloydminster, and it happens to be in my constituency.
I do not know where the hon. member's constituency is, but Mr. Cressey in answer said:
Mr. McKiram pointed out that he was not sure about my qualifications in other fields, but I have been involved in pipe line business for some years, and I was engaged in the pipe line facilities constructed through Cabri. There is always the problem of seizing upon a name that has not been used in some other context by some other company in Canada, and I thought I was fairly safe in picking the very small community of Cabri.
I am in agreement with that statement. Every year we pass five or six pipe line bills which involve names conflicting with the names of other companies. In this case the company adopted the name of a very small community. It is interesting to note that the solicitor for the company has been connected with other pipe lines for some period of time.

He was apparently connected with the construction of a line going through that area. It is probably safe to say that Mr. Cressey has not informed the committee of all his connections with pipe line companies.
Why should parliament be asked to incorporate a company such as Bell Telephone in order to enable it to put a satellite on the moon when it is interested really in putting a satellite on Mars? Cabri does not really want authority to operate an international pipe line company but it has been the practice of lawyers to draft these bills in this manner, asking for everything, because the cost is exactly the same and the company receives international export rights. They might just as well ask for authority to build all the other facilities involved such as townsites, airports, housing, stores, roads and communication lines.
I have no doubt that this is a bona fide company, particularly in view of its limited size. However, when the company asks for something it does not need or want, then I think for the sake of good housekeeping if for no other reason we should consider their requests very carefully to determine how much is necessary. These companies continue to come to parliament for incorporation. I suggest that within a year or two they will stop coming here because they will have learned by then that we do not intend to accede to their requests. Maybe they will come then with properly drafted bills. I am not sure this company will come back again for incorporation, but if it does it will have to come with a bill that has been cleaned up, containing requests for authorization to construct the things it needs. It seems foolish for these people to come before a committee and say they do not actually intend to do that for which they seek authorization. This is like someone suggesting he hopes to swim the Atlantic ocean but knows he will never try. These requests of the company should be relevant to the services they intend to provide. They should not try to fool people by asking for authorization to carry on certain services they do not intend to provide.
For these reasons I suggest to Mr. Cressey and his parliamentary agent that if they intend to serve in a responsible way they will make known their exact plans after incorporation. They should stop misleading people by cluttering the records. This practice will not be allowed to continue indefinitely and perhaps this word to the wise will be sufficient.
December 5, 1967


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Timiskaming regarding the proposal to incorporate Cabri Pipe Lines Limited. As I did so I recalled my experience not long after I became a member of this house. I was a member of the old railways, canals and telegraph lines committee which had a bill before it seeking authorization to permit one of our national railway systems to construct a small branch line. This line did not involve a distance of more than 20 miles. I was puzzled that the company had to come before parliament to obtain a special act in order to construct a short spur line from an existing line to another point.
The development officers of the railway company spelled out in great detail the economics involved in the construction of that spur line, the cost of construction and the nature of the freight they intended to carry. I became even more puzzled and began to look into the matter. I then realized that parliament had created a situation which forced these companies to come before parliament with bills of this kind. I discovered that this practice arose out of the history of the development of transportation facilities. It stemmed from the fact that from past experience we learned there have been unregulated and unwise expansions of railway lines to the extent that at one point in our history this development came near to bankrupting the nation.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Then I began to realize why a previous parliament had placed this kind of restriction upon the national railway companies. I mention this to emphasize why in my opinion it is absurd that in this day and age parliament should be satisfied to allow a company concerned with another mode of transportation to come before it with this vague, general, ombinus sort of bill. I refer to companies with backgrounds such as were pointed out by the hon. member for Timiskaming. When this bill is boiled down, it is simply concerned with a company applying to construct approximately 20 miles of 4-inch pipe line.
The question I ask the committee is, why do we allow this absurd situation to continue, wherein we are willing to allow companies to come before us with this sort of bill, although in the past parliament saw fit to place restrictions upon the freedom and ability of railway companies which developed national transportation systems? A previous parliament required such railway companies to
27053-320}
Private Bills
come before parliament with specific proposals to construct a line from point A to point B. As the hon. member for Timiskaming said, those of us from this quarter of the house who are speaking on this bill, as we have spoken on others, are not in any way objecting to the fact that a pipe fine should be constructed from point A to point B in order to carry a certain petroleum product. We object to the fact that on one hand we require a railway company to come before parliament with a specific proposal in a bill to construct a specific piece of line, and on the other we allow certain interests to come before us with a vague, generalized proposition which, as the hon. member for Timiskaming said, might allow them to build a pipe line to the moon.
I have read the evidence given to the committee and recognize the desire to construct this piece of pipe line in a location which crosses provincial boundaries, and therefore federal action is necessary. We have no quarrel with the fact that because of this particular geographic circumstance parliament should be asked to deal with it. What we are concerned about, as the hon. member for Timiskaming said, is the process of companies being incorporated ad nauseam, with blanket powers in their charters of incorporation, to build national and international pipe lines. We are concerned that this practice be not continued because in my view it is making a mockery of parliament. I think the point of the hon. member for Timiskaming was well taken, that the legal fraternity which had been advising these companies should smarten up and suggest to them it is about time they got down to brass tacks.
Some fairly searching questions were asked in the committee. This I welcome. I noticed that the hon. member for Kootenay East raised the question as to whether this pipe line would be a common carrier. The answer given by the spokesman for the applicant was that it would be. That may or may not be necessary and desirable in this particular circumstance. If it is a matter of carrying the products of more than one company to be distributed to more than one consumer, 1 suppose it is necessary and desirable that it should be a common carrier. But on the face of it, it seems rather strange that a picayune proposal of this kind should require that the company set itself up as a common carrier.
I find this feature of the bill rather puzzling, perhaps because in that part of the

December 5, 1967
Private Bills
country in which I live various concerns involved in the production of some of our products build transportation facilities. It is true that these are not pipe lines, but hundreds and indeed thousands of miles of roads are built for the purpose of transporting their commodities. As long as those roads are being used exclusively for the transportation of the product of one company, they remain in effect, private roads.
If one examines this process, and were able to look into all the ramifications of the different companies in which the people applying in this instance seem to be involved, perhaps the real necessity for the proposed pipe line being constructed in this form arises from the fact that with various corporate structures it will be possible for the profit picture of the shareholders to be improved somewhat, artificially, and at the same time perhaps to be concealed. There is an old saying about dividing and ruling with which we are all familiar.
It seems that in this process which we are allowing to continue, namely the development of facilities for transporting commodities by pipe line, we are creating a corporate maze in which the Canadian people are becoming increasingly snared and which is becoming so complicated that any ordinary citizen, and citizens generally and collectively, may find a great deal of difficulty finding their way out.
I know it is always said in these committee hearings that the bill is in the ordinary form. The point I am trying to make is that as far as I am concerned this bill is in an extraordinarily unnecessary form. This is the point that perhaps should be primarily emphasized in relation to it. It may be that the form of this bill is even more extraordinary and unnecessary than has been the case with bills of a similar nature with which we have been called upon to deal.
Like the hon. member for Timiskaming, I found rather intriguing the little bit of evidence that had to do with how this name was picked. I was interested to learn from the hon. member for Kindersley, who apparently is more familiar with the community of Cabri than most members of the house, that it is a very nice community. I am not at all sure, however, that the people of this community should take it as a compliment that this pipe company should, in a sense, have pre-empted their name, just because so many of these companies are being formed that it is becoming increasingly difficult to pick suitable names.
[Mr. Barnett.l
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
In my view, granting these broad powers to a multiplicity of concerns can only lead ultimately to confusion and the strangulation of any attempt to produce an effective system of transportation of the commodities by pipe line across this country. I notice for example that this company is seeking the right to transport solids. Well, there is another bill somewhere in the parliamentary hopper designed to enable a company to move into the solids pipe line field, which is likely to become an increasingly important method of transportation. Even though these matters are subject to the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transport Commission or the National Energy Board, if we continue to grant such powers as these to all who apply for them we shall be loading down those public bodies with an increasingly complicated task when they endeavour, as they will have to do one day in the future, to rationalize the hodgepodge which we in parliament have created.
These are some of the considerations which should be of concern to the committee in relation to these applications. The fact that the application before us involves such a relatively minor construction project makes it all the more necessary to emphasize the ridiculousness of the situation while we are dealing with this particular bill. If the committee passes the clause now under consideration, I believe it should give careful study to some of the following clauses. Hon. members might even consider whether we ought not to eliminate some of the more ridiculous aspects of the bill as it now stands. Having done so, we might be in a better position to judge whether the bill as a whole should receive approval.


Mr. Howard:: The general subject opened up by my hon. friend from Timiskaming and dealt with by my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni is an intriguing one. The scope of the powers sought by this bill certainly does not correspond with the reality of the situation.
With respect, and without wishing to misinterpret in any way what the hon. member for Provencher said on second reading, this disparity was certainly not in the mind of that hon. member, either. For this reason I believe it is an extremely valid point to say that many of these unnecessary and unwanted powers should at an appropriate stage, perhaps when we get to clause 6, be removed from the bill in order that the company may obtain simply the authority to do what it desires to do immediately with respect to
December 5, 1967

transporting gas from one province to another, a distance of 20 miles or so.
When I say it is my impression that the hon. member for Provencher undoubtedly has had the same sort of understanding as did the officers of the company, namely that the activities contemplated would be somewhat limited, I am bearing in mind the remarks he made on November 9 when the bill was given second reading. Those observations, I believe, substantiate my impression.
Listening to the words of the hon. member at that time led me to believe that this company was seeking incorporation in order to perform only the minor function or service described. As a consequence I pursued the matter no further; I did not even look into the bill in any detail. It was not until my hon. friend from Timiskaming dealt with the subject that I began to realize the enormity of the proposition now before us.
Perhaps I can quote from page 4102 of Hansard in connection with what the hon. member had to say on second reading. I have no desire to quote him out of context or to misrepresent him; only to quote those parts which gave me and other members the impression that the bill was a simple one, seeking authority to build a pipe line for a distance of some 20 miles. Subsequent discussions in the standing committee showed, of course, that this is really not the case. The hon. member for Provencher said:
What the bill proposes is a storage facility in connection with a gas distribution company. It will be located across the Alberta-Saskatchewan border. The distribution company is seeking permission to build a pipe line connecting producing wells with a dry hole located some distance from the Alberta border in Saskatchewan where gas will be stored.
This is a simple, uncomplicated declaration of what the company proposes to do. There is no reference to running a television network or operating aircraft or international pipe lines or interprovincial pipe lines. It is a simple business of transporting gas from one province to another. The hon. member went on to point out that the demand for natural gas is higher in the winter than in the summer, but that natural gas can be recovered at a much greater rate in the summer when demand is low. The object, then, is to produce a balanced supply of gas for the area receiving it.
Private Bills
The hon. member said the sponsors of the bill were all Canadians, and then he went on to state this:
The passage of the bill will allow this company to put its operations on a more economical and efficient basis.
The operations referred to are presumably those connected with the distribution of gas.
A federal incorporation is necessary because the construction of this line will be interprovincial, running between the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Almost as an afterthought, or as an aside, the hon. member went on to say:
The powers requested are necessary in the event that further lines are required. If this is the case, the company must again apply to the National Energy Board-
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
The point is that the hon. member's explanation of the purpose of the bill was that it had to do with the building of a pipe line to transport natural gas from one province to another, and store it so that the operation of the company would be on a more economical basis. In this way, the natural gas would be available at an even level during both summer and winter. The reference to the powers requested at that juncture was to the effect they are requested in the event further lines were required. This was thrown in as an incidental part of the commentary by the hon. member for Provencher.
As I said at the outset, I do not mean to misrepresent what he said, but this was the impression I got from listening to his remarks on second reading, and that impression is substantiated from reading those remarks into the record. The impression was that the sole purpose of the company was to obtain this authority to build a pipe line across an international boundary, and that all the other matters really were not too important. The international aspect, the possibility of the company operating aircraft, operating aerodromes and microwave systems, were rather remote.
As the hon. member for Timiskaming said to me a minute ago in relation to this microwave system, the distance is only 20 miles and if a strong wind were blowing in the right direction you could holler to one another. You would not need any microwave system installed for that purpose. However, these are some of the powers sought by this particular company.
I have no great desire to delay unnecessarily the passage of the bill. As has been

December 5, 1967
Private Bills
explained to me privately, there is some urgency to give the bill passage so the company can carry out its activities and proceed to make application to the National Energy Board. However, I do believe there is something here that is of greater consequence and which should put us in the position of having a further look at the bill to ascertain whether or not, in the interim, the officers of the company might not be able to accept some alteration in the powers sought. I am referring to the powers which cover such things as movement across international borders, as well as the transportation of solids, which will be dealt with by one of my colleagues. Then, there is the matter of giving a blanket authority to operate a microwave system, television communication, radio communication and everything of a like nature, without any confinement of that power.
Usually when such power is sought in a bill like this it is limited to the purpose of the undertaking. These are the words normally used to make sure that there is no invasion into the radio, television or communications media. There is no such confinement of the power here, so I think this must be a matter to be considered by the company. With respect, I say I hope the hon. member for Provencher will not mind postponing the proceedings on this bill until another day. It could easily be dealt with by consent. There is seldom any disagreement in the house about giving consent to matters which are urgent, especially when there is a reasonable approach made.
I know my friend, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, intends to deal with the transportation of solids because he is intensely interested in this aspect of pipe line problems. He desires to say a few words about that, so that there will be a full disclosure on the record of our views about the vagueness and generality of the powers sought, as well as the scope of those powers. Then the next time this bill is dealt with there will be an opportunity for the company to read the views that have been expressed, and come to some conclusion as to which of those views they intend to accept.


Colin Cameron: My colleague has not left me many minutes in which to express my views. One thing which did occur to me when I read the bill, Mr. Chairman, was that it really is like insurance policies, because we are told the important part is in the fine print. That fine print carries a vey different connotation than the large print. Reading the evidence before

the committee on transport, one is struck by the emphasis the witnesses from the company placed on the modesty of their intentions. They were just going to build this pipe line for 18 or 20 miles. It would cross the Alber-ta-Saskatchewan boundary and enable them to store gas until the peak season for the consumption of gas arrives.
When we look at the bill, we find it has an extraordinary number of other powers that it seeks from parliament. One in which I am particularly interested, and have been for some time in connection with these pipe line bills, is the proposal to add the authority to transport solids. As I have said on some other occasions on other bills, I think parliament has to take a very long look at this question of the transportation of solids by pipe line and decide whether or not as a nation we are again going to run the risk of involving ourselves in the tragic mess that emerged from the building of the railroads in this country.
We were left with a conglomeration of railroads, one final echo of which we heard earlier today in connection with the financing of the Canadian National. The Canadian National, of course, was formed by the coupling together of a number of uneconomic lines. Incidentally the taxpayers were saddled with the burden of paying the bond interest on these railroads. I feel very strongly that if we allow private companies to enter this new, emerging field of transport, one day we may well wind up again with a conglomeration of inefficient, uneconomic pipe lines. Parliament should therefore look at this matter seriously now before we move into that field at all, and establish a public policy with regard to the development of this modern means of transport.
May I call it seven o'clock, sir.
Progress reported.


Frank Howard: Before we proceed any further, sir, could I make a request for the house to consider making an order that Bill S-16 retain its position on the order paper. I do not believe there is any desire for it to go to the bottom of the list. I make that request.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: Is it
agreed, as requested by the hon. member, that Bill S-16 retain its place on the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 5, 1967	COMMONS



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-151, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system for a period from the 1st day of January, 1967 to the 30th day of June, 1968 and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company-Mr. Chretien (for the Minister of Finance)-Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
Maurice Rinfret: It being seven o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p. m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-151, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways.
On clause 1-Short title.


Norman Edward Fawcett: Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to be as brief as possible in making my concluding remarks. I should like to assure you that I appreciate your leniency in letting me stray the odd time, and for hauling me back from the brink. I should like to point out that there is relevancy between what I have been saying in connection with lay-offs and certain provisions in the bill. I refer in particular to expenditure for track maintenance and that sort of thing. It would be interesting to know whether these estimated expenditures were calculated before or after the contemplated lay-off of a considerable number of men.
I assume, Mr. Chairman, that the railways are going to say that these lay-offs are the result of economic policy, but I think there is some inconsistency in this regard. If you will permit me to do so, Mr. Chairman, I should like to stray a little once more and to point out one inconsistency in particular. This inconsistency concerns another departmental lay-off before the end of the year of about 35 members of the protective staff of the Canadian National Railways. The full complement of the staff is approximately 700,
DEBATES	5077
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill and 500 members of the staff belong to the C.N.R. police association.
In recent days the members of this association met with the company in an attempt to negotiate wages and conditions, but I understand they ran into a blind alley in these negotiations. The only explanation they could get from the company officials was that any increase in pay would mean additional layoffs. I understand that these employees are working a 50 hour week and that no overtime pay is involved because of the fact that the company requested and was granted a deferment of the 40 hour work week provision of the Canada Labour Code. I think that this is a glaring example of outdated, reactionary labour policy.
While this has been taking place, Mr. Chairman, there has been on the other hand, certainly up to within a few days ago, a general proliferation of supervisory personnel. When I questioned this I was told that the reason for this action was that the railway wanted to put their supervisory staff on a 40 hour week.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, this is the ultimate in inconsistency. On the one hand the company is granted a deferment of the 40 hour week and lays off protective staff, expecting the remaining members of the staff to work more than a 40 hour week; on the other hand the company implements the 40 hour week provision for supervisory staff. I do not argue about the principle of putting supervisory staff on a 40 hour week, but I do think the situation to which I have referred is a gross inconsistency.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I sound quite critical of the Canadian National Railways, but I should like to make one thing clear at this point. I more or less grew up with the Canadian National Railways, having been hired at a time when the railway was run very inefficiently. It had inadequate facilities, poor track and actually was a third rate operation. I do not agree with the hon. member for Vegreville, however, when he says that today there is extremely poor management on Canadian National Railways, because I have seen its transition from a third rate railway to what I think is one of the most modern railways on the North American continent. I hope it is not now slipping back again to that third rate position.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman,-and I said I would be brief-I think that if we in the house are expected to make available the

December 5, 1967
Divorce Law Reform
necessary finances to enable the C.N.R. to remain in business, and if we as taxpayers are expected to pick up the tab when revenue does not meet expenditure, then I think it necessarily follows that we should be in a better position to scrutinize carefully the expenditures that are made in order that we can be assured that the funds provided are used to the best advantage of all concerned, and also be assured that the lay-offs of a great number of employees, some with many years of service, are entirely justifiable.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, before the bill carries I wonder whether the minister would take the time to tell us whether there will be new legislation for Air Canada, in view of the statement the other night during the budget speech of the Minister of Finance that public financing is going to be necessary. It could be that the minister wants to leave this question to the Minister of Finance, but I am wondering whether he does have any information about new plans for Air Canada in this respect.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, it will depend on what is the ultimate decision, and the form of financing that might be required in the market. No decision has yet been taken by the government; the matter is still under study. If, of course, additional equity capital were required from government sources, it might require some alteration in the capital structure of the company, in which case legislation would be necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. C-187, an act respecting divorce-The Minister of Justice.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is on his way to the chamber. Would Your Honour mind delaying matters for a moment or two until the minister arrives.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Hon. members, we want to proceed now with Bill No. C-187, respecting divorce. I

should like to point out to the house that the French version of the bill, has not yet been distributed. As a matter of fact I have just emptied my mail box and the bill was not in it. Consequently I object to consideration of the bill at this time.
Mr. Speaker, I have just been given a French copy of the bill.
Now, I raise another objection. The bill is delivered to us at the very moment we are asked to consider it, when we have not even had time to look at it. Yet, it has 27 clauses.
I see on the order paper, bills which have been there for several weeks, several months, even because they have been distributed to the general public to feel the general response. Yesterday a resolution concerning divorce was introduced and it was practically carried by the house, without discussion. In fact, the Conservative party made no representations and, today, we are presented with the bill, when the public has not yet had the time to look at its clauses, and to form its own mind.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what is the hurry in having this bill passed when the French version was given to us just a moment ago.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I object to the consideration of this bill tonight.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker; there is no desire on the part of the government to rush the bill. Last evening the bill was made public in both languages. As a result of discussions this morning it was agreed that we should call this bill after passage of the C.N.R. bill. That was the agreement as a result of the meeting of house leaders. There was no disposition on the part of the government or anybody else to rush the bill through. We are calling for second reading, which is the debate on principle, and then we shall go into committee. There will be an opportunity for hon. members to consider all aspects of the bill before third reading.


Gérard Laprise: To a certain extent, Mr. Speaker, I am ready to accept the point made by the minister, but it will be too late to object when we will have adopted the sections of the bill, more or less as presented or even at the third reading stage.
Moreover, I think that we should at least give the public time to form an opinion concerning the provisions of the Bill.
December S, 1967

The mail delivered tonight raises a similar point. It concerns the reports of the committee on health and welfare. I received volume No. 10 of the English version, but I just have volume No. 3 in French. It is fine to make eloquent speeches on bilingualism in Canada, but positive steps should be taken as soon as possible.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I must say that the resolution was passed only last night; it is clear that until then, no member could have had a copy of the bill.
The resolution was introduced last evening in both languages. I do not know if the hon. member took a copy, but French and English copies of the bill were ready. I-


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I got an English copy of the bill this morning-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have the floor-


Gérard Laprise: -only, and a French copy has just been handed to me by a page.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Justice has the floor.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In fact, what I was just saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we do not in any way wish to rush the study of this bill. I think it is obvious enough that if we start second reading of the bill tonight, there is very little chance of its being passed this evening.
For my part, I am the first to agree with the representative of the Ralliement Creditiste, for I saw to it personally today that a copy of the bill was sent to all the provincial attorneys general, because we intend, as I said last night, to ask public opinion, including the provincial governments, to let us know how they feel about this bill. That is why the bill stipulates a lapse of three months before its application.
So I should like to make it perfectly clear that I am not trying to rush things. I think what is involved is to get the bill under consideration and if I also understand the intentions of the house leader, tomorrow we will deal with other matters and there will inevitably be a few days delay before we can pass the bill because tomorrow we will take up the budget resolutions.
Divorce Law Reform


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I must say that the bill was distributed in English this morning I think, and the French only tonight.
Now, I should like to point out that the last report we received today, the report of the commission on bilingualism and bicul-turalism, recommends first of all that English and French be declared the official languages of the Parliament of Canada. If both languages are to be official, those who speak one language must receive documents and bills at the same time as those who speak the other language; otherwise, some will enjoy advantages which are denied to the others.
Therefore, I feel that the remarks of the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) are quite reasonable. We have just now received the French version of the bill. It is obvious that we have not had the time to read it and to come to a decision with respect to the principle of the bill.
I think the hon. member for Chapleau is perfectly right and that we should postpone consideration of this bill to give those who have not received the French copy earlier the time to read it. Otherwise, how can they be expected to decide on the principle of the bill; of course they may be told that as they had received an English copy all they had to do was to read the English text.
So I think it would be advisable to give the French-speaking members the time to read the bill in French; otherwise it is useless to ask us to decide on the principle of the bill and I support the statement of the hon. member for Chapleau on this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I happen to be one of the house leaders who agreed at noon that we should go ahead with this legislation at this point. I confess that at that time, I did not know the French copies of the bill were not generally available. Now that French copies are in possession of hon. members, technically speaking the rules have been met.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I wonder, however, if we could not reach some accommodation in the matter. I offer this suggestion, that the Minister of Justice might make his speech on second reading, and then if there is anyone else in any of the parties who wishes to speak he could be prepared to do so, on the understanding that the government would be willing to have the debate adjourned, and not conclude second

December 5, 1967
Divorce Law Reform
reading this evening. It is perfectly true, as the house leader says, that we did agree to this at a noon meeting yesterday, but apparently there was a factor of which we were not aware.


Michael Starr: On this point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say it is unfortunate that the government once again has not prepared itself in order to expedite the business of the house. However, in view of the fact that there are a great many members who wish to participate in this debate, and that tomorrow we shall go on to discuss the budget, and continue the budget discussion for the next few days, I think that will leave ample time for the hon. member for Lapointe to study the French version of the bill, permitting him to withhold his remarks until a later date. Tonight we can give to those hon. members who are prepared to speak on the bill the opportunity to do so.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as to the point of order that has been raised, I should say that I, for one, was rather taken aback by this procedure today and the need to proceed with second reading. In fact, hon. members will see it for themselves later on, when they hear my speech; they will realize that I was somewhat taken aback by this chronological order of events.
However, I should like to tell the hon. members that the fault does not lie with this side of the house. I remember quite well that last night, the house leader told us we would proceed today with study of the act on the publication of statutes.
To my knowledge, that was on the orders of the day. I do not think it was our party which requested that consideration of this matter be passed over in favour of the divorce bill. That may explain the fact that other hon. members, as well as I, were surprised by this turn of events, but it was done in an effort at concilliation, and at the request of other house leaders.


Michael Starr: Further to the point of order the Minister of Justice has brought out in his remarks, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that it was we who suggested how best we could expedite the business of the house and, as a consequence of our suggestions, two items on the order paper have been disposed of. Had we not done so there would have been

some doubt as to whether any matters on the order paper would have been disposed of.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the procedure is fully regular. The bills are available in both languages. This is the obligation which is placed on a minister introducing a bill or moving second reading. I repeat that the bills are available in both languages. The procedure is fully regular, and to suggest it is irregular is quite erroneous. We intend to proceed with the order of business agreed upon, namely the second reading of the divorce bill; and as to the discussion and procedure tonight, we can determine later this evening whether it is necessary to give a further opportunity to members who wish to speak on the bill before we actually carry second reading.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) just said that the procedure is perfectly in order, while the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) says that the government is responsible for the situation where we are.
One thing is clear; we did not attend the meeting of the house leaders at noon because we were unable to attend and we were not aware of the agreements arrived at by the various groups. However, one thing is certain, the government is responsible of the present situation.
It may be said that the English and French copies of the bill were distributed to the members. It is a fact that the English bill was put before us this morning while the French was just given to us here, tonight. We just had it a moment ago. Therefore, we did not get a chance to peruse that bill and even if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) or the Minister of National Health and Welfare says that we will have plenty of time to study the principle of the bill while others speak, that is not good enough, and that is not in accordance with regular parliamentary procedure, in my opinion.
We should have an opportunity to study the principle of the bill before it is discussed in the house in order to know exactly what it is all about. That is why the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) objects to this bill being discussed until we have had time to study its principle.
December 5, 1967



This does not mean that it will take six months. But forcing us to start discussing it immediately, even if the hon. member for Ontario is ready to make his speech, I feel that would be permitting something that is not in order. It would be irregular, for example, if all at once, we interrupted consideration of the bill on second reading and immediately went into committee to study its various clauses.
Then, without wanting to interfere with the proper workings of parliament, I sincerely believe that it is only fitting that we should have the time to consider the principle of the bill since it has just been handed to us in French.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has misunderstood the proposal I made. I suggested that we would not carry second reading of the bill this evening, but that we would proceed with debate and allow hon. members who are ready to speak to make their speeches. Then at a later stage, if it becomes apparent that hon. members wish to study the bill further, we would adjourn the debate and call another item of government business. In that way we will protect the rights of all hon. members; but in the meantime I think we ought to proceed with the agenda agreed upon for this evening.


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, I was quite astonished, and I must say rather disturbed by the suggestion made by the house leader a little earlier, when he said that we had lived up to the letter of the law by placing the bill in both languages in the hands of hon. members at this particular time. I do not think that is good enough, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter about which many hon. members have strong feelings, and I do not think it is good enough on such an occasion just to live up to the letter of the law.
I suggest to hon. members who speak the English language that they should stop for a moment and imagine their position where a bill is distributed in French a day or two days beforehand, and then handed to them in English just at the moment debate upon it is called. I say this is not good enough, and I am astonished that the minister would suggest it is.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that statement is not good enough for me. I have given the explanation in French, but perhaps the hon. member did not understand it. The present state of affairs does not satisfy me either. We 27053-321}
Divorce Law Reform
have adopted this procedure in order to be accommodating to the parties in opposition. It was not our fault that the house leader of the Creditists was not present at the house leaders' meeting to put in their word. Hon. members have explained that he could not be present.
This step was taken to accommodate the opposition, and may I say there is no one in this house more sensitive than I am with regard to having bills presented in both languages at the same time. We have put particular care into the drafting of this bill as well as into the translation of it. I may say that I am caught short like some of the other French speaking members, because I had expected that I would be participating in another debate today. We had originally intended to proceed with the bill dealing with the publication of statutes, and it was at the request of the house leaders of other parties that we did not proceed in that way. It was only a matter of hours between the deliveries of the French and English copies of the bill; but the bills are now ready. I repeat that particular care has been given to the simultaneous presentation of these bills, and I will not stand for correction on this point by any hon. member.
[DOT] (8:30 pan.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the
minister says that he has no lessons to take from anyone. He adds that it is not his fault if the Creditiste house leader did not attend the luncheon at the noon hour. But could he explain to me why the government house leader who is responsible for all other leaders advised us at 12.30, this afternoon, of the meeting which was to be held at 1 o'clock when all our members had gone to lunch? The Creditistes are therefore not to blame; it is the fault of the government house leader who does not organize himself properly so that people would be invited early enough to be able to attend the meetings of house leaders.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: December 5, 1967
Divorce Law Reform
Mr. Chairman, government of men is unpredictable. I think that none knows this better than the hon. member for Villeneuve.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Speaker, although I do not wish to put forward, as a reason why we should not proceed with this bill, the suggestion that I or other English speaking members of this house are not prepared to proceed, yet I think it is proper to say, just as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) has said that he did not expect to proceed with this matter, that some others of us did not hear that we were to proceed until I think noon today. As the matter is one of transcendent importance in principle, I believe that possibly it would be far better if we did not attempt to proceed to second reading tonight. I should like to have an opportunity to compare the clauses of this bill with the recommendations made by the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons. This could not be done in a few minutes. I would like to see how the bill as drafted compares with the resolutions which were presented to the joint committee on this matter. I would also like to have a little time in which to think about the principles which are new, which are novel perhaps and which are sweeping matters of social reform, before proceeding with second reading of this bill.
I would not raise any of these matters if an arrangement to the contrary were made by the house leader, but when we hear that our French speaking colleagues did not have a copy of this bill before them until a few minutes ago, if I understood them correctly, then, although I accept what the house leader has said, to the effect that this is regular, I ask whether it is fair for the members of this house to suggest that we proceed under these circumstances.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why did you not think of this during the orders of the day?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As we all know, it is a responsibility of the government to lay down the business for the consideration of the house. Last night I indicated the various possibilities which could constitute the business of the house today. I indicated that I would consult with the house leaders concerning an appropriate order of business. That was done.
It is unfortunate that the representative of the Ralliement Creditiste was not present.

I did, however, give the house the information during the orders of the day. I should like to take into account the feelings of hon. members who wish to consider the bill in the French language. In order to do that I am quite prepared, at a later stage this evening, to adjourn the debate on second reading so that members will have an opportunity to consider further the principles which are involved in the bill. Then the bill can be considered some time later next week.
I believe that to be a fair proposal. It meets the points of view which have been expressed.
The Minister of Justice is prepared to make an opening statement. Hon. members who are prepared now could then make their statements, and then we can move the adjournment of the debate and revive it later, thus not asking the house tonight to make any decision on second reading. The rights of every hon. member will be fully protected. I think this is a fair proposal. At a certain moment we will move the adjournment of the debate.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong indefinitely this discussion on the procedure of the house. I accept the suggestion of the minister, and I hope that he will profit by this happening.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I believe the chair has heard sufficient evidence now to make a ruling on the point of order, or at least make a suggestion to the house. I should, of course, quote standing order 74 which reads as follows:
All bills shall be printed before the second reading in the English and French languages.
As this bill was given first reading last night, and as there was a change in the order of business, I am sure all members of the house will understand the difficulty in which the house now finds itself. If however, there are members who are willing to speak on second reading of the bill now, they could do so and then an opportunity could be given to the other members who would like time to study the bill further. May I suggest to the house that we proceed now with the second reading, on the understanding that the procedure is always open, to any member of this house who wishes to do so, to adjourn the debate.
If the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. La-prise), the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) or the hon. member for Lapointe
December 5, 1967

(Mr. Gregoire) wishes to adjourn the debate later on in the evening, of course the procedure of the House of Commons is here for that eventuality. Would the house agree now that I put the motion for second reading?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: the second reading of the bill.
He said: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I understand the arrangement I will be the one who will be getting the worst of the bargain. I will have to make the opening explanation in respect of the bill. I do not believe we will proceed very far in terms of settling the adoption of the bill. However, I think there may be something to be said for this procedure. Perhaps I can explain a little of the history behind the bill, and the spirit in which it was drafted. This in itself might give hon. members something about which to speak at a later date on second reading.
At this point I might give a little of the history of the divorce laws of this country. The western provinces of Canada are now, by and large, governed by the divorce laws of England, the laws of 1857 as later modified in 1870. In so far as Ontario is concerned, that province also, broadly speaking, is governed by the divorce laws of England of 1870 which were brought into effect by the federal legislation of 1930. In so far as the maritime provinces are concerned, they are largely governed by pre-confederation statutes and a mixture of such statutes with the common law of England ante-dating confederation. So, I believe it is fair to say that the most up to date laws governing divorce in Canada go back to 1870. Even if we consider the problem of the two provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland, which have a special status concerning divorce, they too are governed by the laws of that time.
Therefore, with laws dating back to 1870, in a society which has moved so quickly and so far in the intervening 97 years, it is not astonishing that the present divorce laws and the way in which they govern our society is highly unsatisfactory and indeed produces some very evil results. We all know, even though we may not have had a very close or direct experience with divorce, that people today who are faced with situations in which their marriages can no longer continue, are placed in a curious dilemma. In a great number of cases, either they do not get a divorce and live under common law arrangements, which are generally unsatisfactory and
Divorce Law Reform
irregular, or they go through a very hypocritical procedure of fabricating evidence and arranging proof for a divorce, which is also a hypocrisy and a sham. This is compounded by the fact that this parliament in one house, and later in the other, has over the years passed thousands of private divorce bills for at least two provinces in order to meet the situation. The people of Canada have realized that this kind of hypocrisy and sham is not satisfactory and that it is now up to this parliament to bring about a solution to this unacceptable social situation. Because of this, there has been mounting pressure from all areas for reform of divorce law. We have seen the continuing mounting pressure in many areas.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I think it would be proper at this point to underline the efforts of the many sections of the population-very laudable efforts indeed -to create the kind of public opinion in the country which permits us to tackle the problem properly.
Let me refer first to the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons under the very able joint chairmanship of two parliamentarians, and with the co-operation not only of many hon. members, but of many witnesses. This committee has prepared a remarkable report which has guided the government in drafting this measure. It has been very helpful to us in devising a solution.
I might also say that the press, members of the churches and the public at large have all been very helpful by their suggestions for reform. This proposed measure is not the sole product of one government, but rather the product of a social pressure which has been building up over the years to the point that this government had to seek a solution. We are now living in a social climate in which people are beginning to realize, perhaps for the first time in the history of this country, that we are not entitled to impose the concepts which belong to a sacred society upon a civil or profane society. The concepts of the civil society in which we live are pluralistic, and I think this parliament realizes that it would be a mistake for us to try to legislate into this society concepts which belong to a theological or sacred order. These are very important and sacred concepts no doubt, but they should not by themselves be considered as the sole guide for a government of a civil society.
Because of this it was necessary to find a remedy for these evils, and that is what this

December 5, 1967
Divorce Law Reform
government has attempted to do by this measure. The first point we tried to solve was the idea that even before dealing with divorce we must deal with the problem of strengthening the institution of marriage. This was brought home to us with great force and wisdom by many churchmen who appeared before us. They emphasized that the marriage is the important thing and that divorce is only a remedy to an unsatisfactory situation. We realize that marriage itself is the important aspect of any law which purports to deal with marriage and divorce. It is for that reason we wrote into this law at practically every stage provisions for reconciliation. This is true in respect of our definition of condonation, in respect of the obligations put upon lawyers who have clients asking for opinions in divorce matters, and in respect of the courts which hear petitions for divorce at the inception of the case, and even after the decree nisi has been granted. At all these stages we have written reconciliation concepts or procedures into the law.
This is a very important aspect of our law. Admittedly it is a concept which did not exist in this form in previous divorce laws in this country. We realize further that this whole situation requires more than just the adoption of a law. It requires that the government study on a continuing basis the effects of this law on marriage and study ways and means whereby reconciliation can be improved and bettered. This will mean that we will not only have to carry out research in respect of the consequences of this law and the way it operates, but we will have to continue to consult with provincial authorities, private organizations and churches. This was the first point we tried to deal with in this measure.
The second thing we tried to do was weed out the legal impediments to remarriage in cases where a previous marriage had broken down. As one hon. member pointed out last night, the consequences of our archaic divorce law is that many thousands of people-I think the figure of 500,000 was mentioned last night and the Canadian Bar Association also came up with some large figure-are involved in common law relationship in this country. This is a situation contrary to the desires of even those who believe most in preserving marriage.
These are people who cannot remarry because the present divorce laws do not create a situation in which they can get a divorce, or because they are too sincere to go through the sham proceedings so often

required to obtain a divorce under our present law. The remedy we envisage is first to preserve marriage and second to make better marriages possible by weeding out the legal impediments which now prevent remarriage and the formation of happy couples. This is because the bonds of former marriages have not been untied.
Although the idea of divorce is still repugnant to many people in this country-and I respect the reasons for which many people oppose the idea, as a matter of conscience, or religious or moral beliefs-when these reasons are applied to the legislative program of a country, it means imposing on a great majority the beliefs of perhaps a small minority.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
As I said earlier, I think one of the fundamental tasks we must achieve in this parliament is to avoid mixing sacred and the profane. We must realize we are living in a pluralistic society, and even though some laws may be repugnant to the morals of individual members they must realize that we are all here to legislate not our own personal morals upon the country but to seek solutions to evils which arise in a civil society and which must be solved by civil or criminal laws.
I think this is what has guided us in our decision to reform these laws. This is a good opportunity for me to say that because of this I did not find it necessary to recommend that the vote on divorce laws be a free vote, in the sense that the expression is used in this house. I respect those hon. members who for moral reasons do not agree with the concept of divorce. I think those who believe that marriage is indissoluble, and it is a very worthy belief, are in the position of asking themselves nonetheless whether this law is necessary now to find a solution to a real social evil.
I think I have shown, and hon. members know from experience, that these evils arising from our unsatisfactory divorce laws are very present in this society. I should say, for the benefit of those people who have moral doubts, that this is merely a permissive law. It is a law that will permit the breaking of the marriage link but which obliges no one to remarry, if this is against his principles. This legislation is just dealing with the civil link; it is not dealing with moral beliefs. Indeed I think it is theologically acceptable, even to the most stringent of Christians, that if an annulment of marriage is obtained under
December 5, 1967



church laws, canon laws, and if the only way to dissolve the remaining civil link is through divorce, then divorce in such a case is perfectly admissible.
I think this is borne out by the very large support we have had from many of the Christian churches in Canada for the reform of the divorce laws. I want to thank particularly the authors of a brief which was presented to me by representatives of the Anglican Church of Canada, the Canadian Catholic Conference, the Lutheran Council in Canada, the Mennonite Central Committee, the Presbyterian Church in Canada and the United Church in Canada. They, to single out this example, brought forth a very interesting and well thought out brief. Indeed, in some aspects they have gone perhaps further in the area of grounds for divorce than this government has gone in the law that is before hon. members.
I will explain later why we have not felt it wise on legal grounds to go quite as far as the churches have recommended; but surely the fact that they were prepared to go further than us should reassure those members who feel that on grounds of conscience they should hesitate before voting for this law.
Having gone through the analysis of these evils, and seeing that the only proper remedy was to bring in a new divorce law, this is what we proceeded to do.
I should say at this point that we are not attempting in this law to deal with the causes of divorce. One hon. member last night, when speaking at the resolution stage, pointed out that it would be important to deal with problems of poverty, slum clearance, alcoholism and other such evils. This is quite true in a sense. The breakdown of marriage is not something that happens in a vacuum; it is something that is very often brought on by social conditions or evils with which this legislation does not attempt to deal. We are dealing only with the consequences of these social evils. I hope hon. members realize that in a divorce law we cannot do much more than this.
The government through its social legislation, and indeed the provincial governments through their various forms of legislation, have attempted to weed out all these evils in society, some of which lead to marriage breakdown. But I think it would be unnecessary in this law to try to deal with all these causes of divorce. We have to legislate on this particular subject, and I hope hon. members will not think it is because the government is not aware of these other causes of
Divorce Law Reform
divorce that it has not attempted to legislate on them.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, since a legislation on divorce was to be drafted, I must say that the bill now before the house reflects our concern to respect the beliefs, the traditions and the customs of the various groups which make up our composite society.
This would seem obvious to anyone who would look at the provisions concerning the jurisdictions of courts, the rules governing procedure and proof. We did not want to disturb the administration of justice in the provinces by proposing new rules likely to confuse trial lawyers used to provincial regulations.
That is why, in principle, provincial superior courts of civil jurisdiction will now have jurisdiction in divorce matters.
There will be an exception, of course, in the case of Quebec and Newfoundland, but in our view,-and I feel I made that point quite clear last evening and, at the same time, it is a wish that I express-this exception for those two provinces is of a purely temporary nature. Moreover, as long as provincial laws of procedure do not come into conflict with the provisions of the present legislation, or with the rules of practice that competent courts may adopt, they will apply to divorce proceedings.
Finally, I wish to add that the laws of evidence in the province where divorce proceedings are started will apply to those proceedings.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize that in drafting this divorce legislation, we have taken into account the need to reconcile in the same act the procedures and concepts that belong to different statutes and mentalities.
For instance, when we decided that if divorce proceedings were to be taken let us say, in the province of Quebec, before the Court of the Exchequer, they would follow the provincial evidence act. We decided to include a section in the act authorizing the lawyers and parties taking proceedings in the province of Quebec to be governed by the provincial evidence acts.
Members will see that clause 20 of this bill is an innovation in this field, and I think it illustrates the real efforts we made to ensure in the drafting of the bill that we would bring a solution to a real social evil, while respecting provincial jurisdictions as

December 5, 1967
Divorce Law Reform
much as possible, all the evidence acts, all procedures and even the various ways of setting up courts in the different provinces.
So we have here the legislation that really represents my idea of a federal act, an act that applies to citizens ruled by provinces with quite different judicial systems. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I took the liberty, a while ago, on the point of order, of noting that we had made all possible efforts so that all the citizens of this country, whatever their language affiliation, be treated equitably under this legislation.
The procedure before the courts is not the only indication of our concern over provincial differences. There is more. All provinces are not agreed on the measures to be taken to minimize the difficult consequences of a broken marriage, that is to say that in various provinces there are laws that vary from one province to another as far as alimony or the custody of children, for instance. That is why we have provided that during the divorce proceedings and in handing down the decree, the court dealing with the question of divorce-the very same court which is consequently in a position to know the circumstances and consider the parties-this court may order provisional or complementary measures appropriate to the parties and the children, taking into account all circumstances including the principles and customs recognized by the society in which they live.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Mr. Aiken:: Would the minister permit a question at this point? I should like to ask him if he would tell the house why the recommendation to use county and district courts, contained in the report of the special committee was abandoned.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not mind talking a little about this. It will disturb the argument of my speech but I cannot blame the hon. member for not finding it a very coherent sequence. There is no harm in giving a short explanation at this point, though I may have to deal with it at greater length during the committee stage.
In short, the reason is that when we are dealing with divorce we are dealing with certain fundamental rights possessed by citizens of this country. We are dealing with something much more fundamental than property rights or money matters. When we are dealing with the latter, we do have courts

at different levels which deal with various questions affecting property rights according to their importance.
I feel however that when we are dealing with marriage and divorce we should go to the superior courts, which in our society are traditionally called upon to decide upon the basic rights of human beings whether in civil or in criminal matters.
I realize that one of the reasons the joint committee wanted the county courts to exercise jurisdiction in this matter was because it wanted to make sure that the court would not be too removed from the people. My only comment on this is that the superior courts, or the supreme courts as they are called in some provinces, are not removed from the people. They all have district or circuit courts which go to the people, and on balance I felt it better to continue to use the higher courts, especially at the outset when we are breaking new ground and asking our judicial system to determine the operation of important laws, and to create a whole jurisprudence, a whole system of case law, which will govern these matters for many years to come.

To return to the subject I was speaking about earlier, I only wish to add a word or two. I ask the hon. members to realize that this measure does not abrogate the provincial laws; in other words, the laws concerning affiliation, for example, which exist in the various provincial jurisdictions, are not abrogated by our legislation on divorce. They continue to exist. We are merely trying to deal here with the question of divorce and the consequences immediately attending this breakdown of marriage. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we have provided for this three month period during which we want to consult with the provinces to make sure, in all good faith, that the present legislation can be applied without too much difficulty in all the provinces. That is why also, as I said earlier, we have sent to the attorneys general of all the provinces a copy of the present legislation, which we will be happy to discuss with them.
So much the more so that as I said last night, the matter of judicial separation is not dealt with in this bill. That creates, Mr. Speaker, a strange situation. In my opinion, according to the constitution-and this opinion is shared by many more eminent constitutionalists than myself-judicial separation comes under federal jurisdiction, so that
December 5, 1967

legislation now governing the provinces in that field could not be amended by the provinces because they have no jurisdiction in that field. So when we are called upon to pass a bill on divorce, which will not deal with judicial separation, that law will give grounds for divorce which will be broader than the grounds for judicial separation existing in several provinces. It will follow that it will be practically an encouragement to people to start divorce proceedings instead of separation proceedings, and I realize that anomaly perfectly. That is the phenomenon which made us include in a first draft of the bill provisions dealing with judicial separation which would have run parallel to the provisions dealing with divorce, and once again because I believe in co-operative federalism and because I believe that in such a field it is important that the central government should have consultations with the provinces, especially with those which already have in their statutes provisions dealing with judicial separation.
In the case of Quebec, this is even more important, because this province is now in the process of reshaping or reviewing its Civil Code and I know that very capable people are precisely working on the chapters concerning marriage, filiation and other related subjects. I think this will eventually lead to consultations between the provinces and the federal government, because of this anomaly: the Civil Code of the province of Quebec, since it was adopted before confederation in 1866, contains clauses and even whole chapters which do not come under provincial jurisdiction and which the province of Quebec itself cannot amend.
For this reason, the federal government, who is aware that the Civil Code is an important monument for French-speaking society, is not only willing, but anxious, to co-operate with the province of Quebec, inasmuch as it is necessary, so that this monument may be amended essentially by the provincial government, but partly also, as I explained a moment ago, by the federal government, so that the essential, special structure of such a monument as the Civil Code is not broken. I think that that is one aspect of the responsibilities of a federal government which, I will say it again, must rule over provinces governed by various judicial systems. Incidentally, I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this is one reason why it is also important for French-speaking people to have civil servants and politicians in Ottawa who can express their point of view. That is about all
Divorce Law Reform
I wanted to say about this matter, Mr. Chairman.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)

Just before closing, I thought I would touch briefly on one other aspect, that of marriage breakdown. I said a moment ago that we had been very thankful for the cooperation we have received from many of the church groups who have guided us in our ideas about reconciliation in the divorce laws. They have, in their briefs, recommended some provisions with respect to marriage breakdown which we have decided not to follow quite in the way they suggested. I think in fairness, before closing, I should give a word of explanation on this aspect. Very careful consideration has been given to the recommendations of those who advocated the adoption of an unqualified marriage breakdown approach to divorce in this country. If such an approach were adopted it would, in my judgment, entail the creation of special courts with specialized personnel to administer the divorce laws of this country. This is so because I think it is wholly unrealistic to impose upon the existing courts of law, and the judiciary, an inquisitional approach coupled with what would be, in effect, broad administrative discretion in dealing with the subject matter of divorce.
Courts of law and judicial tribunals are concerned-
-with legal rights and liabilities, which means rights and liabilities conferred or imposed by law; and "law" means statutes or long settled principles. These legal rights and liabilities are treated by a judicial tribunal as pre-existing; such a tribunaj professes merely to ascertain and give effect to them; it investigates the facts by hearing "evidence" (as tested by long settled rules), and it investigates the law by consulting precedents.
This quotation is from an article by Mr. D. M. Gordon in the Law Quarterly Review, 1934. I should just add by way of contrast that administrative tribunals, when they are defined by law, base their decisions and orders not on legal rights, not on liabilities but on policy and expediency. It is essentially because of this, Mr. Chairman, that we have not introduced the marriage breakdown principle in its most naked form. We have, as hon. members have seen, put the marriage breakdown principle in the law, but we have tried to guide the courts by indicating what the evidence of breakdown should be. If hon. members read the law very carefully, they will see that some of the sections are quite wide.

December 5, 1967
Divorce Law Reform
Another reason for doing this, apart from the spirit of the civil law as opposed to administrative law, is that in fairness we should say we wanted to avoid a situation in which some courts would decide that there was no breakdown no matter what evidence was put before them, and that reconciliation was always possible. Some of those who believe in the indissolubility of marriage might be inclined to judge in this way. We did not want a situation to develop where some courts would not be granting divorces in any and all cases. We wanted to put in our law a direction to the courts that they must grant a divorce when certain evidences of breakdown or of offences exist.
For all of these reasons, we have adopted this way of proceeding. There is not much more I think I should attempt to say at this stage. I thank hon. members for the way in which they received the law at the resolution stage, and for their courtesy in listening to me at this present stage. I can only add that as we get along with second reading, and eventually to the committee stage of the bill, I will be guided by every loyal effort of every member of this house to improve this law in such a way as to remedy a situation that has long needed remedying in this country.


Mr. Fairweather:: Will the minister permit a question at this stage? I did not want to interrupt his rationalization. Under this bill is there a change,-and I hope there is-in the system now in effect in New Brunswick whereby one judge is designated as the judge for divorce, and all hearings must be held in the capital city of New Brunswick?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker; in clause 2(e)(i) of the bill the court of New Brunswick is defined as the trial division or branch of the supreme court of the province. There would be a change therefore from the former system, under which I believe the parties were obliged to travel some distance to go to the court. This is one of the reasons we felt it was necessary to consult the provinces to ensure that the implementation of this reform would be made without any undue hardship to those entrusted with the administration of justice.


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Quebec-Monimoren-cy):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister?
Earlier, the minister spoke about the effects of our provisional measures which

could be applied, for instance, as far as Quebec is concerned, to the custody of children, the alimony and the domicile.
I merely want to know from the minister if negotiations have been started, especially with the province of Quebec, to avoid the ambiguity which will surely arise if the Court of the Exchequer should some day make a ruling on provisional measures relating to the custody of the children or to alimony, while an absolutely identical law in the civil code of the province stipulates precise jurisdiction in this regard.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I trust such negotiations will be numerous and harmonious. Of course, we could not, before the bill was ready, before it had been put before the house, give a copy of it to the province. However, we did endeavour to foresee such difficulties in drafting the bill.
I think that in dealing only with divorce at this stage and not with judicial separation, we shall avoid the kind of difficulty mentioned by the hon. member. But, of course, in the province of Quebec people will still, be free to choose a course of action under the legislation concerning separation from bed and board and of estate contained in the civil code or under the divorce legislation. They will have a choice to make and if they decide to act according to the provincial legislation other than under the civil code, they will be governed of course by the provisions of the civil code. If they decide to act under the federal legislation on divorce, they will be governed by these provisions.
If the hon. member studies those provisions, he will find that we have tried to draft them so as to avoid any conflict with provincial statutes. Of course, people will have to choose between divorce and legal separation.
Besides, jurisprudence enlightens us on another problem, and it is probably one of those the hon. member has in mind. What about the separation of estate?
Now, hon. members will realize that in this legislation, we have not implemented the recommendations of the joint committee of both houses which suggested that the federal legislation on divorce also deal with the matter of separate maintenance. It is precisely because we consider that question of separate maintenance comes essentially under provincial jurisdiction that we could not deal with it in the present legislation.
It is certain that some possessions, those which perhaps come from the marriage tie
December 5, 1967

itself, could be regulated under federal jurisdiction. But in practice, since it will be very difficult to distribute these possessions which are often worth little in comparison with the personal property of the husband and wife, it would have been a mistake to try to decide how property should be divided by the present legislation.
I think that the jurisprudence of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec will continue to be applied, and that a divorce will automatically mean separate maintenance.
This is an example of the respect we have shown towards this important problem of a conflict of jursidiction.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, it has been more than a quarter of a century since the last massive attempt to reform the divorce laws of Canada was made in this country. That attempt, sir, was made by hon. Mr. Aseltine of the other place, and he was successful in persuading the other place to pass a measure that would have granted divorce not only on the ground of adultery but also, I believe, on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The bill came to this place but was allowed to die on the order paper. As I say, that was more than a quarter of a century ago.
Times have changed and public climate has changed. I think the biggest lag politicians have probably suffered from in the field of divorce is their assessment of what is the public mood and what the public wants. For example we found when we were holding hearings in the divorce committee, hearings that lasted many months, that one church organization after another came before us and presented opinions that were far in advance of the opinions we ourselves held.
I say that the time is ripe for divorce reform. I also say that there has been much human misery that can be counted in the tens of thousands of Canadians who have suffered because more than a quarter of a century ago this chamber refused to pass one simple measure which was nowhere near as comprehensive as the one with which we are dealing now, though heaven knows there are faults enough in it. However, I shall deal with those later. If this step had been taken by our forebears in this place, much human misery in this country would have been saved.
Divorce Law Reform,
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) has presented a bill modelled in part upon the recommendations of the committee whose report I hold and which held hearings that started on June 28, 1966 and ended on April 20 of this year before presenting its report. Some of the measures taken by the minister in his bill, compared with the ones drafted by the committee, are, I think, improvements on the committee report. But now that I have had a chance to study the bill and to compare it with the draft bin included in the committee report, other provisions to me constitute glaring weaknesses. As a matter of fact, sir, I intend to lay emphasis upon four only in my address this evening. There are others but I think they can be pointed out in committee; they do not strike at the heart of divorce reform as much as the weaknesses I intend to detail.
I do this, Mr. Speaker, not in a spirit of criticism but because the Minister of Justice was good enough to say before he sat down that he did want to consider any recommendations made by other members, so that in committee we could attempt to effect cures. This spirit pleases me very much because I think there is a chance to effect cures in four areas that I think are vital.
May I first commend the minister, largely for the way he has divided the grounds. He has not fallen into the trap of adopting marriage breakdown-or the permanent breakdown of marriage, to use his wording-as the over-all approach to this subject. Those who advocated it most strenuously could never believe that one party to a marriage could unfaithfully treat the other party to a marriage; that one party to a marriage could brutally abuse the other party to a marriage. Those who adopt the principle of marriage breakdown but want to be kind to both parties to a marriage that is in difficulty are living in the strange twilight world of today's morality, where there are no blacks or whites.
The minister has adopted as grounds for divorce adultery, sodomy, bestiality, rape, and has added homosexuality-all instances of human fault. He has also included bigamy. What conduct is more reprehensible than for one person knowing he is already married to marry somebody else? Or what is more reprehensible than cruelty, where one party treats the other party with brutality? I am glad to see that the minister has held on to the old time morality and kept those grounds without the leavening of the marriage breakdown theory.

December 5. 1967
Divorce Law Reform
Where he has adopted marriage breakdown I think it will be effective. The bill deals with marriage breakdown because of imprisonment of one's spouse, because of alcoholism or narcotic abuse, because one party to the marriage has disappeared for three years or has failed to consummate the marriage. In this regard there was an exchange in the house last night between the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston) and the minister, but this is nothing new. Much of what the minister has included in the bill is not new; it can be found at pages 160 and 161 of the draft bill of the divorce committee. We dealt with that and came up with a pretty reasonable formula.
Although I would give the minister marks for improving on that formula somewhat, he has not done so in one particular instance, the case of marriage breakdown where the parties are not living together. A period of three years was suggested if the parties have voluntarily separated, but five years if one spouse deserts the other. Many of us in the committee considered that in cases of marriage breakdown a voluntary separation for a period of three years was a pretty civilized way of ending the marriage. I think that prescribing three years as a trial period, to enable the parties to live together again to see whether the marriage could be repaired, made sense.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The minister has retained this but has taken the desertion of the petitioner and made the applicable period not less than five years. In other words a man and woman may agree, in a civilized manner, that they are not getting along and that they will separate for three years. At the end of that time they have the remedy of divorce. On the other hand, a man may decide that he cannot live with a woman, or a woman may decide that she cannot live with her husband, and march out. There is no civilized breaking of that marriage; there is no civilized separation of that couple; there is a brutal withdrawal by one of the parties. The civilized person waits three years for his divorce, but the person who is brutalized by desertion has to wait for five years. There is no justice in that, and I hope that this matter will be cured when the bill comes before the committee. I hope that hon. members agree with me that the spouse who is brutally deserted should have greater relief than is presently provided by the bill.

The committee report dealt with this matter, not from the aspect of marriage breakdown but as a ground by itself. In simple language, on page 59 of the report of the special joint committee we find this;
-has deserted the petitioner without cause for a period of at least three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition;-
The period, if one takes the worst instance, which is desertion, should be not five years but three years. The largest class of persons needing relief in Canada are those who are deserted. Their number alone is at least 60,000, a formidable number. That number is at least equal to seven times the number of cases which are heard each year in the divorce courts of Canada.
The minister said that the ground of homosexuality has been added-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Before the hon. member leaves the question of desertion, I want to make sure that I understand his criticism. The three year period applies to the deserted party. The deserted party need not wait for more than three years. The deserter must wait for five years. It is the offended party, if we may use that concept, who must wait for three years.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I thank the minister for his explanation. He mentioned this matter to me outside the house. I have read this bill carefully and I presume that clause 4(l)(e) is the one that is applicable. I think the minister ought to clarify that wording when we get in committee. As the bill is worded now we find, on reading subparagraph (e), that-
-the spouses have been living separate and apart
(i)	for any reason other than that described in subparagraph (ii), for a period of not less than three years, or
(ii)	by reason of the desertion of the petitioner,, for a period of not less than five years,. ..
The wording must be made more clear in committee. It must be shown more clearly than the deserter has the right to lauch a petition after five years. From my reading of the clause I take the meaning to be that the one who is voluntarily living away from the other party is covered by (i) and the deserted petitioner is covered by (ii). I am sure that this matter may be cleared up when we come to the committee stage of the bill.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: My intention is similar to the hon. member's. If we need to clarify the language, I shall look at the wording. I am not sure that the language is wrong, but I am sure that my intention is the same as the hon. member's.
December 5, 1967


Robert Jardine McCleave: Fine, we have cleared up one grievance, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad to have that assurance from the minister.
The minister has added the ground of homosexuality. I believe that covers cases where a man is married to a practising lesbian. The committee was not able to deal with this matter and the minister, by one magic word, has solved the problem. Nevertheless, he has taken away two grounds from the committee report. One ground is that arising from wilful non support, and the second is that arising from marriage breakdown through illness.
I am not particularly wedded to either concept but I hope, when we discuss these matters in committee, that we shall have a free vote about some of these contentious categories so that members of the house can express themselves freely, and in large numbers, on those points I have mentioned.
The second major change that the minister made with respect to the draft bill is removing jurisdiction from the county courts. Perhaps I ought to be more precise. The minister has rejected the committee's recommendation that county courts should have jurisdiction in divorce cases. Sir, the government has made an unfortunate decision here. Some of us hoped that divorce cases could be heard in county courts instead of having petitioners wait for circuit judges to come around. County court judges, generally speaking, are readily available to hear cases; circuit court judges are not. I realize that in cities like Toronto there is no problem with respect to circuit judges, because some judges from the circuit are always sitting. However, in some smaller towns of this province the circuit judge comes around only once or twice a year.
In this bill the minister has tried to set up a reconciliation procedure. Provision is made for the parties to wait for 14 days before resuming their action. One may find that a judge has come and gone in that period and that a person would have to chase him all over northern Ontario, or where have you, to catch him and to resume the action. This obviously is a retrograde step.
Another change from the draft bill concerns reconciliation procedures. I do not think the committee got into that field. The minister ought to be thanked for getting into it, but I do not know how effectively he has entered it. I suggest, sir, that we shall need a new approach by our courts to make reconciliation procedures truly workable. In the
Divorce Law Reform
bill a beginning has been made; the judge can refer parties to counselling agencies, or he can postpone their case until they have received counselling. The lawyer, also, has certain obligations. I think, however, most lawyers worth their salt try to hold a marriage together when people come to them with divorce problems. So, we are not really called upon to assume "Dear Abby" roles in that regard. But again it seems to me you have to have a court procedure situated in one place, not in the hands of a roving judge, and in a court where it is customary to have a more informal atmosphere than prevails in the supreme or superior courts of this land. A county court is at least half way to the kind of court I visualize. Certainly the judges in county courts are permanently based. They are not on circuit, or if they have circuits they are not long circuits.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I would like to make another point with regard to court proceedings. I think that as long as we leave divorce cases in the supreme or superior courts, divorce will be very much beyond the reach of many people in this country. I realize that legal aid is becoming more and more common across Canada, and that legal aid for people in matrimonial matters is also becoming common, even in provinces which once refused to extend it to such cases. When legal aid was introduced in the United Kingdom it was found that approximately two thirds of the matrimonial causes relied in some way on legal aid. Until we have an equal generosity in Canada there are going to be many people caught in the so-called common law situations, that is, married to somebody else and living with third parties, who through lack of money will not be able to solve their problems. I suggest that if we continue our high court approach on this matter we simply compound their problems. They simply will not be able to solve their problems and get divorces, for which the grounds readily exist, and then regularize their new liaisons. As the Canadian Welfare Council pointed out in perhaps the most remarkable statistic given to the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons there are 400,000 Canadians in the position of the so-called common law relationship.
Another point I should like to make deals with the theme of reconciliation. This is something the committee studied at length without, as I noted before, coming to a recommendation with respect to it. The only

December 5, 1967
Divorce Law Reform
worthwhile work in this field that I personally have read about has been in the courts of Los Angeles in California. This was done by a Judge Burke, who would get the parties before him and, if they showed the slightest sign of wishing to reconcile and not go through with their divorce proceedings, he would have experts talk to them and try to find out what was on their minds, and then have the couple consent to a court order.
It might work out this way, that Mr. Jones would be upbraided by his wife because he went to a tavern twice a week after work, and on the other hand his complaint against her was that she would play bridge twice a week and neglect him for the girls at the bridge table. In the process of reconciliation developed by Judge Burke he would get the couple to agree that the husband go to the pub only one night a week, and the wife play bridge only one night a week, and then put it in the form of a court order so that if either one broke that promise he or she would be guilty of contempt of court.
I have read a fair amount on this, and so far as I know this was the only practical way of getting some of the differences between husband and wife ironed out to the point that the reconciliation procedure would work. Frankly, despite the good intentions of the minister and of those who advised him to take the step, I feel the reconciliation provision in the bill will not work. A judge will glance over the bench and ask if there is any prospect that the marriage can be saved. The person who has already spent a great deal of money by that point to get into the court, will simply say no, and there goes all that part of the minister's bill.
I suggest again, and I know the minister will be receptive to my suggestion, that this is something we cannot solve in this particular divorce bill, and I do not think we should try to mislead ourselves that we are going to solve it in this divorce bill. However, what I suggest can be done is that the minister carry on continuous consultations with the attorneys general of the provinces, to see if he can work out a consensus so that a lower court approach is used to these cases, and so that the counsellors and other professional help are available at the lower court level.
The procedure in Los Angeles that I have mentioned probably saved about 10 per cent of the marriages. That is not a very high figure, but 10 per cent in this divorce prone age is an important figure; because now we are getting into the divorce generation-the people who come from broken homes and are
[Mr. McCleave.l
more susceptible to broken marriages themselves. Indeed, sir, if a young adult comes from a broken home I almost liken that person to one who marches forth into life hobbling along on a broken leg, because sooner or later the environment in which he has grown up is apt to catch up with him as well.
It is important to try for reconciliation and to head off the breakdown of marriages, but I doubt very much if the procedure suggested in this bill will affect 1 per cent of the 8,500 cases we have in Canada today. And, let us face it, with the extra grounds we are adding in this bill we can expect that our divorce rate will probably be doubled and more than doubled for at least the foreseeable future. So, sir, there is a real challenge to achieve the reconciliation process at an earlier level of court proceedings, and above all to get to the root cause of what makes marriage fall apart in today's society.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, again I hope we will be able to deal with the matter of the courts in which these cases should be heard.
I suggest that the minister take a long second look at the idea of having them in the county courts initially. I have mentioned the matter of wording over desertion cases. I think he and I agree on what we want, and it is just a question of getting the proper language. I also suggest that we keep in our minds the fact that court proceedings are far too expensive in these divorce matters, and that we have a long way to go in reconciliation provisions and in taking steps to catch marriage breakdown before it becomes the disease that is divorce.
o (9:50 p.m.)


Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, before I deal with the subject, I wish first of all to make two observations that seem to be required to avoid any misunderstanding.
First, the following thoughts are addressed to a state or a people who claim to be Christians. Christian does not mean Catholic. Taking into account the various religious persuasions in this country, these few notes do not relate to one sect or another. Because they are inspired by natural morality, they are somehow above the religious differences of the citizens.
Secondly, before any development or discussion, it is important to define adequately what we mean by the term "divorce". In these notes, divorce means a break-up of a matrimonial bond duly contracted. So, there
December 5, 1967

is no question of later recognition of the bond that has never existed but the breakdown, the dissolution of an existing bond, regardless of whether such dissolution is effected by the individual as such, by the state or by some religious authority. This concept of "divorce" must be very clear before the next step is taken. The basic principle is natural indissolubility of marriage.
Divorce as such brings into question an essential property of marriage, its indissolubility. Before dealing with the ticklish matter of divorce, it is fitting to consider this property of marriage. In my opinion, and to resume briefly what I think, marriage, considered on a strictly natural level and not in its religious or surnatural perspective, is a fundamentally indissoluble community. In other words, a duly constituted marriage involves a bond which, in itself, is absolutely permanent and infrangible, and which no authority can break, except the death of either one of the spouses. I back up my statement on three major grounds which constitute the foundation of the indissolubility of marriage.
The first reason is that the indissolubility of marriage is a divine institution.
That is the obvious meaning of the biblical text in Genesis which reads as follows:
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Indissoluble marriage is not a human institution. God alone is the author of it and that is how He wanted it, that is absolutely indissoluble. A nation which proclaims its faith in God and the message He left in the Bible would be well advised to pay some attention to that divine will which insists on the indissolubility of the marriage ties.
Here one might hear the classic objection: But in the Bible it is easy to see that God Himself allowed polygamy, divorce with a possible remarriage. Even if God allowed such a thing, there is no need to conclude that it was good in itself. It was rather a matter of legally channelling an evil.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Joseph Alcide Simard: Certainly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Does the hon. member know that the Canadian Catholic Conference recommended that we should improve, in the way I have done it, the divorce law, and that
Divorce Law Reform
this Canadian Catholic Conference represents the bishops of this country, who are fairly good Christians?


Joseph Alcide Simard: If the hon. minister has enough patience to listen to the rest of my remarks, he will probably find an answer to his question.
"On account of the hard-heartedness of this people", says the Bible in the Deuteronomy, the State which was in fact in Israel a theocratic state had to admit this legislation of tolerance. Therefore, to answer the objection, that permission on the part of God was rather a tolerance as regards a situation that was not to last. God permitted, tolerated something evil in itself. That did not mean at all that such a thing was good. Moreover, a less superficial reading of the Bible shows us very well that already in the Old Testament, the dissolution, even legal, of a regular marriage did not seem totally admissible from a moral point of view.
We find a confirmation of this in the New Testament, (this confirmation is worth, of course, only for Canadian Christians, not only for the Catholics, who believe in Christ). All that is needed in this connection is to read St. Matthew, chapter 19, verses 1 to 10, where Christ is most explicit on the matter of divorce, on the indissolubility of marriage, and I quote:
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore, -


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I
regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it is ten o'clock.
A motion to adjourn the house has now been moved.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will begin the budget debate, which will continue the rest of the week and next week.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
December 5, 1967
[Stage Direction]
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [Translation]

["Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's suggestion with much interest, and indeed the government has examined his proposal with a great deal of concern. The hon. member's suggestion of a $100 centennial bonus to the recipients of old age security and the guaranteed annual income supplement is a very noble one, but one item he neglected to mention is that the cost to the federal treasury would be something in excess of $125 million. It was therefore thought inadvisable, particularly in this period of heavy inflationary pressure, to ask the government to spend this amount of money at this time.\nAs a personal observation to the hon. member, who I know is very sincere and dedicated in his responsibilities as a member of parliament, may I say that his proposal is not really entirely in accordance with the economic principles expounded by the members of his own party.\nMotion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.26 p.m.", 'Wednesday, December 6, 1967']
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I put recently the following question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand):
As a result of an emergency situation created by the channelling of immigrants to certain areas of the country, has the minister received requests for assistance to new Canadians and is it his intention to take immediate steps to improve the scheduling of immigrant arrivals in various areas of Canada?
I know that the minister has received a brief from the Assistance Service to New Canadians in the county of Sherbrooke, which has proposed the five following recommendations:
The number of immigrants channelled to Sherbrooke and the area.
Selection according to profession and trade. Certificates of qualification.
Hospital insurance.
The personnel specially dealing with immigrants.
In addition of Assistance Service to New Canadians in the Sherbrooke area-
-is asking that arrivals of immigrants be planned, taking into account the absorption capacity of the labour market in the area.
_the Service suggests that more attention could
possibly be given to the guidance of immigrants, in order to ensure that job opportunities exist in the profession or trade of the applicants.
As an example, Mr. Lionel Bureau, president of the Assistance Service to New Canadians
-for the Sherbrooke area-
-points out that a couple of months ago five welders were needed on the Sherbrooke market.
Ten heads of family were directed at once towards Sherbrooke. As a result, five of those persons obtained some work often at ridiculous wages in a trade which was not their own.
The Assistance Service of the Sherbrooke area-
-states that it has often noted the serious problems involved, for a skilled worker, in obtaining a competency card in the province of Quebec.
We believe-
-continues the brief sent to the Minister of Manpower-
-that renewed representations should be made to the professional and government organizations to facilitate the integration, in the various trades, of people already qualified in related fields.
Always as an example, Mr. Bureau notes that the competency card issued in Canada is the equivalent of a mere apprentice card when the worker involved often has 10 to 15 years of experience in his skill.
Indeed, several of these competency cards can only be obtained in Montreal.

As far as hospital insurance is concerned, the service points out, and I am quoting the paragraphs of the brief presented to the minister-
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
As the Quebec hospital-insurance regulations do
not provide for the payment of hospital bills for immigrants with less than 3 months residence in the country, some immigrant families struck by disease are in extremely hard circumstances if they are badly off financially when faced with several hundred dollars worth of hospital and doctors bills.
As another example, Mr. Bureau points out that an immigrant who came to Sherbrooke a little over a month ago owes a tremendous amount of money for medical care provided to two members of his family. Consequently, he will be in debt for a long time.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I draw these various grievances to the attention of the minister or his parliamentary secretary this evening. It is most important that Canada, which needs an ever greater number of immigrants in order to develop, should be able to channel its immigrants in an intelligent and rational way towards the various regions of Canada, without pushing them into human problems they cannot solve.
There is the problem of employment, of social factors, of hospital insurance, of health insurance. If we want Canada to become a great country, we must do more than have our immigration officers abroad attract immigrants by luring them with bright prospects in Canada. We must also, once they get here, guide them well and direct them to work that will allow them to fulfil themselves as Canadian human beings.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: The hon. Registrar General of Canada.


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: I shall leave the floor to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In French.


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I was not here to hear the remarks of the hon. member, but I have an answer for his consideration. The timing of arrival of independent immigrants destined to the labour force is largely influenced by the seasonal nature of the Canadian labour market. This is achieved by
December 5, 1967

immigration counselling abroad, by the new immigration selection system and by the timing of granting of immigrant visas. Similarly the area of destination in Canada is determined by these same factors, although the immigrant once landed in Canada has of course complete freedom of movement. It is the responsibility of our Canada manpower centres to place new immigrants in employment, to move them to areas of better opportunity, to give them language or other necessary training and to grant them necessary financial assistance during the initial settlement period.



Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the matter I wish to raise tonight I tried to raise almost a month ago. It arose from a Canadian Press despatch in the Vancouver Sun of November 4. Under the heading, "Arms Sales To United States Paying College Bills!" the article says:
Transport minister Paul Hellyer told 300 University of Toronto students Friday to "be careful not to become great moralists" over the Viet Nam war.
The former Liberal defence minister told one student questioner that part of his university education is being paid for by the sale of Canadian goods, including arms, to the U.S.
The student had said sales of war materials to the U.S. totalling $300 million a year are "a crime against humanity."
I want to know whether the minister was speaking for the government in cautioning these students not to become great moralists over the Viet Nam war, and at the same time informing them that part of their university education was being paid for by the sale of Canadian goods, including arms, to the United States. I wish to sketch briefly the background of this question. The Toronto Telegram of November 6 published this special item from New York:
Quietly but steadily Canada is boosting its aid to the United States in the Viet Nam war although officially the government is opposed to the conflict.
Diplomatic observers believe the action could hurt Canada's posture as a determined peacemaker in the fighting-Canada is a member, with India and Poland, of the International Control Commission formed to supervise any truce in Viet Nam.
In Ottawa an external affairs spokesman said arms shipments hadn't reached the point where the government would have to reconsider its policy.
He added, the policy would need further study, "if U.S. defence contracts in Canada got completely out of hand.
We find a spokesman for the Department of External Affairs worrying about the way
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Canadian arms contracts are mounting and saying that the policy will need further study if defence contracts in Canada get completely out of hand. When we couple this with the fact that last year only one defence contract was awarded to the Candian Commercial Corporation in Ottawa, Canada's official government buying agency, which then distributes these contracts to the firms, we find the position in marked contrast to that of this year. This year the number of U.S. contracts Canada has are set out in great detail by the Telegram. If my mathematics are correct, they total this year $264,529,831.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
These students, as I say, are in an invidious position. They are worried and concerned, even as the spokesman for the Department for External Affairs is worried and concerned about the mounting sale of Canadian arms to Viet Nam. Yesterday, the Montreal Star informed us that United States aircraft have to date dropped more bombs on Viet Nam than were dropped on Europe during the whole of the second world war. In such a situation as this the students are justified in feeling concerned. If the government is suggesting to them that they should not be overly moral in their approach to this question, and telling them at the same time that their education is being paid for in part by sales of arms to the United States, the position is a most peculiar one. It seems to me that students should not be placed in such a position.
I think the government should act now to cut out this bloody trade-and I use the word "bloody" advisedly-which is blasting the very life out of the people of Viet Nam. I think action should be taken now to leave our students with clean hands and clean minds. If sales of arms to the United States are indeed heiping to pay for their education we should act in such a way as to leave students free to protest about this thing which concerns each one of us, as it concerns the Department of External Affairs; they should be free to protest without being told by a government spokesman, the Minister of Transport in this case, that they should not take an overly moral approach to the situation in Viet Nam. I want to know where the government stands on this question.
I hope the minister will look up the record tomorrow and read what I have said; I notice that he has only just arrived. I should like him to explain why we should inculcate in these students a desire not to be overly moral
5096	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion in their ideas about Viet Nam, and warn them at the same time that their education is being paid for in part by the sale of arms to the United States. Was he warning them not to bite the hand that feeds them? Was he expressing government policy on this occasion? If this is the case, how does he reconcile what he said with the fact that the Department of External Affairs is itself concerned about this situation? I wish the minister would explain the meaning of his remarks.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If the hon. lady had been present I do not think she would have been showing the concern she has been showing tonight. The question which was put to me was a reasonable one. I gave a reasonable answer, but it did not satisfy the young man to whom it was addressed. He came back to the charge, as was perfectly fair according to the rules of engagement between a minister and a student in the circumstances.
I repeated the answer in a slightly different form, and then cautioned the young man as part of the answer that it was very difficult to know where to draw the line with respect to these complex matters when all the world is slightly inconsistent and all parties are slightly inconsistent, and people have great difficulty in sorting out in their minds the position of the demarcation line between what is right and what is wrong, and When, between black and white, there are many shades. As often happens under these circumstances, the newspaper took a single sentence out of a long and reasoned answer. This was all that appeared in the newspaper. I think it is unfair and unfortunate that, for whatever reason, this is occasionally done and reports of this kind are filed. They do not give any of the sense of depth of the reply that was given to a very serious and important question.
I can assure my hon. friend that if she had been there, while she might not have agreed with everything I said, she would have found it difficult to disagree substantially with the substance of my answer. I think she will appreciate, from her own experience, how difficult it is sometimes to have reports represent not only what was said but the sense of what was said. In this particular case, there was no real relationship whatever between what appeared in the newspaper and the gist of my reply. I think my hon. friend would be the first to admit this if she had been present.
[Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway) .1
DEBATES	December 5, 1967


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, the question I raise tonight has to do with old age security and the advisability of providing a centennial bonus to our senior citizens during this one hundredth birthday of Canada. I little thought when I placed this question before the house that I would have the privilege of sharing this quiet evening with the hon. member for Westmorland (Mrs. Rideout). Indeed, I really thought it might be a means whereby we might get the hon. member for Westmorland and the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) together, so that they could present a united front from the maritime provinces.
When I take a look at the many celebrations that have been embarked upon in this country during our centennial year, I cannot help but realize that our senior citizens have been almost left out of these celebrations. They did receive a plaque if they had reached their one hundredth anniversary. I think, too, of the budget that was brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) the other day and the general economic conditions in this country. The cost of living has been rising month by month for more than three years.
I think of the terrible plight of those on fixed incomes who have to meet the rising cost of living. We should realize that there are 1,200,000 people included in the category of senior citizens. These were the people who pioneered our country. These were the men and women who made possible everything we have in Canada today. They made possible the celebration of the one hundredth anniversary of this nation. They pioneered in the building of railroads from one end of this country to the other, so that the country could be joined together and there could be a greater degree of unity, so that there could be settlements in the western regions of our country and in that great province of British Columbia as well. These people also helped to build the transportation links to the north country, so that those who inhabited the rich expanse of our nation might also know something of the benefits that come from the unity of this nation.
I think of my own part of the country in the prairie provinces. Men and women came to pioneer in the breaking of the sod, the planting of grain and the harvesting of the crops of golden grain that made Canada the grain bin of an empire, the greatest empire of all times. Then I think, too, of those who
December 5, 1967	COMMONS
went into the mines and forests of this country, and they were pioners as well. We are almost at the very end of our centennial celebrations, yet this government begrudges to these people this centennial bonus of $100 which could be the frosting on the cake as far as the celebrations are concerned.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Mrs. Rideout:: Ah.


Edward Nasserden: The hon. lady says "ah". I know this astounds her because she cannot help but feel for these people, as does everybody in the house. Considering there is a surplus in the old age security fund, and that it would only require a few more million dollars to make this payment possible, and, in view of the fact that hundreds of millions have been spent during past years on the centennial celebrations, surely this is a legitimate grievance to raise. This is particularly so in light of the ideals and hopes of those who laid the foundations of the Canada we have today. I hope the parliamentary secretary to the minister will use her influence with both the minister and the government to make this payment possible.
The minister said that he would take this suggestion to the Minister of Finance. Nothing has happened and I can only draw one conclusion. What has happened to the influence of the minister of national health when he cannot budge the Minister of Finance on this important question? This is one matter about which the people in the maritimes in particular will have to ask themselves. People all across the country will wonder why in none of the three budgets which have been
DEBATES	5097
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion presented in little more than a year there is any provision for a centennial bonus. All that has been provided is something like $2.10 per month for the old age security recipients in order to meet the rise in the cost of living.
Without saying anything further I would be very interested to hear the parliamentary secretary tell us when the government is going to bring this centennial bonus into being.


Margaret Isabel Rideout: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's suggestion with much interest, and indeed the government has examined his proposal with a great deal of concern. The hon. member's suggestion of a $100 centennial bonus to the recipients of old age security and the guaranteed annual income supplement is a very noble one, but one item he neglected to mention is that the cost to the federal treasury would be something in excess of $125 million. It was therefore thought inadvisable, particularly in this period of heavy inflationary pressure, to ask the government to spend this amount of money at this time.
As a personal observation to the hon. member, who I know is very sincere and dedicated in his responsibilities as a member of parliament, may I say that his proposal is not really entirely in accordance with the economic principles expounded by the members of his own party.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.26 p.m.

Wednesday, December 6, 1967